Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Hardware Gets Public Introduction
JoeBorn writes "The Sunday New York Times has an article on Neuros video recorder and describes the benefits of open source hardware to its mainstream readership. Can a mainstream audience appreciate that hackability can translate into new features or will it all just seem too geeky? In this case, the Neuros OSD got a YouTube browser. While the details might be lost on the average reader, are they getting the sense that some companies allow users to benefit from other users modifications while others are actively bricking products for applying 3rd party apps? In other words, is openness starting to add value to the brands that support it?"
*cough*
are there other open-source processors ?
Don't forget that most open source software comes with big warnings that there are absolutely no warranties. Do most consumers really expect the same from their hardware? While open hardware sounds great for me personally and probably much of the Slashdot crowd, the companies behind it need to have a very different focus than normal mass-market hardware. That is, they either need to choose to offer zero warranties on damage resulting from a user's actions, OR they can put a lot of effort into supporting and encouraging developers (which is what my company chooses to do). I'm not sure if we're ready to have mass-market expectations and developer-friendly devices meet.
Side note: I'm excited about openmoko, the open hardware (and open source software) cell phone. Waiting for the second revision, which will include 802.11.
--
Our microcontroller kit, guide, and free videos. Your GCC compiler. Learn digital electronics today!
As I understand it "OpenMoko" is the software platform & base applications. The neo1973 is the name of the hardware (the phone), although I think the new incarnation has a new name "Freerunner".
The Neo whatever-its-called as hardware will be able to run OpenMoko-- but it can also run Trolltech's Qtopia software, which is further along, development-wise.
As far as Google's Android platform-- it's my understanding that it won't run on the Neo hardware due to some kind of lack of backwards compatibility with the ARM processor in the Neo.
Finally, I think there are some parts of neo1973/openmoko that are not fully open-- can't remember, but I think it's the GPS or GSM driver/daemon.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Aren't the benefits of open source, or, generally, hackable hardware very simple to explain?
If there is any bug, or desireable feature that is missing, or really any kind of improvement to be made, it can be made by anyone. This includes you, but you don't have to do it yourself - chances are there is somebody who wants the same improvement and will make it and share it with the world. Sure, companies will also enhance closed-source products, but now it's not just the company that does this, but a large group of volunteers, as well. This means that improvements can be expected to be made much more quickly and in many more directions at once. Plus, if the company ever stops supporting the product, the community will continue supporting it until the last person has lost interest.
There. Was that so difficult?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Don't forget that most open source software comes with big warnings that there are absolutely no warranties.
So does most closed source software... or did you expect Microsoft to compensate you every time Windows crashes?
Side note: I'm excited about openmoko, the open hardware (and open source software) cell phone. Waiting for the second revision, which will include 802.11.
Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the OpenMoko project for a while, since my experience of devices (phones, routers, PDAs, etc) of the past 5 years or so has been that the first versions always ship with serious bugs and then they are end-of-lifed after only a few months as they are replaced by a new version (with a similar number of serious bugs) - the product life cycle is too short and the firmware never gets stablised. So I've come to the conclusion that I have to be able to fix the bugs myself since the device vendors sure as hell show no sign of doing it.
Unfortunately the OpenMoko project seems to have had a lot of delays (their first "consumer grade" version was supposed to ship for Christmas, but they are going through another hardware revision cycle and from what I understand the firmware is no where near ready for normal users). Also, as tempting as it is to get the GTA02 revision of the FIC1973 phone, I'm still holding out for a version with HSDPA support since I have plenty of experience with GPRS, and frankly it sucks. Also, a smaller case and/or bigger screen would be nice - from photos there seems to be a lot of empty space in the case.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
If I recall correctly, most consumer software comes with the warranty disclaimer.
We need Open Hardware! Otherwise... My Aunt who lives overseas got a Sharp DVD Recorder. Recorded some shows to send to my young Son to watch in our second language. Trouble is: The new Sharp DVD Recorders save everything in copy-protected format that aren't playable on any other systems. Why can't we program our own consumer hardware? Why do I need some dweeb at Sharp to write code that disadvantages me as a consumer?
Finally, I think there are some parts of neo1973/openmoko that are not fully open-- can't remember, but I think it's the GPS or GSM driver/daemon.
The GSM radio and GPS receiver are covered by NDAs. The GSM radio provides a plain serial interface, so the software side is completely open. The GPS receiver requires some processing to be done on the host processor though, and this requires a binary blob. The binary blob provides an NMEA output though, so everything above it is open.
