Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Raspberry Pi 3 B+ Released - 14th March 2018

https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-3-model-bplus-sale-now-35/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetMeme (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tablets: Pipad Service?

I was looking to build a pipad. I developed a grid of price and information. Absolute minimum is $99 based on pi 0 with a 5" screen. The best you can get is like $240-$270 based on pi 3 with wifi and Bluetooth, 32GB storage, and 12 hour battery. If they're this cheap, I mean in comparison to the Ipad or Galaxy Tab, why is there no build service for these things? Is this viable and could all the same hardware be used for the Banana Pi and Arduino? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2436:d489:b984:5553:ace4:d4aa (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pi versions

I used this page as a resource for obtaining a case for an old Raspberry Pi I picked up, only to discover that important information is missing from this page (or is poorly displayed) particularly regarding the B revision 1, which has no mounting holes and can only be edge-mount. Had I known there were significant physical differences between the B revisions, I would have made a better purchasing decision.

Here is an up-to-date resource that identifies 23 different Pis. I leave it to you to determine how best to integrate this information.65.94.249.3 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

New os

There is a new Raspbian os version released, called Raspbian Stretch. Can someone check that out?

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 00:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Declaring possible conflict of interest

Figured I'd mention that I'm the author of the open source blobs, I extended the section on it a bit though it's based on entirely factual information. I'm not affiliated with the Raspberry Pi foundation and have no interest in promoting the product paid or unpaid. I could also improve the article with better technical information about Raspberry Pi but unfortunately a lot of it is not possible to cite due to discussions taking place on IRC channels or in private. Anyway that's straying slightly off topic, bottom line is, I have no interest in promoting anything (especially my old and deserted projects that are no longer in active development), though I do feel the article could use more accurate technical information beyond what's supplied by Broadcom, for example VC4 fusing and secure boot capabilities of VC4 (bootsig.bin and co), I mean it's a fun little world on the other side of the ARM processor that most people are not very aware of.

That's not to say I lack subjective views on the matter, I definitely have a bunch, and I recognize that they have no place here (even regarding aspects of the article as a whole). However I would say I'm hardly unique in that aspect, everyone usually has a degree of subjective views on things they may write about, being able to remain neutral and stick to facts is usually more important than one's personal views, which, if desired one can express through other mediums.

[Kristina B.] / Kristina0 04:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! If you run into any frustrations with Wikipedia I will be happy to help. You can ask any question on my user talk page is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon ] or you can email me at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Guy_Macon ].

Re: "a lot of it is not possible to cite due to discussions taking place on IRC channels or in private" You can repost any information you want to be citable on Wikipedia on https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/ and leave a note on this talk page that the information exists so we can decide whether to add it to the article. (We would consider you to be a reliable source regarding the Pi and would consider the fact that you are posting to www.raspberrypi.org to be good evidence that you are who you say you are and not an imposter.)

Finally, I highly recommend our page at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Pi 4

The Pi 4 was released... It seems like the info is needed throughout the article. In considered editing in a quick mention, but finding the right place is not obvious... A bit of clear generational info might be useful... MoHaG (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! At 6:32am on the day of release you are begging for more information here!! Having researched and read the official release notes from the Raspberry Pi Foundation and tech media news releases, I have added a few snippets myself and leave you to add more where relevant. I agree a lot of information is duplicated and the data has been tacked onto the end of existing information as new models have come along (I am guilty of doing this too in my edits). A thorough rewrite and prune of the article is overdue. I suggest making more use of tabular information to identify what is common and what has changed between models, but this is beyond my capabilities right now. 61.68.205.101 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the top end of the capabilities, but I didn't remove the old data, because I wasn't sure if the Pi 4 had changed processor (or bit size) enough to make the GHz (or even the RAM) not directly comparable. Someone with more knowledge could *probably* fix that with some deletes. JimJJewett (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pi 4 doesn't have an 8GB RAM option, as the new .SVG rendering suggests

I have warned the maker of his error. Mahjongg (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient description of the role of threadX

The ThreadX page describes[1] how threadX is functionally the true, GPU-bound OS of the raspberry pi, and every other OS (Rapsbian, Windows IOT, etc) runs in a subservient role to ThreadX (which manages undervolt and overheating issues, etc).

I think that some of the text from the threadX article should be included in the RaspberryPi article so that people can understand that it isn't a true linux/windows/whatever computer, but rather a GPU-centric mobile platform which allows you to run your OS of choice on *top* of a proprietary RTOS.

