Wikipedia

Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 2

< Talk:Raspberry Pi
Latest comment: 12 years ago by AngelFire3423 in topic Use by activists
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Quote spam?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Edits in the 'Reception' section added quotations in the refs. These have since been removed, with the edit summary delete quote spam. The quotes were not included as spam, but to make the references more complete without readers necessarily having to follow the external links. In fact, WP:DEADREF encourages their inclusion: Search the web for quoted text or the article title. I therefore propose to restore the content. -- Trevj (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, because some of the links had large amounts of text, thus polluting the reference section with tons of text they can't get into the body of the main article or toooooo lazy to rewrite and include in the article. If the quote was hidden and didn't show up on the reference section, then I wouldn't mind, but unfortunately the template doesn't hide the text. WP:DEADREF said SHORT quote, NOT multiple sentences like some people were doing in this article. Everyone knows how to follow links, so it really isn't needed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
typically of me, I can see both sides here. The original quote was far too long, and if all quotes were like that, the reference section would be as long as the article. However, if WikiGuidelines encourage such quotes, then perhaps a single, short sentence could be included. Personally, I would leave it out. As Sbmeirow says, the link is there to be followed. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. This is a general issue, wider than this article alone. I intend to follow up the (optional) inclusion of {{Show}} within ref templates and will post here when I've done so. -- Trevj (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

third-party tag

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page currently has a third party tag, which results in this being displayed:

I have reviewed the page and, in my opinion, the tag is not justified. Rather, a product that is notable but has not yet shipped is naturally lacking in third-party reviews, simply because nobody has hardware to review. I propose removing the tag. Agree? Disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed at above, and some alternative tags suggested. I'm happy for it removed, as at least some of the issues I was highlighting hav enow been resolved. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am going to remove it. If anyone wants it there, please speak up and I will put it back while we discuss the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"The 26-pin GPIO connector is not assembled on the board."

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re: "The 26-pin GPIO connector is not assembled on the board", this is a decision than can be changed right up until the boards are assembled. Do we have some statement from the RPF that they definitely won't add the header? If so, do we have a definite statement that the holes will be left open and not filled with solder (leaving them open is slightly more expensive). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be that nobody really knows: see THIS - the entry from Liz at 6:30 pm Jan 20th. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Which says "Current guess is they will not be populated." I an going to remove the material as being speculation that violates WP:CRYSTAL. A lot of these details can be put back in to the article after the boards start shipping and reliable sources start describing what they got. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Undue weight to fringe pessimism. Reception is overwhelmingly positive on the whole. Highlighting the witterings of these miserable so and sos is not a proper way to balance COI concerns. Needs more of the extensive positive press mentioned if these criticisms are to stay. Added template. Rubiscous (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the reception section. My problem is that neither the linked citations or the section itself talk about the Raspberry Pi, but rather use the RP as a coatrack for editorials about how best to educate children. Yes, we have a rough balance between editorial opinions favoring or opposing teaching children programming with a Raspberry Pi, but no discussion about actual Raspberry Pi's.
(Irony / sarcasm = ON) Why, it's almost as if none of the editorials were written by someone who had actually held a Raspberry Pi in their hand! And it's almost as if the Raspberry Pi Wikipedia page was written be a bunch of editors who not only have never actually held a Raspberry Pi in their hand, but cannot find any sources other than the RP foundation written by anyone who has! (Irony / sarcasm = OFF)
As I have pointed out before, you really can't write a reception section before anyone has received a Raspberry Pi and written about it. Speculation doesn't count. Editorials about unrelated topics are right off. I propose that we delete the reception section and write a proper one once we know how the Raspberry Pi is received.
This reminds me of an old joke. The new wife of an IBM salesman goes to a judge wanting an annulment because he never consummated the marriage. She explains; "instead he just sits at the foot of the bed every night telling me how great it's going to be!" That's pretty much the situation with the Raspberry Pi. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Today (Feb 29, 2012) it went "on sale." Two selected distributors don't have links for shipping to US. On one of those two site, once you get to the page with the board, there is only a form to "express the interest in the board" form. No buy button, nada. Both sites are overwhelmed with traffic (they call themselves "worldwide distributors"). According to the new text on the main RPi page, this is six years since project inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.110.16 (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It won't be long before real feedback starts flooding the internet, because 10K of them are coming from production very soon. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to use one to control my RepRap, because they'll both be here just about in time for each other. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about the template - what ideas are being given undue weight? There is some pro and some con mentioned. I do not think it is premature to cover this. After all, part of the impact is what effect the concept has. (The $100 laptop had considerable impact before they ever released a machine.)
Likewise the conceptual model here may have elicited reaction, before we have hardware reviews. More coverage of the idea behind the Pi would be helpful to the article (whether in this section or elsewhere). Why they think these particular price points are important, why they think that this is important element in revitalizing interest in CS, etc. Zodon (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We have one sentence that describes a pro opinion piece, one sentence that is mostly neutrally stating facts about school enquiries, a short weasel-worded sentence about Eben Upton's hopes that should be attributed to him, then a paragraph describing con opinion pieces. There's slightly more con. Not that pro and con should be equal: WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". Is there any reason to believe these 'con' viewpoints are shared by anybody further than the bloggers who are expressing them? Same goes for the 'pro' viewpoints. We should have third-party sources that discuss these opinions having been made rather than taking them straight out of the horse's mouth, otherwise who's to say they're notable? Rubiscous (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should nuke the section. It shouldn't be long before we have a wealth of reviews from reliable sources, at which point we can recreate it. What is there now simply isn't helpful to the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair or balanced to remove the section. A neutral point of view is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias [...] WP:CRITICISM (although I know that's not an actual policy) suggests use of a 'Reception' section for this. The {{Undue}} tag is fair enough, particularly because the section should represent views proportionately: even though the boards aren't (quite) available yet, the balance of reception pieces seems to be overwhelmingly positive.
Therefore IMO the answer to resolving the issue is to include more +ve viewpoints to balance the couple of -ve ones which have been published in reliable sources. (Which is what Rubiscous suggested above.) Removing the section is not warranted - and as Guy Macon says, it'll be recreated very soon anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
How can a website be considered a reliable source about a Raspberry Pi when they have never seen a Raspberry Pi and are only writing about what they think a Raspberry Pi will be like sometime in the future? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RSOPINION? I've added a further +ve comment and suggest the {{Undue}} tag now be removed. -- Trevj (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the undue weight concerns have been addressed, so I boldly removed the tag. I also note that the reception section mentions The Centre for Computing History, which has one of the prototypes. This is a Good Thing; a report of actual reception to the board as opposed to what someone thinks the board is going to be like. These are some real improvements. Good work! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Still have not shipped any product....