I understand that these are closed for regulatory reasons (fiddling with the GSM radio would be illegal in many jurisdictions, and ISTR the GPS licences require that there be some "safety" mechanisms built in, such as maximum speed and maximum altitude that the GPS can operate at, because the US government are idiots and are paranoid about people using GPS devices in missiles, etc.)
You can bet that someone will reverse engineer the GPS blob and write an open one before long though (I rather doubt this will make it into the official release though, due to the previously mentioned regulatory problems).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The iPhone/Apple dig had nothing to do with the article and was normal slashdot FUD.
Why does everyone keep going after Apple for possible bricking of iPhones? You're applying 3rd party hacks which mess with the firmware, bricking is a possibility. No one has gone after Linksys for a bricked router after trying to apply 3rd party firmware.
Apple ships the iPhone with firmware:
#AAAAAAAAAAAA
Some 3rd party comes along and hacks that firmware to do nifty stuff, even if it is a hack. Firmware is now. #AAAAFFFFFFFF
Apple decides to update all the firmware in their iPhones to
#BBBBBBBBBBBA
However since you applied your hack, you now have firmware:
#BBBBBBBBBBBF
Which could very well possibly brick the iPhone. Apple doesn't have the resources to test with every single firmware hack out there. They test their firmware with what they shipped, if nothing bad happens it gets pushed as an update. If I secretly swap a Ford engine into my GM engine and take it back to the dealer, they're not going to fix it no problem.
If you don't want the iPhone and Apple's product model, get an open source phone. Get another brand. Apple makes stable platforms for people who sometimes don't want to tinker. Things may be tinker friendly, but if you fuck something up don't go suing or crying to Apple.
I got into an argument at work about living in one of the more socialist countries (Full healthcare, full welfare, full retirement, etc) and then I bring up income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg) and they start bitching about how much the USA already takes, who in their right mind would let someone take MORE.
There are trade-offs to every single thing in the world. Make up your fucking mind and take the good with the bad. No, you're not entitled and no you can't have everything the way you like it.
Get over it.
Have you actually read Microsoft's EULA? Any of them?
Besides, one could argue that the source code is a warranty unto itself: a warranty that nothing is hidden, and if it doesn't work, you can check it yourself. And if the development stops, you can pick it up yourself.
Therefore, Open Source software in itself warrants you the ability to check for spyware, to make provisions for continued development (what can you do when MS decides to EOL one of their products?) and the ability to fix bugs if you have or can afford the know-how.
And it seems to me that's much more than closed source software guarantees.
Side note: I'm excited about openmoko, the open hardware (and open source software) cell phone. Waiting for the second revision, which will include 802.11.I'm buying it the moment it's ready for mass market as well.
--Our microcontroller kit, guide, and free videos. Your GCC compiler. Learn digital electronics today!
Why don't you use a real signature? I don't mind seeing them, but I do mind having to edit them out.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Seems to be that Apple is (supposedly) actively trying to brick your phone if you unlock it, instead of it just being a side effect. They are caring too much about who provides the service, because their iPhone business model revolves around locked phones. Personally, I think the iPhone is a POS (for the price) and wouldn't buy it anyway, but it is not a good idea to try to piss off those you want as customers.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Flamebait? I think some mod didn't understand something....
Is it good or is it whack?
architecture reponse of slashdot is
begin
post = "F-you, I only speak VHDL";
end response;
With word-choice that atrocious, I just have to!
Cyinide and Happiness (It's not often I get to link to a non-xkcd comic!)
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
I took a look at the schematics for this box http://open.neurostechnology.com/files/r3_rev-b_2006-07-02-0713-1.pdf and realise that this isn't what I would consider "open source hardware". These are all asic's and the hardware itself is not really adaptable (as far as I can see). It's a shame they didnt put down a decent low-cost FPGA, like a Spartan 3aDSP. Then the user would have been able to adapt the hardware, adding video acceleration, custom coprocessors etc. THEN it could have been open source hardware.
Learn the difference.
From what I saw of the OSD (though this was nearly a year agonow ) the interface just seemed plain unfinished, and was nowhere near as functional as their nearest competitor, XBMC on a hacked XBox which costs probably 1/3 of the price of the OSD. I did rather cynically think that the "open source friendly - new features coming soon! (we hope!)" marketing was a cheaper option than actually putting in the software engineering time on the firmware themselves. Possibly they've been proved right and 18 months later it's turned into a decent product thanks to free labour - anyone have one care to comment?
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
Following the old adage "Do it right the first time."
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
For a different kind of open source hardware, how about open source compressed earth block machine?
