Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 358 replies
  • Subscribers 674 subscribers
  • Views 39861 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Pi vs BeagleBone-Black

Former Member

So, just over a year on from the initial availability of the R-Pi and the new BeagleBone Black is upon us.  They've obviously taken a leaf out of the RPF's playbook and produced a cost reduced version at a price only marginally above the Pi.

 

I find it interesting that the compromises are very different, for example there's a proper PMIC and the ethernet is not troubled by being connected to USB, however the on-board HDMI seems less capable.

 

Other differences are in the documentation, I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later. There's even an up to date devicetree capable kernel too.

 

Technology has also moved on somewhat, we get a 1GHz Cortex A8 which is better than the Pi, along with various other stuff and lots more GPIO's too.

 

Ok, so it's clear that I like the look of the new beaglebone, and given the price I'm likely to put any further R-Pi plans on hold until I have a chance to play with this. It's also making things like the Olinuxino-maxi I bought recently look very slow/expensive while still being cheaper than the similarly specced Olinuxino-A13

 

Some details of the beaglebone-black here http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack

 

What do the rest of you think ?   I don't expect this to displace the Pi anytime soon, but I expect it to be very attractive to those people who don't simply want to put XBMC on it and duct tape it to the back of the TV..

Parents

  • mynameisJim wrote:

     

    As individuals in favour of open source products, I feel like we're almost fighting for things to go the wrong way.  When it comes to ranking something on how open source it is, I think that we should deduct points for hardware obscured code and consider how much usability and configuration we're giving (such as with config.txt) and award such devices for being more open.

    IMHO, the problem with the open source argument is that when you break down one barrier there's always another one behind it. Get the source to the bootloader, then you'll also want the source to the compiler for it and on it goes... Sooner or later you're asking for the litho masks so you can produce your own silicon, then you'll need the wafer fab machines software to be open source and the design of the machine too. (and the software used to design the machine!)  But somewhere you have to draw a line and say this is as far as we go. The argument then becomes about where the line is and about who can make how much money from either side of that line. Suddenly it's not just about open source anymore.

     

    Personally I'm reasonably happy with the line being at the hardware as long as the hardware is documented well enough to allow the software to be written to use the hardware. The flaw in my idea comes when the 'hardware' really isn't hardware but is something implemented in software pretending to be hardware. You now have a blurry grey line instead of a nice crisp one.

     

    That's about as far into that can of worms as I'm prepared to go. Suffice to say that I think as long as we have a system that uses money then we'll never be able to make everything open as there will always be someone seeking to make a profit by keeping something secret and therefore being able to sell it at a premium. As Billy says, don't have to like it but that's just the way the world works.

Reply

  • mynameisJim wrote:

     

    As individuals in favour of open source products, I feel like we're almost fighting for things to go the wrong way.  When it comes to ranking something on how open source it is, I think that we should deduct points for hardware obscured code and consider how much usability and configuration we're giving (such as with config.txt) and award such devices for being more open.

    IMHO, the problem with the open source argument is that when you break down one barrier there's always another one behind it. Get the source to the bootloader, then you'll also want the source to the compiler for it and on it goes... Sooner or later you're asking for the litho masks so you can produce your own silicon, then you'll need the wafer fab machines software to be open source and the design of the machine too. (and the software used to design the machine!)  But somewhere you have to draw a line and say this is as far as we go. The argument then becomes about where the line is and about who can make how much money from either side of that line. Suddenly it's not just about open source anymore.

     

    Personally I'm reasonably happy with the line being at the hardware as long as the hardware is documented well enough to allow the software to be written to use the hardware. The flaw in my idea comes when the 'hardware' really isn't hardware but is something implemented in software pretending to be hardware. You now have a blurry grey line instead of a nice crisp one.

     

    That's about as far into that can of worms as I'm prepared to go. Suffice to say that I think as long as we have a system that uses money then we'll never be able to make everything open as there will always be someone seeking to make a profit by keeping something secret and therefore being able to sell it at a premium. As Billy says, don't have to like it but that's just the way the world works.

Children
No Data