Slashdot Mirror
100% Free Software Compatible PC Launches
crimperman writes "The Open-PC project has announced that its first PC will be available at the end of February for €359. They claim the mini-ITX desktop machine is energy efficient, consumer ready, easy to upgrade, and — significantly — uses only hardware that has free software drivers available. As you'd expect, it comes with GNU/Linux which is running KDE (a €10 donation to the KDE project in included in the price). Interestingly all the key decisions on design, pricing etc. have been made by the community via online polls. The spec of the machine is pretty reasonable for the price: Atom 1.6GHz dual-core processor, 3GB RAM, 160GB HDD, Intel 950 graphics."
The prices approach the price of Apple hardware. I'd rather get a Mac and run Linux on an open source VM.
950 video at that price why not ion or a real desktop cpu?
I wanted to buy a Free PC, but I couldn't afford it.
I can go to Walmart and get a better machine with Windows already on it for half the price.
For the second time I ask, who do I have to suck off to get my shitty product slashvertised?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That's about $500 dollars, which is $50 more than I paid for a 16" Asus laptop for my wife for Christmas. Pretty much the same hardware too, other than her laptop came 1 gb more ram, a core2duo processor and a screen. It even uses the same chipset... The laptop came with windows 7 also so you can dualboot whatever flavor of linux you want.
How about the BIOS? That's never considered software by the FOSS crowd for some reason.
Or run Linux natively. I have a slightly dated 24" iMac with an ATI Radeon GPU. I ran OS X for a few days and then got frustrated with the limited and over-intrusive UI, and with the tediousness of dealing with the various software ports projects. (The latter aren't awful, and I don't mean to disparage the people working on this, but it's nothing like just having yum or apt-get already there and just waiting to install thousands of excellent free packages.)
So I installed rEFIt, and shrunk OS X down to a tiny partition I never boot into. Instead, I run Fedora 12 with all open source / free software drivers, including sound and 3D-accelerated video. (I think maybe the webcam doesn't work, but I don't really care.) Definitely the nicest Linux workstation I've ever had.
Came here to hear somebody moan about the graphics and am leaving satisfied.
No sig today...
the nvidia ion? the one with closed-source drivers? ...hmm...
Of course if you look at this from a strict price/performance standpoint, it's not going to win - the point is solid support of the hardware is possible with fully open source code. How does this play out? Hard to say. I'd like to see a review geared to evaluation of points such as stability, responsiveness, usability of major open source programs (Blender, anyone?) and how/whether a fully open driver stack impacts that experience.
Apple wins in the market because they create a smooth, integrated experience that has view technical "gotchas" waiting to pounce on the consumer. The point of projects such as this (IMHO anyway) is to try to achieve something similar with open source - a hardware/software stack that can be tuned for a performance that, while perhaps not the fastest possible, is "smooth".
Realistically, how much horsepower is actually needed for anything not involving heavy duty graphics or video editing? Wouldn't it perhaps be worth trading off a bit of the "latest and greatest" hardware performance for something that was quality components, solid support and would run reliably for a long time? I know I'd be interested.
It'll be interesting to see if they can find a way to illustrate the benefits of such an experience, even if they can create it - and whether the open source audience will be sufficiently impressed to buy it or not. I know that if my machine were to croak tomorrow, I would at least be curious - a Walmart PC or Dell might have better specs for a cheaper price but I'd be scared of component quality and assembly QC - that's one reason folks still build their own boxes, after all. My current machine was assembled from parts years ago, and has been quite reliable (as well as fast enough) through years of building Gentoo updates and other fairly intense desktop tasks - that's what I want for my next machine, because this month's hardware will be slow next month anyway and I want my $$ to last. Is this it? Who knows, but I'd be curious to see what a real in-depth review has to say.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I really don't see the point of this. Perhaps back in 1998 when it took a lot of effort to get Linux up and running this might have a market, today, I can buy almost any laptop/desktop and install Ubuntu on it with little to no problems. Why should I have to pay $400+ more for a computer that gets me less? For $600 I can get a Core i7 gamer rig and not a crappy "nettop". For $150? I'd buy it in a heartbeat. For $250, I might consider it. For more than the price of a Mac Mini? No way.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Wow! A $500 Atom based desktop (monitor sold separately)... For reference, bought a $219 Acer netbook, with Windows and a smallish display (hey, it's a netbook). Now that only came with 1 gig of ram, but for $30 I can swap that to 2 gig. Fails worse that Coakley in MA!!!