From Factor E Farm Weblog:
Apple only patched the security flaws used by the hacks to install 3rd party software. There's no reason to get upset over security updates, and there's no reason for them to even bother testing every hack out there or even go out of their way to make sure that it wouldn't brick the damn thing, whether or not they could because when you hack it, it is at your own risk, and that especially applies to firmware hacks. Sebastian
"While the details might be lost on the average reader, are they getting the sense that some companies allow users to benefit from other users modifications while others are actively bricking products for applying 3rd party apps? In other words, is openness starting to add value to the brands that support it?""
Well it's certainly the old unlimited freedom vs limited position revisited. Not a bad position overall if one could believe that slashdot could handle the responsability of the former with the same maturity it writes summaries. Something you might want to chew on while reading the above that limited freedom may have advantages of it's own and that unlimited freedom will not cure all that ails the world.
Sorry to bring it up, but how does licensing work in the world of open-source hardware? Normally manufacturers can't just go around adding any technology they like to their devices because there are all kinds of patent or service licensing issues attached.
Who becomes responsible/liable in the case of open-source hardware, the project owner? The people manufacturing the hardware? The people selling the hardware? Only one thing is guaranteed: If it is successful and makes money there will be lawsuits. Heck, if it threatens someone else's business there will probably be lawsuits.
This looks like a great device, and it being open source is definitely a huge advantage. Unfortunately, it lacks AVC (H264) support. I wonder why. Is this related to it's open source nature (are there specific problems with including H264 in an open source device)? And/or may it be hacked on independently?
Also, they only mention NTSC resolution (720x480). That would be a problem in PAL countries (720x576).
"Here are detailed circuit diagrams of our products -- modify them as you wish."
Wasn't this commonplace for electronics until about 30 years ago? How about automobiles today? You can purchase wiring diagrams for your car, either direct from the manufacture or from a third party. Is your Volvo open source?
It's neat that they include schematics, but I suggest the term open source be reserved for source code.
(hint : Binary Large OBject)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The responses have been quick with rebuttals about that closed source typically doesn't either, with the usual Microsoft bashing. Focus here folks, the open source software comparison was used to lead into to the open source hardware question. Nobody was talking about closed source software. JFC.
Anyway, on to the OP's question about the 'average' consumer being likely to buy open source hardware without a warranty. I don't think so. I think the technology adept crowd will definitely appreciate the ability to hack away at hardware, but most people don't care. They don't buy their hardware because of what it could possibly do if they spend XYZ hours hacking away and manage not to break it. (Of course, without any warranty, the odds of the average Joe even attempting this are probably even more slim.) They buy it for what it does do, and how well it does it. (Whatever 'it' is.)
Nice, but your 8 bit dupe counter is not likely to survive Zonk's next session at the controls :).
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Open Source hardware is mostly unnecessary! Make open standard platforms that can become commodities, and the benefits of open hardware are yours.
If you have a good idea for a new capability, then make and market an add-on. If it's a good enough idea, then if you don't do it, someone else will.
Make your open standard with a way of extending and upgrading your hardware, and 90% of what you want with open hardware is already yours.
Our microcontroller kit, guide, and free videos. Your GCC compiler. Learn digital electronics today! Why don't you use a real signature? I don't mind seeing them, but I do mind having to edit them out. Because we can't use open source to increase the 120 character signature limit of Slashdot. Even Usenet best practice allowed 280 characters.
Recorded some shows to send to my young Son to watch in our second language. Trouble is: The new Sharp DVD Recorders save everything in copy-protected format that aren't playable on any other systems.
Thanks for the info. DRM will only survive in an open market if alternatives are outlawed. Defective products don't sell the momemt a working alternative appears. Remember the DAT? DAT by law required Serial Copy Management..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
Computer hardware unencumbered by the broken format simply bypassed the DAT which rightfully died in the cradle. Computer CD drives gave way to CDR's which didn't include the restriction.
If a single vendor solution is broken, continue to look at alternatives. For me the alternative is a PVR-150 capture card in a Linux machine followed by my editor of choice and DVD author of choice to a DVD drive of my choice. DRM free and region free DVD creation is not that hard. Ask around. Some hardware is more friendly than others.
Since you dropped a brand name, I'll mention my technophobe wife. (I know.. Slashdot and wife..) She needed a simple solution. For her it is simply a Magnavox MWR20V6. She shoots the grandkids using a camcorder. Making a DVD is as simple as playing back the tape and pushing record on the DVD recorder (after selecting line in instead of a TV channel). Menu creation is very basic and she needs to remember to finalize the disk. To pass out copies, a simple right click in a linux box using copy to file and then on the ISO copy to disk is the fast way to make duplicates to pass to relatives. Making an iso and making lots of copies from the iso is a very simple process and much faster than any other way I have duplicated DVDs on a budget.