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

From [ http://www.raspberrypi.org/ ]:

"Although we are still waiting for units to arrive from China, you can start buying the Raspberry Pi today." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because they've switched plans. The resellers have their own infrastructure for shipping to customers worldwide direct from China. They won't all come to the UK first now. Rubiscous (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to watch for credible reports that boards are arriving at customer's homes/businesses. This is an important milestone which allows Wikipedia to say things (properly sourced, of course) that WP:CRYSTAL does not allow us to say before that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Currency

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

As this is a wholly British product, i.e. designed, produced and marketed in Britain, this article should use the pound sterling as the primary currency and US dollars for an international comparison in brackets next to the sterling. 81.129.9.198 (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They're the official figures given by the foundation themselves. Note how their subtitle was "An ARM GNU/Linux box for $25. Take a byte!" -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been said before. The current version includes both currencies (with my addition at the time using the order you propose). The various news reports use different currencies, although the Foundation itself frequently refers to the $25 price point, which can be taken as an indication of its world view position. Therefore I consider the current primary currency of US dollars to be appropriate. -- Trevj (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote, and your vote will not be counted. This Wikipedia page will list prices in USD followed by GBP in parenthesis until such time as the RPF starts listing the price in GBP. It is a core Wikipedia policy to follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for creating confusion, my "vote" was a !vote substantiated by the explanation. Anyway, by way of further explanation, per MOS:CURRENCY US$ should be used. And my understanding is that this should remain the case even if the Foundation choose to use GBP in their headline. -- Trevj (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For The US currency mention by the RPF was in relation to the US market NOT international, it is plainly ludicrous to have a British product primarily listed in $ and looks like an attempt to 'possess' the product. For goodness sake it's not even available for sale in the USA yet. I have edited the currency to reflect the reality and hope I have done it in a neutral way as possible as we all want it to succeed Twobells (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Please, read response from benlisquare above. If you have problems with using USD, write an email to RPi's webmaster, and ask them to start endorsing pound sterlings. Otherwise, you are just being biased to your POV, not respecting the owners of the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.110.16 (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote, and your vote will not be counted. This Wikipedia page will list prices in USD followed by GBP in parenthesis until such time as the RPF starts listing the price in GBP. The page must reflect what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the page back to US dollars, followed by pounds sterling in parenthesis. If you wish to make pounds sterling the primary unit, you must first convince the Raspberry Pi Foundation to price it that way on their website and news releases. Also, all pounds sterling prices must be preceded by a "~". If you want to change this, must first convince the Raspberry Pi Foundation to fix the pounds sterling price and let the US dollar price price float as the currency exchange rate varies. This is standard Wikipedia policy; we must follow what is in the sources. Please note that there is no point voting "support" or "oppose"; following the sources is a core Wikipedia value and is not optional, nor is is subject to consensus. (BTW, my preference would be for both the RPF website and Wikipedia to use pounds, but that is not my decision to make). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose The price is in Dollars because the components it is made up of are priced in Dollars. They're running on such a tight margin that exchange rate fluctuations could make a fixed Sterling target price inviable. We should mention this in the article, should hopefully stop silly requests like the above. Rubiscous (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote, and your vote will not be counted. This Wikipedia page will list prices in USD followed by GBP in parenthesis until such time as the RPF starts listing the price in GBP. Wikipedia must use whatever currency the RPF uses. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Things that are inserted in articles should be for the benefit of the reader, not the editor. Besides, Wikipedia editors don't need to know why the RP is priced in USD. They only need to know that it is and that we must follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that an editor was confused suggests that many readers would also be confused as to a British foundation's reasons for selling in Dollars. The reason I stated above is the official explanation. If sourced it should go in. What I described above is but a secondary benefit. Rubiscous (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose: The price is fixed by The Foundation at $25/35. This has for a long time been the Foundation's stated policy. The UK price will be allowed to fluctuate with the exchange rate, which is the reason the UK price quoted by the distributors is £21.60 at present, not the previously estimated £22. Brent Crude is always priced in USD, why not the 'Pi? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote, and your vote will not be counted. This Wikipedia page will list prices in USD followed by GBP in parenthesis until such time as the RPF starts listing the price in GBP. See WP:RS and WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote, and your vote will not be counted. This Wikipedia page will list prices in USD followed by GBP in parenthesis until such time as the RPF starts listing the price in GBP. PLEASE STOP POSTING "OPPOSE" OR "SUPPORT" VOTES. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, Guy Macon, I don't think anybody believes they are voting here - merely expressing an opinion on the section's original comment :) Lynbarn (talk)