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Nice idea, and I keep wondering why Ubuntu doesn't do this, in an "it's up to you" option deal how to go about things. Normal distro, then take your chances on whatever hardware you got, or, something they can make money at, a set of a small variety of competitively priced machines-netbook, notebook, desktop, server- that they sell, that their main devs, for at least the long term releases, do absolute testing on so that everything "just works" 100% guaranteed, along with recommended peripherals.
Sort of like the apple model of matched software and hardware, *but* with the distinction of no hissy fits from the company about using other hardware, either. Buy their gear, with their software preinstalled, you get priority warranty and useability support. Buy or build your idea/choice of hardware, you get such support as exists today, which is hit or miss, go lurk on the forum if you have any problems.
This raises an interesting question - whether a PC like this, which purports to use hardware that is fully documented, is sufficiently "free" for every possible scenario. A "more free" approach would be to use "open source hardware" (insofar as is legally possible, I believe things like GPS hardware have disclosure limits imposed by the legal system). By "open source", I'm referring to hardware that includes not only API documentation but hardware descriptions usable for chip production - things like OpenSparc and the OpenGraphics card. I doubt there are enough such pieces to form a fully functional PC (particularly when it comes to things like monitors) but for the sake of argument let's assume there are.
In theory, of course, the fewer restrictions on any IP related to making the computer work the better, but in practice modern PC hardware is not something that can be realistically produced (at least today) by any hobbyist. The physical hardware also doesn't benefit from the "cheap copy" properties of software, so the in-depth knowledge of how to make the hardware is hard to apply even when present. Also, such designs are (to my knowledge without exception, at least in the PC hardware arena) well behind the maximally performing hardware developed in non-open contexts. So the price to pay for full hardware knowledge is quite steep in terms of performance. The only real end-user applicable argument is that full hardware knowledge means the potential for better software support.
So a question for those in the open hardware community - is there potential for driver development using information of the kind available from OpenSparc and OpenGraphics to develop better performing drivers than can be achieved with the information (say) considered sufficient to permit inclusion of hardware in a product like the one in this article? If not, are there any other benefits (aside from the admittedly non-trivial one of being able to learn anything you want to about your computer) to an "open source" hardware platform?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
No, the extra $300 is what you pay for ordering all those parts and preparing an assembly line to make computers but in quantities of less than millions. Certain costs are largely the same whether you're making five hundred computers or five million computers, so they cost more on a per unit basis when you're in the former category rather than the latter. Other costs scale, but not linearly. You can't make a computer with all the same parts as that Acer for the same price unless you're making and selling as many computers as Acer.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I have to wonder why the 950 rather than something a little newer... My laptop's a year old and has a 4500 MHD, which was equivalent to a low end nVidia or ATI card from a year prior, and can do h264 hardware decoding.
No wireless chipset, of course. Because after 15 years of WiFi being in common usage worldwide, there still isn't a single chipset available with full support for 100% free software.
Except for all the atheros cards supported by ath5k and ath9k in the Linux kernel, or the bcm cards supported by openfwwf (though I prefer the atheros stuff as it's manufacturer not only helps out but even released their own code for reference). There may be others.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I can get an AMD Athlon X2 Dual-core 2ghz laptop with 4 gigs of ram, a 250 gig hd, AND built-in display, mouse pad, keyboard, hdmi, 4 usb, 8x dvd, gigabit ethernet, b/g/n wireless, webcam, mic, speakers, UPS good for several hours (it IS a laptop), card reader, etc., for less.
And that includes the Microsoft tax (Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit).
