1 |
On 2018-01-26, Taiidan@×××.com <Taiidan@×××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> So you know the RPI is not open source as the RPI foundation doesn't |
4 |
> provide firmware sources. |
5 |
|
6 |
Yes, I'm aware of that. |
7 |
|
8 |
[...] |
9 |
|
10 |
> I would consider purchasing another device, of which legitimately |
11 |
> open source low power ARM devices are a dime a dozen (vs the high |
12 |
> performance realm where POWER's TALOS 2 or rare developer boards are |
13 |
> the only choice) |
14 |
|
15 |
The problem with purchasing less common but more "open" boards is that |
16 |
it tends to be a lot more work to get things running on them. |
17 |
|
18 |
I don't get particularly upset if a cheap, throw-away board like the |
19 |
RP3 uses closed-source firmware -- all the underlying chips are |
20 |
closed-source designs also.[*] As long as that firmware is part of a |
21 |
driver that provides a standardized, open, documented API, I'm happy. |
22 |
|
23 |
If the board/firmware/driver becomes unavailable, the open-source |
24 |
applications and libraries can always be moved to a different |
25 |
board/firmware/driver combination that implements that same |
26 |
standardized API. |
27 |
|
28 |
[*] Sure, you can run low-performance, high-cost "open-source HW" |
29 |
designs by combining open-source VHDL cores and compiling a SOC |
30 |
design into an FPGA, but the FPGAs and all the tools used to |
31 |
compile the VHDL are closed source. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My NOSE is NUMB! |
35 |
at |
36 |
gmail.com |