47.187.170.24 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it pronounced Rasberry pee-eye (/ˈpiːiː/) or pie (/paɪ/)? Note, I took a guess at the {{IPAc-en}} values and so these should be checked before updating the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pronounced like the mathmatical constant π – /paɪ/, just like raspberry pie. --Zac67 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifications Table Usability

Hello, If there is an option to do so using the Wikipedia tools, I propose changing the format of the "specifications" table. I have a 4k monitor and it is still hard to cross reference the table headers with the data in the table because of the size of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeneralBen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Exact release dates only on a few of the later models

The chart at the bottom only specifies the day of release of a few of the later models. The raspberrypi.org blog has exact release dates for all but the first (RasPi 1B), and many of those are already linked.

Would it be ok to add the dates to the rest which have exact dates in the references?

47.187.169.130 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Connectors picture for RPi 3 B+

RPi 3 B and B+ have different pin layout. RPi 3 B+ has new PoE pins as RPi 4 B at the place of 'RUN' holes in the picture of 'Location of connectors and main ICs on Raspberry Pi 3'. In consequence, RPi 3 B+ and RPi 4 B share the same PoE hat. 'RUN' holes have been moved to left-bottom area of the board in RPi 3 B+. Takashi-sasaki (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Linux is only the name of kernel, while many of the distributions use GNU utils and become a functioning operating system. For further information: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html — Preceding unsigned --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, as soon as you get the sources to fix their lazy error, we can reflect it here. Good luck. Guy (help!) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo Read MOS:LINUX. This has already been decided.

More importantly, if You think the Linux family of operating systems should be called GNU/Linux, you really need to insist on calling it Apache/GNU/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux. As Jim Gettys, the founder of the X windowing system, put it best: "There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."

It is disrespectful to attempt to put GNU's contributions to the Linux family of operating systems above the work of all of the other contributors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, please read How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?:

You underrestimate the fact that GNU project altered Linux kernel during its very early development, and Linux just would be one of the proprietary kernels that aren't widely used. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Figure 1 shows the total LOC in Ubuntu natty split by the major projects that produce it. By this metric GNU software is about 8%. I didn’t include GNOME in the GNU category because it seems to now be effectively run outside GNU but including that the total for GNU would be around 13%."

"I found two things to be really surprising in this chart. The first is that the kernel is actually comparable in size to all the GNU software1. The second is that small projects actually dominate the total amount. It seems that at least for what Ubuntu packages, the origin of the software is highly dispersed."

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GNU code at the GNU/Linux distros may not be much, but they are very critical utilities. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of how much GNU contributed to the Linux family of operating systems, on of the most popular versions of Linux is simply called "Android", and nobody insists on calling it "Linux/Android". Care to guess what percentage of Android is GNU? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Android can't even be considered as a distro tho. Its a system that uses a modified Linux kernel to an extend, and not a distribution. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not address any of the reasons I gave for not using GNU/Linux, and you did not address our existing guideline or the long discussion that the community had when making that decision. Should I assume that you are now fully on board with following our guideline on this? Would you like to challenge the guideline and see if there is a consensus to change it? If the guideline is wrong, it should be changed.

As for whether Android in a Linux distribution, calling it anything else would very much be a minority viewpoint. From our article on Linux distribution: "A Linux distribution (often abbreviated as distro) is an operating system made from a software collection that is based upon the Linux kernel".

Is Android an operating system? Yes. Is it based upon the Linux Kernel? Yes. Does it have any GNU in it? No. Apple has a strong anti-GPLv3 policy that lead them to replace every GNU component with non-GPLv3 alternatives.

Tizen (and its predecessor MeeGo) is another operating system that is based upon the Linux kernel but has no GNU, and the Yocto Project has an option to exclude all GPLv3 licensed software. Far from GNU being the indispensable component that the GNU/Linux advocates insist it is, it turns out that making a Linux OS without GNU is possible, and has been done multiple times.

I highly recommend reading all three chapters of Labyrinth of Software Freedom: (BSD vs GPL and social aspects of free licensing debate) by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

...Sound of Crickets...

Memory of first generation B and A+ boards

In the specification table, the memory entry for the first generation A+ and B boards is lumped together as "512 MiB (shared with GPU) as of 4 May 2016". It not clear what the qualification "as of 4 May 2016" is supposed to mean. The B boards had 512 MiB memory at least as early Jan 2013. I tagged the entry for clarification. Kbrose (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Memory for Pi 2

Also memory for Pi 2 is specified inconsistently within the page.

Section Generations says 1GiB (without a citation).

Section RAM says 1GiB with a citation that supports the claim, but it is not clear to me which revision the citation is referring to.