Slackware

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"While Slackware can load and run a GUI, it was designed to be run from the shell." While running from the shell is certainly an option, as it is with any other Linux distribution, X is very much a central part of Slackware. From the Slackware homepage: "The long-awaited Firefox 4.0 web browser is included, the X Window System has been upgraded (and includes the open source nouveau driver for nVidia cards)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.129.14.124 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

From The Slackware Book (published by Slackware Inc.):
"Differences Compared to Other Linux Distributions:
There are a great number of differences between Slackware and other mainstream distributions such as Red Hat, Debian, and Ubuntu. Perhaps the greatest difference is the lack of 'hand-holding' that Slackware will do for the administrator. Many of those other distributions ship with custom graphical configuration tools for all manner of services. In many cases, these configuration tools are the preferred method of setting up applications on these systems and will overwrite any changes you make to the configuration files via other means. These tools often make it easy (or at least possible) for a rookie with no in-depth understanding of his system to setup basic services; however, they also make it difficult to do anything too out of the ordinary. In contrast, Slackware expects you, the system administrator, to do these tasks on your own."
If you install Slackware, this becomes obvious from the moment it boots to the command line and you have to type startx to load the GUI. It runs the GUI just fine - great as a matter of fact - and you can edit your config scripts (from the shell, naturally) to autoload the GUI, but most of the help files, newsgroup postings, tutorials, etc. pound home the fact that you are expected to administer Slackware from the command line.
Contrast this with Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, etc. where you have to tweak your configuration to prevent it from booting to the GUI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Accepting orders vs delivering boards

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Terminology: As of 29 February 2012, we can say that the RBF is "taking orders for" or "selling" the model B. Be careful that your wording does not imply that they are selling the Model A. Terms such as "delivered", "produced", "released" or "manufactured" should not be used until a reliable source confirms that at least one board has reached a customer. This should happen within a few days, depending on the shipping method the RPF chooses. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To Raspberry Pi computer in action (BBC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.87.229 (talk)

  Not done: The information at that external link is already in the article, so doesn't add anything. — Bility (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Perhaps some clarification would be in order on the criteria here. The pastebin item is even more inscrutable (and less of an obviously reliable source) than a blog. Speed, etc. comparisons for the Pi would be interesting, but even after studying it for a while I am still not even sure what the pastebin item even says. (Yes, I know what linpak is, but what are results for the Pi, what are for Atom - not at all clear.) Zodon (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
A collection of links is a good idea (providing people have time to subsequently include them in the article). However, the short summaries you recommend including may detract from the normal consensus-building approach, whereby [e]ditors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it.
Additionally, I do have objection to the "warning" given to not quote from articles. Whether to quote or not has no consensus either way, so it is therefore at the discretion of individual editors whether to include any quote (and what length is appropriate). -- Trevj (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I stated it for a reason. On another wikipedia article talk section, people with one view were quoting large amounts of text from articles (1 to 3 paragraphs), and it got completely out of hand. They got mad when we started to merge all the posts to one talk section, then another editor finally deleted everything and laid down new guidelines to get things back under control. That mess is the reason behind my comment for this section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like that editor had consensus from other editors to act in that manner on that talk page after protracted disruption. Consensus there does not transfer here. You don't lay down the law without consensus. You don't own this talk page. Request whatever you like but please refrain from "warning" people until after they have violated specific policies or guidelines or been repeatedly disruptive. Rubiscous (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If you showed up to the party sooner, then you would understand why a few of us are trying to get this drunken brawl under control. At this point in this mess, putting up warnings in advance seems to work a lot better than spanking everyone later (or asking admins to spank people later). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since the Raspberry Pi will be shipping soon, I decided to create this section, so we can post links here to related articles that might be useful for updating this article, either by validating or disproving something. WARNING: Do not abuse this section! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(None so far; this should change soon) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New Photo Request

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

The current photo is the old alpha board, thus someone needs to upload photos of the beta or production Model A and Model B boards. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Know of any free photos of the production boards? -- Trevj (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