The truth shall set you free!
Free and open source software are great. I can get the source code, study it, modify it, and recompile and install it if I like. Cool.
On the box I'm typing this on, I have access to a lot of high-quality development software for the work of installing it, which isn't much. It's easy to set up a world-class development environment (particularly with the neat new big screen my wife gave me for Christmas). I paid less than a thousand dollars for the computer, and everything's cool.
So what am I supposed to do with open source hardware? I have few skills for working with hardware, not many tools, and everything costs money. Tools cost money. Sensors cost money. Parts cost money. Developing the skills costs money (either for formal instruction or to replace stuff I break). It's much more of a commitment.
Now, suppose I come up with a neat new software hack. I can distribute it freely, and people can use it easily. Suppose I come up with a neat new hardware hack. I can distribute the plans freely, but the only people who can use it have the skills, have the tools, are willing to spend money for the parts, and are willing to live with the risk of breaking something that can't just be rmed and replaced.
I like the idea of freedom of information, but there's a very large difference here between hardware and software.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Also, they only mention NTSC resolution (720x480). Two highly developed countries use 480-line television: United States of America and Japan. Both allow patenting of algorithms used in software.
At first I was excited about the Neuros OSD, but after digging into their byzantine website I found out that it neither writes nor even reads H.264 (AVC). No support for the upcoming standard in video codecs is very disappointing. I would buy one of those on the spot as a media center, but I don't want to recode half of my movies to xvid so it can play them. What's wrong with x264, is the hardware too slow?
OTOH I love the size and the fact that it has USB. Imagine this plus a webcam in a basecap.
Slashdot is *greatly* overestimating the mainstream audiences and general public.
The sad truth is, the general public really doesn't care about open source. They want something that works, and to them, the things that you buy from Sony, LG, Microsoft and others work. They don't care whether the hardware is open-source or proprietary. The fact that the iPhone lacks support for 3rd party applications surely didn't stop hundreds of thousands of people from getting one on opening day.
I think you all are greatly overestimating the capabilities of the mainstream public when it comes to "open source". I'm guessing that the millions and millions of readers of the New York Times will just skip over the article and move on to reading about Britney Spears.
tl;dr: Too much is going on in the news - this was a terrible time to release an article like this that is supposed to introduce the mainstream audience to *anything*.
Isn't that already the case? Most warranties cover only manufacturing defects, and only for a limited period of time. Damage that results from a user's actions - whether it be hacking it to add functionality, or simply spilling a coffee on it - are generally not covered. The trick is determining whether it was the user's actions that caused the hardware to fail, or a defect in the hardware itself.
This is where buyers need to protect themselves by researching the experience of others when dealing with a given company over warranty issues, and factor that in to their purchasing decision. If a company looks for any excuse to deny warranty coverage, it should be avoided. Too many people only consider the cost at the till, and ignore the TCO including the level of after sale support.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Doesn't the GPS System's binary blob require a PIN number ?
;)
(hint : Binary Large OBject)
Blob isn't an acronym. "Binary Large OBject" or the alternative "Basic Large OBject" are both backronyms. Additionally, the backronyms refer to a data type stored in a DBMS - I have never heard them applied to binary blobs in drivers.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Does this mean I can finally get my 400 core hardwire clustered ultra OS (linux based) for free?
Where do I sign up?
This is a total straw man considering that most open source software companies will support their paid product just the same as a closed source company. It is the sites and programmers giving away the software for free who say "no warranties", because obviously they are not going to have time or money to assist everyone who has a problem with their software.
A hardware company which sells hardware products based on open source designs will most certainly have a warranty for their product just the same way closed source hardware companies have warranties. Just because the product you sell is based on open source, doesn't mean you can't warranty it. In fact, you could have more confidence in the design because many other people have tested it too. Who ships out a product without at least testing it a little anyway?
Is there a way to filter out slashdot posts that are just links to the NYT?
Because this is sort of new, and open source software is tried successfully. They could say "inspired by open source".
Its not really just "open hardware" it is the firmware/OS that powers the device. I am sure that 4 months ago we could write code for the Wii but it was useless until someone found how to run code on it. Most devices have the same hardware as computers (processor, RAM, storage space) but finding ways to execute code is very difficult if the developers haven't either encouraged hacking on it or trying to stop code from being run on it.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Most commericial software comes with the same waivers. There is no guarantee for suitability for purpose or functionality. Usually your only recourse is to return the software for a refund of your money and often you don't realistically have that option either.