Section Specifications (the big table) says 512MiB (without a citation).

I am not authoritative on this - hence I am not simply correcting the table. The table is unclear because there is a later revision of the Pi 2 (v1.2) in the table but the earlier revision of the Pi 2 in the table does not specify a revision. Sometimes that's the way it works out i.e. manufacturer doesn't plan in advance for revisions, and so maybe there was a Pi 2 without a revision, or that was called v1.0, potentially retrospectively.

There is a Pi 2 (v1.1) and it has 1GiB. I own one.

I suspect the table is incorrect or, at best, incomplete.

--2001:44B8:31E5:7F00:1DF7:E895:19FA:E738 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

From [ https://www.digikey.com/en/maker/blogs/2018/how-to-pick-the-right-raspberry-pi ]:

• Raspberry Pi A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi B+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 2B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3B+ = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi Zero = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero Wireless = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3 = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3 Lite = 1GB

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

From [ https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/faqs/ ]:

• Raspberry Pi Model A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Model B+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 2 Model B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 2GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 4GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 8GB
• Raspberry Pi Zero = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero W = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero WH = 512MB

Any place the current page does not agree with the above should be corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And ...9FA:E738 found an corrected an error.[2] Good job! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pricing

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." --WP:NOTCATALOG

Previously discussed: Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 3#Price information

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Introductory price" is notable as this was a very cheap offering intended to revolutionise learning. But the content presently shows the current price, which is the wrong thing to do and not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.8.47 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the RPi 400

I've seen a couple edits made to add the RPi 400 into the article, reverted with the reason that it is basically a raspberry pi 4 but in a different case. I think it is worthy to mention briefly, as it is a different form factor (The internal PCB is different), as well as the use of a higher clocked BCM2711C0 SoC instead of the BCM2711B0 SoC seen on the Pi 4. OD1 ByHL (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No – the RPi 400 has its own board type, see https://www.heise.de/imgs/71/2/9/9/3/3/7/5/RPi-400-Gehaeuse-offen-1-04a819b01ca28f74.jpg If you rule those out you'd need to remove quite a few variants. --Zac67 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It was also reasonable to revert several IPs who kept edit warring and completely ignoring my (I now see to be incorrect) "the Raspberry Pi 400 is just a Raspberry Pi 4 in a different case" responses. Now that someone has actually given a reason for the previously unexplained change I am fine with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yea that makes sense, Ima put in a breif paragraph about the RPi400 OD1 ByHL (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"HAT" is not explained in time

The abbreviation(?) "HAT" is not explained before late in the article (in sub section Accessories). It is used six times before that.

I have added a forward reference, but is that the right way to do it?

--Mortense (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pi Specification Table is all out of order chronologically

The specification section should be Sorted left to right correctly so that each pi is grouped by main version number and then model A or B instead it has the A models for Pi1, Pi2 and Pi3 in the same section and the B models for Pi1, Pi2 and Pi3 in the same section as each other. It should go Pi1, A and B specs, Pi2, A and B Specs, Pi3, A and B Specs. Am attempting to make these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcrisp000 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree - in fact, some time ago I rearranged the table headings to group by generation, then model (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=740031536&diff=prev), but alas it was reverted soon after :-(. It was easier then, as no reordering was required, because the Pi 3 Model A+ didn't exist at that point. Letdorf (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope that the pi5 will have one single sata port. Only one. Not more. One, would help to connect a ssd--2.244.116.231 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How about listing by the level of integration, for example, Pico --- 400. For example. When I am looking for a project solution size matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardMGoldberg (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Split Raspberry Pi (the single board computer) and Raspberry Pi RP2040 (the microcontroller).

The Raspberry Pi Foundation has recently released the Raspberry Pi Pico, which is not related to the Raspberry Pi single board computers (i.e. 0-4). I propose that there is a greater seperation between the two in the article, either by creating two seperate articles or only mentioning the Pico in its own section as it is younger and less popular, and may cause confusion if the two are talked about in the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLMGN (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur - to clarify, it's Raspberry Pi RP2040, the Microcontroller and its first board, the Pico. Unfair to describe it as less popular, for a module that's only one month old it's selling very well, so not unpopular at all, just new. As an embedded developer I view the Raspberry Pi as a computer & the RP2040 is a Microcontroller, very different product lines, very different applications. Like comparing a Pi to an Arduino. The RPi forum community have started a page for the RP2040 which we can start to add the significant differences between Any Other Microcontroller and the RP2040. As other (significant) vendors release product I suspect the RP2040 page will evolve to be about the Microcontroller and perhaps have a RP2040 boards listings style pages. Nmccloud (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the title of this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth does the Pi Pico redirect to this page? This is by no means compatible with or a succession in the Raspberry Pi product line other than containing the name of the product. The Pi Pico does not run Raspbian, does not use the same CPU core, lacks the IP connectivity or conventional user IO firmware seen on the Raspberry PI. This is not the same thing as a Raspberry Pi and cannot be assumed to be the same product. This is not a Single Board computer as described in the first line of the wikipedia article. A wikipedia insider that understands this needs to be found so that this can be corrected.