I added a Beta board picture, I hope there won't be any licensing problems, I'm a bit new to this... Ideeman1994 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I just asked Liz, and she said we could do it without any problem... Check here, search for "Ideeman1994": http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/498#comments Ideeman1994 (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty familiar with how copyright on Wikipedia/Wikimedia works and I have the file on my watchlist and will take care of any problems that crop up.
It's actually technically wrong at the moment (the link at raspberrypi.org shows that permission has been given, not that it is in the public domain) but that's good enough for now given that the same comment says it will be CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed soon.
I would like to emphasize that the best way to handle this is to put as much of the content at raspberrypi.org as possible under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA 3.0). A good way to do this is to put this statement somewhere on the website: "unless otherwise specified, all content on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license", then mark anything you want to keep proprietary and closed as "Copyright 2012 Raspberry Pi Foundation". Please pass this info on; I haven't had a lot of luck getting a response from the foundation. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone should update the license fields for the photo. Uploading photos is kind of a pain, especially if you want to be 100% sure that someone else won't delete the photo because they don't think you have the proper copyrights. I wrote up my procedure of what I do...and I've had ZERO problems...likely because I upload to Flikr and set rights to my photos over there first. See User:Sbmeirow/HowToUploadPhotosToWikipedia for tips and ideas. Note this is a user article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. It won't be deleted while I am watching it -- I will intervene if deletion is proposed. Let it be for at least a week. If during that time Liz releases it under CC BY-SA, (or, better yet, follows my advice above) whover notyices it, please post that info here and I will do the rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
When the various photos have the appropriate licenses, IMO previous versions of the board could be depicted in the History section. -- Trevj (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope I didn't do anything wrong... I was a bit lost, didn't know what license I had to use, considering what Liz said :) Ideeman1994 (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You done did good. <smile> The great thing about Wikipedia is that we are all encouraged to be bold and make improvements even if we aren't quite sure what the proper procedures are, leaving a note so that someone else can review and improve it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the infobox picture to one, from wikicommons, showing a beta board in use, that is freely available, and used in other wikipedia, such as French, German and Russion versions. That should resolve any free access issues. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
How about adding a coin in the image for scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.214.38 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest a British coin and a US coin, with the British coin partially covering the US coin. This would be a subtle nod to the fact that this is a UK product that is meant to be used world-wide.Struck out comment- I didn't know it was against policy --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
err -it's the size of a credit card - I imagine that more people in the world are familiar with the size of a ceredit card than with either countries' coinage! :) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy specifically -against- using a coin to depict the size of an object, precisely because of such issues. Besides for an initiated person (a typical first buyer) of an RPi there are enough visual clues to the real size of the device, for example the Model-B USB connector, , the 2.54mm pinheader, and the RCA connector provide clear optical references. Mahjongg (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting! I agree that coins aren't the best way to communicate relative size to an international audience, but where can one read that policy? --Ds13 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Took me some time to find it again, but look at this:

{{Template:NoCoins}} Mahjongg (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's useful. Although the preliminary beta photos used a coin, the above makes perfect sense. I think use of a ruler (with both imperial and metric measurements, as in the example) would be best. -- Trevj (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool. Thanks for finding the template. Good to keep in the editor's palette for future. --Ds13 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Linux kernel versus Linux OS based

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

The Raspberry PI is supported with a Linux kernel including all the drivers that are needed to get the most out of the hardware, that is terrific because for some parts of the hardware this will in fact be the only route to using the hardware, especially when the GPU is involved, but it seems also to be true for driving such low level hardware functions as the SPI and I2C hardware. This because of the closed nature of some parts of the hardware. Still this doesn't mean that this kernel and its drivers must be used in combination with a full (GNU)/Linux desktop OS! Its also very possible to built BBC BASIC on top of this kernel (to mention just one option), or any other operation system or programming environment.

This notwithstanding that as it seems the raspberry PI will come out with its own Linux distro.

This situation should be reflected in the article, but at the moment it is not! Mahjongg (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor should it be. Please read the section titled "The time has come to put the Crystal Ball into storage", put away the crystal ball, and only report things that have already happened or are 100% certain to happen. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Mahjongg (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: OS versus kernel. See: "Distribution"

Please note that the desktops used with Linux: LXDE, KDE, GNOME, and the many others, are not part the operating system at all. (Please don't conflate Microsoft's marketing terminology with what an OS actually is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system [1] "A collection of routines which directly manage hardware resources".) Remember that X-Windows is an OS Independent utility that runs on many different Operating systems, and hardware platforms, which was its design goal. The Linux Desktops that run on top of X-Windows are NOT part of the Linux operating system. They ARE Desktops, but they could be run on any machine that runs X-windows, and some are, for example SUN's, MIPS, MAC's etc... You could even see them on VMS systems (if you really, really wanted to. ewww. :-) )

I don't want to get into exactly where the line between the OS and "Not part of the OS" is because that will devolve into a long and likely, unresolved discussion, but suffice it to say, no desktop which runs on top of X-windows is part of the OS on any operating system. The whole design of X-lib, which X-Windows runs on top of, was to make certain that X-windows was totally decoupled from each OS it runs on. Both models of the Rasberry Pi are running the Linux OS, Not just the kernel.

The terminology that trips up many people when talking about Linux is the confusion between what an Operating system is, and what a "Distribution" is. X-Windows comes with some Linux Distributions and doesn't come with other Linux "Distros". And yet both types of distro are using the Linux OS, despite the second type not having a GUI desktop.

