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 39910 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

  • Morgaine Dinova wrote:

     

    mynameisJim wrote:

     

    Indeed it is a simple rule, and comes right back to what I've been saying, if the foundation made it such that the GPU was controlled via an EPPROM and could only be updated by flashing it, then by the definition you supplied the Pi would become more open source by becoming less controllable by the end user.

     

    WRONG.  My acid test "Is it field-programmable?" stands solid.

     

    If the device can be updated by flashing it, then it's field-programmable and hence by not providing the programming information it is less open source.

    Okay, then get rid of my sentence about the EPPROM.  This comes right back to what I've been saying, you're literally saying that if they completely closed it down such that we couldn't do anything to it then it becomes more open source.  Let's say that they accomplish this by having a bit of code built directly into the chip that handles it booting right off an SD card.  No more configuration of the GPU, no more camera module add-on without purchasing a new board with the feature, but since it's behind the scenes it's considered more open source?  By it's very nature the more control we have of something the more open it is.  The current definitions we're working with are flawed as they encourage manufactures to put more info where we can't touch it in order to get the stamp of open source approval instead of actually rewarding those who make the effort to give us more control over the equipment.

Reply

  • Morgaine Dinova wrote:

     

    mynameisJim wrote:

     

    Indeed it is a simple rule, and comes right back to what I've been saying, if the foundation made it such that the GPU was controlled via an EPPROM and could only be updated by flashing it, then by the definition you supplied the Pi would become more open source by becoming less controllable by the end user.

     

    WRONG.  My acid test "Is it field-programmable?" stands solid.

     

    If the device can be updated by flashing it, then it's field-programmable and hence by not providing the programming information it is less open source.

    Okay, then get rid of my sentence about the EPPROM.  This comes right back to what I've been saying, you're literally saying that if they completely closed it down such that we couldn't do anything to it then it becomes more open source.  Let's say that they accomplish this by having a bit of code built directly into the chip that handles it booting right off an SD card.  No more configuration of the GPU, no more camera module add-on without purchasing a new board with the feature, but since it's behind the scenes it's considered more open source?  By it's very nature the more control we have of something the more open it is.  The current definitions we're working with are flawed as they encourage manufactures to put more info where we can't touch it in order to get the stamp of open source approval instead of actually rewarding those who make the effort to give us more control over the equipment.

Children
No Data