Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 358 replies
  • Subscribers 675 subscribers
  • Views 39934 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:

     

    It comes back to the acid test again:  "Is it field-programmable?"

     

    It's the manufacturer's choice whether they make their device field-programmable or not, and they generally make it so for their own flexibility and benefit.   That choice has ramifications though, because if they make it field-programmable for their own benefit but disclose no programming information then they can rightly be criticized for providing a closed programmable feature.

     

    After all, if the product is field programmable then there is no technical barrier to user reprogramming other than the artificial barrier erected by the manufacturer through deliberately witholding information.  That artificial barrier is what is being criticized, because it artificially limits what the owner of the product can do with his or her purchased device.  If the product were not field-programmable then this situation would not arise.

    Manufactures make stuff field programmable for their own benefit. Because there is no other reason for it. Why make it field programmable if you dont need it to be field programmable. So field prgrammable is the manufacturers decision for their own benefit. There bugger all wrong wwith that attitude. Just because it field programmable doenst meant he manfacturer has to tell you how to do it. Why should they? It more work on their part, more money off their bottom line. And you lose too much off the bottom like you go bust and put people out of work. Just cos its programmable doesnt give you the right to demand how to program it from the maker. Those nutjobs at the fsf seem to think they have a god given right to the infotrmation they need to program a device. No they dont. They dont stop you from programming it it- you can do what you like withthe product. but they really dont need to tell you how to do it and I dont see why they should. most people who buy product dont give a dag if they can program it, the makers of the product aint gonna spend money on those that do cos there are so few of them.

Reply

  • Morgaine Dinova wrote:

     

    It comes back to the acid test again:  "Is it field-programmable?"

     

    It's the manufacturer's choice whether they make their device field-programmable or not, and they generally make it so for their own flexibility and benefit.   That choice has ramifications though, because if they make it field-programmable for their own benefit but disclose no programming information then they can rightly be criticized for providing a closed programmable feature.

     

    After all, if the product is field programmable then there is no technical barrier to user reprogramming other than the artificial barrier erected by the manufacturer through deliberately witholding information.  That artificial barrier is what is being criticized, because it artificially limits what the owner of the product can do with his or her purchased device.  If the product were not field-programmable then this situation would not arise.

    Manufactures make stuff field programmable for their own benefit. Because there is no other reason for it. Why make it field programmable if you dont need it to be field programmable. So field prgrammable is the manufacturers decision for their own benefit. There bugger all wrong wwith that attitude. Just because it field programmable doenst meant he manfacturer has to tell you how to do it. Why should they? It more work on their part, more money off their bottom line. And you lose too much off the bottom like you go bust and put people out of work. Just cos its programmable doesnt give you the right to demand how to program it from the maker. Those nutjobs at the fsf seem to think they have a god given right to the infotrmation they need to program a device. No they dont. They dont stop you from programming it it- you can do what you like withthe product. but they really dont need to tell you how to do it and I dont see why they should. most people who buy product dont give a dag if they can program it, the makers of the product aint gonna spend money on those that do cos there are so few of them.

Children
No Data