Example issue: Is the command line shell part of the Operating System in Linux? Well that depends, Which shell do you mean? Bash, Dash, Ash, Csh, rsh, tcsh, zsh, jsh, or ksh? (you would mean "sh" if you're a traditionalist.... ;-)

Discuss amongst yourselves. ;-)

Jjk (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain what I meant before we go off on a wholly different tangent here. The idea that I actually meant to carry is that, perhaps surprisingly, the OS that you built on top of the piece of operating kernel software that is known as the Linux kernel does not have to be a traditional linux distro as we all know! You know a Linux kernel with GNU tools such as one of the traditional command line shells, with x-windows for graphics, and some kind of desktop manager running on top of that. Instead you can take the kernel and graft any other kind of OS on top, as long as it can hook into the kernel, and use the internal (unix like) structures. So in theory you can take the kernel and graft, lets say, RISCOS on top of it. Yes the result will be a hybrid, using Unix file mechanisms and message passing and such, and not the native RISCOS mechanisms, but its just an example. Another possibility is to use the kernel with a BBC BASIC like piece of software on top of the kernel. People often forgot that old 8-bit home computers (Including the BBC computer) also had kernels,as part of their BASIC in ROM. The one used in several Commodore home-computers from the 80's was even called KERNAL (not a misspelling), and MSX systems also had a rudimentary kernel in their ROM, that could even be expanded with disk routines in an expansion ROM. Such kernels were extremely primitive compared to the linux kernel, but it would be possible to take the Linux kernel and build something around it not even remotely resembling a traditional Linux (OS) distro, and maybe having a much smaller footprint. For dedicated applications, such as a dedicated "Python based machine", or call it a "BBC 2". I'm not saying this should find its way into the article at the time, as Guy Macon rightfully reminds us that we should not place material in the article based on speculation. Still just saying that the system will only run LINUX (OS) because only through the linux kernel you will have access to all the hardware functionality is also speculation. Other things might be done with this kernel which is explicitly modified/written for the hardware of the Raspberry PI to unlock its potential. The Raspberry PI is a system with limited memory, so it makes sense to not build things on top of a complete Linux OS, but directly on top of the kernel instead, forgoing even a single command shell, not even "sh". ;-) Mahjongg (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree fully with the above, keeping in mind that all of this is speculation (even though we all know it is going to have a Linux Kernel, all we can do now is talk about "...plans to..."). I wouldn't be surprised if we don't end up with users having multiple SD cards, one that boots to BBC Basic, another that boots to FORTH, one with a Full Linux Distro, etc. The good news is that we don't have to guess; all we have to do is wait and report on whatever the sources say about what ships with the RP as well as any notable alternatives. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, I for one am glad I don't have to speculate whatever there might be developed for the Raspberry PI, on top of the Linux kernel, (or relevant parts of it) because nobody can guess what the community will come up with next. What I can predict is that an average Raspberry PI user will probably have a small collection of SD cards, one for each purpose. So that (for example) after haveing studied Python for a bit, he can use another card to boot his favorite game. Mahjongg (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Last night I was at a friend's house and he told me he stayed up half the night trying and was finally ably to buy a Raspberry Pi. He says they estimate delivery to California around March 16th. I won't be surprised if UK orders arrive quicker than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"This board is intended to run operating systems based on the Linux kernel, including, but not exclusive to Linux[2] and to support the Python programming language,[11][12] BBC BASIC,[13] C[11] and Perl.[11]" This first half of this sentence could do with a re-write as it's unclear what it's saying "based on the Linux kernel, including, but not exclusive to Linux and to.." Including what? Are we supposed to have some examples here (like Debian & Fedora that have spins for it). What isn't exclusive to Linux, the device itself? How about: "This board is intended to run operating systems based on Linux, and to support the Python programming language, BBC BASIC, C, and Perl; however it may be compatible with other operating systems" or some-such? Twirrim (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