I could post 2 dozen paragraphs about the evils of the DRM/Copy Protections paradigm at work in various industries. It is that mentality I believe, that causes Sony and Apple among others to restrict the functionality of their devices. They fail to realize that they are trampling on the rights of their consumers when they do this. A legal, technical, and philosophical debate to be sure, but it does apply here.
Regardless of whether or not enough people will actually use these pieces of hardware, I am very encouraged that the New York Times seems to be publicly advocating, or at least educating people that:
1) You own the hardware.
2) You should be able to create, modify, and share any code for it.
This is a GOOD THING.
I'm not going to say Open Source is better then Closed Source. They both have their advantages and drawbacks. There just needs to be a balance between the two.
Open Source Hardware is a little misleading. All hardware by default should be this way, and most of it really is. In fact, from the very beginning, all hardware had been "Open Source". The fact they mention it in this way, may lead one to believe they never had this ability or right to do so, which is very sad.
Linksys routers don't have measures to stop DD-WRT. So with notable exceptions by Sony, and Apple, hardware is already "Open Source". The PC is the best example for this. It is "Open Source Hardware". You can run any code on it that you want, Open Source (Linux) or Closed Source (MS). There have never been any actual restrictions on what you could load onto a PC.
It was companies, that for profit driven reasons, decided to take it away from you the ability to completely own your hardware. IMO, DRM and implementations like that, stop you from enjoying the use of your own property in any way you see fit. For the benefit of the discussion, there has always been big companies that could not risk their hardware being used for unauthorized purposes, needed to control its use, and protect some of the technology from reverse engineering. Instead of selling it, they leased it. That would be the morally correct way to do it. You can't go into someone's home and rearrange the furniture. You should be able to do it in yours.
I don't know of too many hardware products that are openly facilitating custom firmwares. I think Netgear has had a "Hobby" wireless router for "Enthusiasts" for awhile, but aside from that I don't know of too many other examples.
The more manufacturers that figure out that they can release firmware for their hardware, but have an open agreement that customers can use their own, the better off we all are. The warranties would have to be rewritten to allow for this, since a manufacturer should not be responsible for 3rd party firmware crapping out, but I am sure a warranty could cover those situations while protecting the interests of all parties.
CDDAs have a form of copy protection almost identical to that described in the wikipedia article you link to, so I don't think you argument entirely makes sense.
The protection you refer to is in the formatting, not the data. If you simply do a Digital Audio extraction, then the formatting is removed. This leaves you with a 16 bit 44.1Khz PCM audio data file. This can be captured in several ways in the ripping process. DAO is one. SPDIF output is another. Tying directly to the D/A converter and logging the writes with a bitgrabber is another. At the D/A converter it is serial 16Bit data with a serial clock pin and right/left pin. It isn't hard.
Here is a typical 18 bit dual channel A/D converter. All you need to capture is the clock, serial data and latch for both channels. At this component you have audio data, not formatting, subcodes, toc and other non audio data.
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/AD1865.pdf PDF alert.
The truth shall set you free!
Consumer CD copiers which were available in this period respected the copy protection and didn't allow the creation of second-generation copies.
That was classified as an audio device, not a computer data drive. As such, it suffered the same fate as the DAT. Computers did what audio gear wouldn't. Computers were used for writing discs, not consumer grade useless CD copiers. The consumer grade CD copier required the Audio CDR. The computer could care less and would make an audio CD on either a Data CDR or Audio CDR. Again, the computer was tops in the task. It is unencumbered by the restrictions on digital audio recorders.
Vista is trying to put the genie back into the bottle with high def and protected formats. As such, it is picking up many of the functionality flaws of DOA audio equipment of the past.
The truth shall set you free!
This is what the market needs -- a device that can integrate different sources of material so the user can decide how and when to experience it.
Back in the olden days of audio/video, everything hooked up to everything else with a phone jack or an RCA plug. Other than knowing whether a source was high level or low level output, you could do what you wanted -- record a radio broadcast on your reel-to-reel, make a cassette of your favorite LP to listen to in the car, dub a new soundtrack onto a video cassette, whatever. Is it any wonder that the music and entertainment business exploded when consumers had more ways of listening to good programming where and when they wanted?
Now we have "rights management" and, seemingly, a new interface every time we turn around -- coax, ega, vga, s-video, hdmi -- and devices are programmed to not work with each other. It's good to see something like the Neuros on the market, so that we can get back to enjoying our content without having to ask permission first.