Slashdot Mirror

Why did you create a new logo - wouldn't it be better to share your efforts with http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/

The main reasons for creating yet another logo are:

• We need a controlled-use logo for use in enforcing Open Hardware licenses where copyright is insufficient. The gear logo has already had too much uncontrolled use.
• The gear logo is reminiscent of the OSI logo. But only us insiders will know about OSI. It's not so useful in giving an idea about Open Hardware to outsiders. Marketing programs like this should, of course, be outward-facing.
• Am I the only one who has a problem with OSI? :-)
• The chip-and-lock logo is language-independent. It says something without words, which the gear logo doesn't quite do.
• The chip-and-lock logo is more position-independent than the gear logo. But not perfect. Many of the objects we would put it upon do not have a preferred orientation.

I'm curious about the logo - is that essentially just the "Open Hardware Journal" logo or, as the footer states a logo for "Open Hardware", to be used as such in open hardware materials?

And then who/what is Open Hardware in relationship to Open Source Hardware?

The current edition's call for papers points out that all Open Hardware submitted should be compliant with the Open Source Hardware definition.

But then, supposedly the adopted logo for that is the 'gear' version of the Open Source (software) logo.
http://oshwlogo.com/

The logo used in the magazine on the other hand seems to be LiR's submission to the OSHW logo competition, Open Circuit v1;
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/oshw-logo-v1-0/

If one is for the magazine and the other is for the actual hardware, that happens - but if they are both supposed to apply to actual hardware (or related materials), I'm confuzzled.

not if it's got 4gb of ECC DDR3 1066mhz RAM, it's not. the NuSmart 2816 is a 1.6 to 2ghz Dual-Core Cortex A9 with two versions - one 32-bit memory addressing and the other 64-bit. they're sampling, now. i'm working to get them plugged in to the EOMA initiative:
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/PCMCIA
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=502

well, fortunately there's soon going to be things like the NuSmart 2816, which will have the best of both worlds: Dual-Core 1.6 to 2ghz, 4gb of ECC DDR3 1033mhz RAM... and only about 4 watts for a system (at the 1.6ghz speed).

i'm working towards getting these - and other such beefy low-power CPUs - plugged in to the EOMA initiative:
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=502
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/PCMCIA

it's a long story, but i've been working to get ARM-powered desktop machines and laptops into the hands of free software developers for some time.

one of the key problems are that the chinese and taiwanese factories have absolutely no software expertise whatsoever. some guy decides he got caught out by the USA and UK Governments placing embargos and tariffs on imported clothes a couple years back: his business was affected, so he goes "i know, i'll diversify, i'll make tablets, those are popular". so off he goes, he gets supplied with a GPL-violating Android OS right from the word "go" by a limited number of Chinese ODMs who are having a really hard time keeping hold of their software engineers, and it just goes downhill from there.

the other problem is, as can be seen from the insane amount of money spent by the openpandora group, that case-work for laptops etc. can well be in excess of $100,000. that means that anything like the "pegatron netbook" has to be bought in volumes of 250,000 and above in order for the R&D costs to be amortised over a reasonable period.

this is where the EOMA initiative comes in: http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/PCMCIA

by reversing everything on its head, and getting free software developers a modular architecture which _could_ be dropped into a mass-volume product, the tables are turned: those Chinese Factories can be supplied *by us* - Free Software Developers - with a completed ready-to-ship OS.

so, yes there's a board which is available that is similar in size and function to the pandaboard, origen exynos board, beagleboard, IMX53QSB etc., but unlike those boards, by complying to the EOMA/PCMCIA Open Standard it would be possible to literally drop that hardware-software combination straight into a mass-volume product, with the development effort of the required motherboard being nothing more than a low-cost 2 to 4 layer board that even KiCAD, Eagle or gEDA could do.

one key part of this strategy is to leverage arduino-like boards, like the leafpad Maple:
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/PCMCIA/MiniEngineeringBoard

anyway i think that's enough for one slashdot post. bit of background and some additional links, here:
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=502

funny... i was just writing up a post to the http://openhardwaresummit.org/ mailing list about a way to accelerate the process by which enthusiasts can work with the latest mass-produced embedded hardware.

the initiative, which has a specification here - http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/PCMCIA - is based around the fact that, just as mentioned above, the development of processor "speeds" is slowing down. this funnily enough allows so-called "embedded" processors to catch up, and it's these embedded CPUs which are low-power enough to base an entire computer around that is still desirable yet consumes between 0.5 and 3 watts instead of 10 to 500 watts.

if anybody would like to participate in this initiative, please do join the arm-netbook mailing list - http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

According to TFA, the (more) open system is actually relying on a number of not-so-open protocols and formats.

* Open source system. Royalties are paid by the transmitter manufactures only (and do date, most major US transmitter manufactures have already paid these). There is no royalties paid by the broadcaster to install DRM or by the consumer when purchasing a DRM capable receiver. One company does not own the rights to the modulation system for all the broadcasters in the country.

It's good that no royalties have to be paid by broadcasters or consumers, but given that I was just at the Open Hardware Summit and have a curiosity about things like GNU Radio, hopefully the amateurs won't be shaken down if they build their own receivers or transmitters.

* The CODEC is HE-AAC 4, which is widely used world wide.

AAC is patented, and they make you pay money.

In addition to that, DRM30 station have the ability to transmit low frame rate H. 264 video.

H.264 is patented, and they make you pay money.

The thing is, even if this isn't a completely open format, it's entirely plausible that this is the closest that anyone has gotten. While we could consider using this for now, we should always look forward and try to figure out how open we want the next set of standards to be.