NO! haven't you read the above? The reason it is worded that way is exacly to avoid using your suggestion! What is the impetus that everything must run on top of a (full) Linux (distibution)? Doing that takes a very large portion of the small amount of memory there is away! If you are only interested in running Quake (or a similar game) then why run it on top of a full desktop system? The kernel has built in openGL-ES support so a game can drive the 3D engine directly. Its like the original x-box which ran a OS derived from the kernel of Windows and direct-X, but did you ever see a windows desktop? Do you know FORTH? If you knew it you would know that FORTH is its own "OS", it doesn't need to run on a desktop (although truth be told it often is used that way, when not running on a microcontroller)! In fact it wouldn't need a desktop to run on a Raspberry PI either, except for the fact that the only way to access essential functions of the PI's hardware is through drivers incorporated into this specially written version of a Linux kernel. so even FORTH has to use the kernel! That doesn't mean you have to use the other 80% of the rest of memory eating stuff that makes up a full desktop system. Running a complete Linux distro (whichever one it might be) can have its merits sometimes, and it will certainly be the case that much software will be written for such a combination, but certainly not for all possible applications will that be the optimal solution, and I cannot image that it will take a long time for software developers to figure that out. Mahjongg (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I really don't care about the pissing about over what is and what isn't the kernel, OS, what is or isn't necessary or whatever that you're obsessed with. That's not something that has any place impacting this article. This is speaking as a sysadmin who gets pissed off at finding full GUIs installed on servers (let alone lightweight systems like this) and who spends his days looking at shell prompts. I totally agree with where you're coming from on that front. Give me the bare minimum necessary and I'm happy. What you're leaving behind in the article though is an ugly nearly nonsensical paragraph that will only confuse readers. You're not accepting any other alternative phrasing so pick your own, but it really needs changed. The wiki guidelines are quite clear: "Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific." "be as concise as possible—but no more concise". By aiming for conciseness what we've got is unclear, and confusing, let alone the fact that it doesn't make grammatical sense. The majority of people who read this article do not care and won't know about the absolute precise definition of what is and what isn't an OS. If you want to keep it concise and not risk giving the impression that a full OS stack is necessary: "This board is intended to run operating systems based on the Linux kernel, and to support the Python programming language, BBC BASIC, C and Perl." That's absolutely true to what the Raspberry Pi foundation have stated all along, and cuts out the bad grammar. For what it's worth the latter part of that sentence could do with a little shuffle around along the lines of "support the Python, BBC BASIC, C and Perl programming languages" otherwise it's ambiguous what BBC BASIC, C and Perl are.Twirrim (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
To Mahjongg: Gently, gently... More Light and Less Heat. All caps and exclamation points are not the way. If someone appears to have missed the point; assume good-faith, assume that you must have not explained it well enough and patiently explain it again. At least the first time they don't get it - eventually WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. A calm, cool dispassionate attitude and arguments based upon evidence (especially references to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) and logic works best.
To Twirrim: Your response did not meet Wikipedia's standards for civility as explained in WP:CIVIL. In particular, calling another editor's legitimate objections "pissing" and "whatever that you're obsessed with" is unacceptable behavior. Please apologize to Mahjongg and continue making your argument without further incivility.
As for the issue at hand: Clarity is good. Brevity is good. confusing Linux with the Linux Kernel is not. This is an encyclopedia, and the questions "what is and what isn't the kernel" and "what is and what isn't the OS" are vitally important to get right. Suggestions for improving the clarity and brevity of the passage we are discussing are more than welcome -- I agree that it is a bit awkward and possibly even unclear as it is now -- but any such suggestion must retain the important distinction between Linux and Linux Kernel.
A related point (not implying that either one of you got this wrong, just that some people do) is that the following four things are completely separate and distinct on a Raspberry Pi:
Notes: Windowing system + Desktop environment = Graphical user interface. Microsoft combines all of the above and calls it the "Microsoft Windows Operating System"
On a Raspberry Pi, any of the above components are replaceable. We really cannot even assume that someone won't adapt BSD, QNX or FORTH to run on the Raspberry Pi. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok Guy, I apologize for the inappropriate uppercased "O" and the acclimation point, ;-) And also to Twirrim for coming on so strong. I tend to become slightly exasperated as people so totally miss the point.
The only thing I want to add to Guy's comments is that it seems at the moment that to code anything at all for the Raspberry PI you seem to must use the specific kernel written for the Raspberry PI, simply because that is the only available code to access the graphical capabilities, (through the OpenGL driver built into the kernel, providing interfaces to the commercial non open "software blob" that drives the video logic) and maybe some other "black box code" for booting, USB access, and such. Perhaps its possible to lift this code (and the "blob") from the kernel, and re-use it in another kernel such as the one for RiscOS, but I'm unsure how practical a proposal that is, so for the moment it looks like the code has to be "married" to this kernel. On the other hand several sources say that RiscOS works, (so it drives the video logic) but only lacks USB drivers. So does that version use the Linux kernel? Or has it somehow succeeded to drive the video blob without needing the kernel. It will be interesting to see how all this will work out.
By the way, with the power of an older Xbox, but completely open, I wonder if anybody realizes what influence the PI might have as a new games platform. For non-commercial games that is, as I do not see how games can be sold for the PI. Except perhaps if you bundle such a game with all the logic of a PI (which after all is publicly available, if you can source the Broadcom chip) in a suitable hand held controller, somewhat like the re-make games on the market, like the C64 Direct-to-TV. Perhaps there is a market for a "Halo Direct-to-TV" box for $50?! Intel makes Flash chips with an interface that is the same as an SD-Card so it doesn't have to contain a discreet SD-Card, and you can epoxy seal the Broadcom chip and Intel Flash chip together.
By the way, English isn't my first language, so I'm always happy if someone makes my sentences more legible, but I'm not happy if they in the process remove exactly the distinction I wanted to make. So if you can change my wording without removing the distinction from using only the kernel, versus also using all the layers above which make up a typical linux OS system then please do. Mahjongg (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: has [RISC OS] somehow succeeded to drive the video blob without needing the kernel. This is obviously WP:OR, but AFAIK yes this is the case. RO doesn't use the Linux kernel. Anyway, a few RO users have successfully placed orders, so once the port is made available I'm sure it'll be reported somewhere. -- Trevj (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes obviously it would be WP:OR to put such a claim into the article, luckily no such restrictions are placed on a talk page, except that discussions should be used to improve the article. These are exciting days, we just have to wait and see what will transpire. I'm not convinced that RiscOS for the RPi doesn't use (part of) the kernel, I do not see how they otherwise can get any video out of the non documented video blob, except maybe if the blob (which also manages BIOS like tasks like booting etc.) somehow turns on a simple framebuffer mode they use, perhaps an emulated VESA mode? Did you read somewhere that they did it without using kernel code, or are you just assuming this is the case because they do not talk about it. I cannot find proof either way. Mahjongg (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be true that the video blob is "undocumented." It has to be documented in the sense that you send it some sort of documented high level commands and out pops video. Anything that the Linux Kernel and/or X Windows can tell it to do is by definition documented, and thus some other OS can tell it to do the same things. The internals are no doubt not only undocumented but trade secrets, but neither RiscOS of the Linux Kernel needs to know the internals.