The Pi Pico is a lot more like a Pyboard than it is anything like any previous Raspberry Pi product. And the RP2040 is a part with no software, power, etc. and should be treated completely differently, much as we do with the iPhone and the Apple A14 or the Arduino Uno and the ATmega328. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Discontinued dates badly worded

The discontinued column is incorrect to use dates in the future. Raspberry Pi guarantee production until AT LEAST the dates shown, so there is no guarantee that they will go out of production on these dates, and it is in fact quite unlikely if there is still a market for them. The tables as they stand imply that the discontinued date is set in stone, which it is categorically not. Jnahughes (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed This has been fixed accordingly. I was confused by this as well and had to do more searching when I found the forums post referencing here. Larcondos (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If someone has an account on the RP forum where this was discussed, could you please post a note that this has been fixed? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Operating Systems

The section "Other OS" seems to have no order. If no one objects I would order it by alphabet.

Those sentences also feel "double":

The Raspberry Pi Foundation provides Raspberry Pi OS (formerly called Raspbian), a Debian-based (32-bit) Linux distribution for download, as well as third-party Ubuntu, Windows 10 IoT Core, RISC OS, and LibreELEC (specialised media centre distribution).

and

Third-party operating systems available via the official website include Ubuntu MATE, Windows 10 IoT Core, RISC OS and specialised distributions for the Kodi media centre and classroom management

Maybe they should be summarized in one sentence. In "other OS" we have Xubuntu and Lubuntu, which are also Ubuntu. Maybe we should just mention them alongside Ubuntu (something like "Ubuntu-versions Xubuntu and Lubuntu can also be installed but aren't offically provided by the Raspberry Pi Foundation").

If someone knows that, we could also mention which of the distros support 64-bit and which don't. --Leo Navis (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so... I did that. I also united the RH and Suse distros just as the Ubuntu ones and exported BSD-based distros as a new category. --Leo Navis (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi Model 4 1gb version no longer retired

The hardware table lists the raspberry pi 4 model b 1gb as being discontinued in march 2020, but as of Ovtober 2021, it has been brought back; see official blogpost:

https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/supply-chain-shortages-and-our-first-ever-price-increase/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.13.43 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 18 October 2021

• What I think should be changed: Why you "Undid revision 1048664325"? The previous link is for NOOBS (old unsupported), and berryboot (one predefined kernel for every new root image). Only pinn has boot+root copy for every os.
• Why it should be changed: You are misleading new users.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Same as the link in my revision.

Costin.b.1 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi, I'm going through the current edit request backlog, and dont have the technical knowledge with respect to Raspberry Pi. The given reason for the edit reversion is "Duplicates the statement made in the previous sentence". I will tag @Millstream3 who interacted with your edit to see what they have to say about the reasons you have listed, as an addition to your original edit. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there are several ways to dual/multiple boot a Raspberry Pi, and the article need only make this clear. Going into detail about one method or another is unnecessary and too much detail for the article. There's no need to mention berryboot. The best reference to cite would be an up-to-date reference that explains the various methods, including berryboot. Millstream3 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Request moot per Millstream3. Quetstar (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article points to NOOBS for the first method. Then you go to raspberry to find that it is not supported anymore then to github where it has some old code. Then it is important to find PINN that is a fork of NOOBS. At github it is observed that PINN has an active community and following that I installed two oses. Going back at the article, skipping berrybot and "Network Boot Multiple Raspberry Pi Operating Systems With PiServer", I don't think that is better. Costin.b.1 9 dec 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Version Chart

The chart of different versions of Raspberry Pis is kind of ridiculous, and goes way off the page. Is it possible that we should split it into the different types of Raspberry Pis? Stevenruidigao (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is not just the version chart. I think there are too many technical details that are better suited for Raspberry Pi specific websites. The whole page looks cluttered. Fangfufu (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article reads like an advertisment

Reading the opening section of this article I feel parts reads like an advertisement. Buzzwords like "best-selling" and "more popular than anticipated, selling outside its target market" does not feel like they belong in Wikipedia. I am writing here looking to establish a consensus regarding the issue. Does anyone oppose removing or rewriting the advertorial writing?

// VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

All those claims are backed up by citation from third-parties, so I think we should keep them. Fangfufu (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that it reads like an advertisement. If it said "best single-board computer", that would be unacceptable advertisement; but it doesn't, it says "best-selling single-board British computer" which is objectively verifiable. Similarly its original target market is objectively verifiable and the fact that it sells outside that market is objectively verifiable. The "article reads like an advertisement" tag should be removed. Insulation2 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I also don't agree. Nothing in the article is unverifiable; all noted superlatives are backed up with sources. As there has been no person agreeing with this notice and not a single edit made towards it in four months, can we have it removed? Gflare (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with reads like an advertisement — notice should be removed. --Zac67 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Block diagram - "which"

@A Shortfall Of Gravitas: In March 2021 you added a "which" comment to the "Hardware" section regarding the block diagram, noting an issue with where the diagram appears on 4k diaplays. (Old revision of Raspberry Pi) I've recently attempted to resolve that, but I don't have a 4k display to check if my solution works. Does the edit I've made work for you? – Scyrme (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Separate articles for Raspberry Pi models

I think having separate articles for different Pi models such as Raspberry Pi 3, 4 and 5 make sense, just like how IBM PC models have different pages such as IBM PC XT and IBM PC AT. VectorVoyager (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this idea. For me the article in its current form is way too bloated, and it really should just be an overview of the company and its products. Jayanky (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started working this, now the Raspberry Pi 4 has its own article (though the article doesn't have everything I want in it yet). Jayanky (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi do more than SBCs

Raspberry Pi don't just develop SBCs: this has been true since they started work on their first Compute Module, which was released in April 2014. Compute Module products fall into the SoM category, or System on Module, and are described as being targeted at the deeply embedded market.

Additionally, in January 2021, Raspberry Pi released the RP2040 microcontroller chip, also known as RP2, which they developed. The ecosystem around this is described as being microcontroller-based.

Subsequent chips bearing the Raspberry Pi name include the RP3 and RP1. The RP3 is a Broadcom Application Processor (AP) together with a Micron SDRAM chip in a Raspberry Pi package. The RP1 chip is an I/O controller hub developed by Raspberry Pi.

To summarise, there are now 3 product lines, only one of which is covered adequately in the current page:

1. Single Board Computers (SBCs)
2. System on Module devices for the deeply embedded market
3. Microcontrollers, again aimed at deeply embedded systems

[and possibly 4. Silicon IP and chips for SBCs, namely the rpivid H.265 decoded in BCM2711 and BCM2712, and the RP1 I/O controller, also known as a 'south bridge'].

I would therefore propose changing the initial focus of the page from the SBC range, to the company itself. That way, discussion of the other devices could be more logically accommodated. Note that as of 2013 Raspberry Pi consists of two entities - the trading company, and the foundation. It is the trading company which develops and supports all of their products. The foundation is described as being 'platform agnostic' - i.e. it operates to further its charitably goals independently of the development and sale of Raspberry Pi products. It therefore follows that the focus of this page would be the trading company and its activities, there already being a specific page for the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Discuss. Andrewk7 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The business entities are covered at Raspberry Pi Foundation, a separate article. This article should remain focused on the main product, the SBC. MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It already includes non-SBC products. Are you suggesting removal of these? Andrewk7 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional Operating Systems for Raspberry Pi

This article omits important information wrt availability of operating systems (OS) for the Raspberry Pi. A cursory read of the article revealed the following omissions:

Real Time Operating Systems: FreeRTOS, Zephyr, and ChibiOS/RT are available and supported for the Raspberry Pi

Debian: Given that Raspberry Pi OS (nee Raspbian) is based on Debian, this is a MAJOR omission. Debian has offered image files suitable for direct transfer to an SD card for some time.

In other words: Users are not limited to using software supplied by Raspberry Pi to operate their hardware. The proprietary nature of the firmware however remains a stumbling block for true "Open Source Computing" .

19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Seamusdemora (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There are countless Operating Systems that can be made to run on the Raspberry Pi. However, that's not a threshhold for inclusion. For example, FreeRTOS, has no out-of-the-box option for installing on the RPI. The Pi really isn't a suitable platform for real-time OSes.

The article already has a section dedicated to available operating systems and provides a long list of them - and it also clearly identifies that Raspbian is based on Debian.

If you can find secondary sources that suggest that the OSes you've listed are directly installable on the RPI and suitable choices for it, then by all means add them. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)