In fact, according to http://www.broadcom.com/products/BCM2835, the Broadcom BCM2835 system on a chip supports (I assume through the blob) OpenGL-ES. That's quite a bit more sophisticated than a simple framebuffer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the blob is documented, otherwise the writer who wrote the OpenGL ES driver couldn't have written it. Problem is more or less that the person who wrote the interfaces of the kernel drivers (between the blob and OpenGL ES, and probably also the interface code between the blob and X-windows) wrote it based on an NDA he signed to get info about the interface to the blob. I have heard that this interface code is so complex that reverse engineering it (to use the blob without OpenGL ES and/or x-windows) would be very hard if not impossible, so in principle the only way to use the blob is still -through- the use (interface) of the OpenGL ES driver and or x-windows, and these drivers are imbedded in the kernel. I wonder how x-windows access to 2D drawing (drawing the desktop) is done, directly to the blob, or somehow also through the OpenGL ES driver. In any case, as far as I know -all- video access (2D and 3D) goes through the proprietary code (blob) via undocumented (without an NDA) interfaces.
What I was supposing that RiscOS did was something completely different. Based on what I have heard, the "blob" doesn't only do video! The "blob" also boots the system. It bootstraps code from the SD-card with its own small RISC processor (not the main ARM, but a separate very simple RISC processor embedded in the GPU). This processor is the -only- one in the SoC which has a very small bit of permanent memory (ROM), which gives it just enough "smarts" to load the "blob code" from the SD card into memory and then turns on the real ARM, and with it executes the blob. The "blob" then acts like the BIOS in a conventional PC, and does all the tasks a normal BIOS does, for example it also initializes the video processor (GPU), and loads a font-set into RAM so a text mode can be supported (just like a conventional (video)BIOS does when initializing the standard VGA logic, and filling font RAM. It then does a second stage boot, and loads boot code from the SD-Card, which boots the actual OS. This code, (like in a PC) now immediately has access to a text mode display (for all the boot messages, etc). This is the point where either a linux kernel, or something else is booted. What my assumption was that from this text mode you can switch to an APA (highres) mode, using conventional "BIOS calls", the same way a VESA driver works, only these calls are not handled by a conventional (video)BIOS but by the blob code.
After switching on this frame buffer mode, the "blob" code doesn't have to be used at all, you can just write into the designated video RAM area, and its contents are displayed.
This means you can indeed have a APA frame-buffer, but not the accelerated 2D graphics the blob probably supports with a full x windows system, (nor obviously 3D support).
In conclusion: When using the kernel you can have accelerated 2D and 3D, without it you are stuck with a simple VESA frame-buffer system.
But, like I said, this is just my assumption of how things work. I would be happy to stand corrected by someone who knows exact details. maybe I am completely wrong in some respects. Mahjongg (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Guardian video review

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See [2]. Worth adding a link? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, its almost "a review by the first customer who bought one". An event we have been waiting for to see happen. Except this isn't it, as its obvious he is not a "customer who bought one." , but perhaps it does count as Links to sources that have tested shipping hardware. Mahjongg (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No - apparently it is a beta board :( [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to open a discussion as the what the consensus is for inclusion in the similar products section. I am going to list a few features. here are some silly / trivial examples showing the kind of answers that I think would be useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES:

MADE BY THE RASPBERRY PI FOUNDATION?

  • Qualifies. Until they branch out into making toasters, anything they make is a related product.

MADE OF 100% MEAT?

  • Disqualifies. No product made of 100% meat belongs on the list of related products, no matter what other attributes it has.

ELECTRICAL?

  • Necessary. (also known as Necessary, but not Sufficient). Everything on the related products list must be powered by electricity, but being powered by electricity does not mean it belongs on the list.

BLUE?

  • Unnecessary. The color does not matter one way or the other.


OK, here are the actual attrib x64utes (feel free to add more):


ATTRIBUTES FOR RELATED PRODUCTS:


PROGRAMMABLE?

ARM BASED?

CASE, BUILT-IN KEYPAD AND SCREEN?

MEANT FOR EDUCATION?

OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE?

$100 OR LESS?

$1000 OR LESS?

NOTABLE ENOUGH TO HAVE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE?

CURRENTLY AVAILABLE (NOT DISCONTINUED OR FUTURE)?

EXTERNAL / REMOVABLE STORAGE?

I/O CONNECTOR(S)?

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

—————

Open source is a must. So is "Cheap", so $100 is an absolute maximum.
Don't see anything wrong with it being "future"...

Ytic nam (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

—————

I have Just two criteria for inclusion as a "similar product", except for that they also must be notable:
New product, Exclusively designed to help children learn to program, or to learn how a computer works
or
Very similar hardware, and price, that means all of the following:
  • ARM(6) + GPU based (GPU able to do 3D rendering etc)
  • 256MB of RAM, maximum 512MB
  • very small, say max 10 x 10 cm (4 x 4")
  • Not a closed design (i.e. anybody may in principle make a copy of it, or use it as a basis for another product)
  • price lower than $50
Mahjongg (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that 'Notable enough to have a Wikipedia page' is a must, regardless of other criteria - otherwise, this is an invitation to link-spammers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Right you are, I modified my criteria accordingly Mahjongg (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Similar Products and Related Products are not the same thing. Similar Products is currently along the lines of See also, i.e. wikilinks to articles. As the project matures there are certain to be numerous related products reported in reliable sources. I'd say that all such products can be included within prose in accordance with usual policies such as WP:UNDUE etc. -- Trevj (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Well as I see it, the RPi is bound to be an "inspiration" for similar products or even regular clones, if that happens we need a section describing these. Also RPi itself has been inspired by earlier efforts, specifically OCPC en the Aasha tablet, so these should be mentioned too. Mahjongg (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use by activists

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Raspberry Pi gets a mention in a news post [4] AngelFire3423 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similar products

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

The section with the above title has two lists, thus:

with no indication of what differentiates the two. Why are they laid out this way? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I divided them that way because the first list are all general purpose computers (at least to some degree, as far as I am aware - though I may have missed one or two). The Pi is similar to them in being a small, general purpose computer (runs a regular operating system, etc.)
The second list are microcontrollers with extra assistance intended to make them more accessible to the novice (e.g. programmed in BASIC, etc.) The Pi is similar to them in that it is targeted at novices/learning, and it would probably be usable in many of the same contexts as some microcontrollers. (An early idea of the Pi was a microcontroller that was programmed in python.)
So you can look at the Pi as a really cramped general purpose computer, or as a simple microcontroller with a lot of extra memory (and some special I/O). Zodon (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I should've probably dropped a note here in conjunction with this edit, but I didn't spot this heading. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also

As far as references - I figured the section was in effect an extension of see-also. It might have been clearer to make it a sub-section of see also.
Since most of the items in question (beagle-board, etc.) are low cost ARM based single board computers, often open source or open hardware the similarity seems kind of obvious. (I am not suggesting including the material in the article without sources - just suggesting reason why some of them might make sense as see also items.)
I restored the aakash tablet to the see also, since it seems related (educational, low cost computer project). If you think it doesn't belong there, please indicate why. Zodon (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I was wrong to remove Aakash (tablet), which has educational credentials. Therefore, I've reincluded it. -- Trevj (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The One Laptop per Child was also listed in the see also section because of its educational credentials. Like the Raspberry Pi, it is targeted at education and being a computer that children can have and use in the home. Since it is targeted at countries where televisions and keyboards are not ubiquitous, it includes the display and keyboard. Its focus is also more general education, rather than just specifically CS/EE, but it supports programmability. Because of its educational focus, I think One Laptop per Child belongs in the see also. Zodon (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
We should also consider adding a template like {{Linux-powered devices}}[edit: I meant to say {{linux devices}}] to the article. That would include navigational links to several similar devices (Chumby, Cotton Candy, Linksys WRT54G series), Beagle board, etc.) without having to go into detail on each one. Zodon (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that's appropriate. Consider this... it's not Linux powered (like a Chumby) because it is intentionally a blank slate. It *can* be Linux powered, but only in the same way that every any other home computer motherboard from Asus or Supermicro or Intel is "Linux powered". {{Devices that support Linux}} might be more correct. --Ds13 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the above comment was edited to change the template name from "Linux-powered devices" to "Linux devices". My concern remains the same. The template proposed states: "DO NOT place this template on articles for products that can run Linux but are not shipped with it". --Ds13 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the navigation template I was referring to is {{linux devices}} (at the moment that template is titled Linux-powered device, but named linux devices, hence my mistake in linking to it). I just noticed the error in my post, and went to fix it without realizing that Ds13 had already responded. I hope the edit above makes things clearer for the record.
In response to Ds13: my point was not what you call the template, but that several of the devices on the template are similar to the Raspberry Pi in application and abilities. For instance, obvious applications of the Pi include small personal or special purpose servers plug computers - applications that WRT54G routers, or SheevaPlug are also used for. Likewise it could be used as an information display server, like a Chumby. The specs are also similar to various of the ARM microcontrollers, such as some of the STM32 Discovery boards. I do not propose to add all similar devices to the see also, but it would be nice to have a bit more linkage to similar devices. The template listed above would provide some of that. Zodon (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely agree; let's find a template category that works. But I see the RPi as a very different animal, since it's a raw component, intentionally not a "working product" out of the box and certainly not even a Linux product out of the box as it ships initially. This is very different than the majority of devices in the {{Linux devices}} template. --Ds13 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what mean by the Pi not being a working product. Unbundling (selling peripherals and operating systems separately) is quite common in computers. Maybe not so much now, but cast your mind back a few years. Consider the IBM personal computer. What you bought was just the computer. Monitor, keyboard, etc. were separate items. The operating system (CP/M-86, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, ...) was also a separate item (of course the disks they came on were bigger-CP/M came on an 8 inch floppy, MS-DOS on 5 1/4, ... now they are down to size of a postage stamp.). Being a component is typical of computers.

The relation of something like WRT54G devices is not because they run linux, but because they are a platform for running small servers, low power control computers, network accessible/controllable devices, etc.

So the Pi is a small, relatively low power computer. Something between a microcontroller and a nettop. It is similar to both. The similarity noted is not that it can run linux, but that tend to fill similar function. Reading on the Raspberry Pi forums one encounters a certain myopia (people often do not seem aware of all the other similar bits of kit). It would be well to acknowledge the existence of other functionally similar devices, and indicate the similarities and differences. 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_2&oldid=785092524"