Shouldn't a box that isn't a laptop, has lower specs, no battery, no display, less ram, smaller disk capacity on a cheaper hard drive, no webcam, no M$TAX, etc., be CHEAPER?
Nobody's going to buy one of these.
Man, if you're satisfied by people moaning on Slashdot, you must be one happy camper.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
I agreed with you until I saw what the PC actually was. That is, built entirely from off the shelf components. You can buy the Mini-ITX motherboard they use that with comes with a 1.6Ghz Atom for £64.60 on Amazon.co.uk. The case, power supply, and RAM are all quite ordinary. You can in fact build this exact computer for at least £100 less on your own.
I would have been more impressed if they pulled an OLPC and used a FOSS BIOS and designed a motherboard.
eclecti.cc
But does it have a Free BIOS? or use LinuxBios?
The lock on the desktop market is the private little BIOS monopoly Microsoft keeps in business. That lets them tweak every individual computer model "just a little bit" so the standard APIs like power management don't quite work perfectly.
It'll be cheaper in the long run, since it barely draws power. I mean, sure, it may take it 4 minutes to launch a browser that would take a normal PC 2 seconds to launch, but you can spend that time thinking of how *green* you're being and how free and liberated your computer is while it breaks a sweat just from booting. You can also take a nap while you tell Gimp to adjust the contrast of a 2-megapixel photo, or spend quality time with your loved ones if you ever try to run Eclipse.
This computer is good for your life. Don't be so obsessed with stats.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Motherboard Intel D945GCLF2 with integrated Atom 330 (2 cores, 4 threads) = U$S 103
HD 160 SATA = U$S 53
3 GB of RAM (1 x 2 GB, 1 x 1 GB) = U$S 81
MiniITX Case with 500W PSU = U$S 75
Sub Total: u$s 312
- 10% VAT applied in Argentina already in those prices= -32
Total: u$s 280
OpenPC: u$s 512
Even if you add the price of building it, and a reasonable profit, it's still insanely expensive.
And my hardware choice is actually better, because the motherboard is 100% Intel and not a cheap-ass Asrock.
By chance, I happen to be running that same hardware configuration I just posted. Here's lspci's output:
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82945G/GZ/P/PL Memory Controller Hub (rev 02)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82945G/GZ Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 01)
00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 3 (rev 01)
00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 4 (rev 01)
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI Controller #1 (rev 01)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI Controller #2 (rev 01)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI Controller #3 (rev 01)
00:1d.3 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI Controller #4 (rev 01)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 01)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev e1)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801GB/GR (ICH7 Family) LPC Interface Bridge (rev 01)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) IDE Controller (rev 01)
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801GB/GR/GH (ICH7 Family) SATA IDE Controller (rev 01)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 01)
01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02)
04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8185 IEEE 802.11a/b/g Wireless LAN Controller (rev 20)
And extract from cpuinfo (There are actually 2 cores with 2 threads each, which shows up as 4 processors on GNU/Linux)
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 28
model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 1596.098
cache size : 512 K
BTW: This hardware is 100% Hackintosh friendly. I am dual booting Ubuntu and OSX on it.
* Those are prices in Argentina (Yes, electronics here are way more expensive than elsewhere), and they include a 10.5% VAT, so that price would actually be ~280U$S. And the components are better, and still 100% Free. Except off course both this system and their system contains privative hardware design, privative BIOS and firmware, etc. So, not really 100% open.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Purchasing a non-Windows system on an Atom makes no sense at all. The only current use for an Atom is to run Windows. If you are going to run a non-Windows (free software, open source) system you should be looking at ARM based systems. Part of being an informed consumer is recognizing monopolies (both software and hardware) and making purchasing decisions that do not promote said monopolies. I'll bet any surveys did not include a choice of hardware (and one has to wonder how/why KDE got selected given that there are 3+ other window managers available under Linux -- most of which have a much smaller footprint).
So, design by committee is okay when open components are involved?
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
This computer is good for your life. Don't be so obsessed with stats.
So if they stick an apple logo on it and jack up the price a bit more, it'll sell like hotcakes?
I kid, I kid.
While I applaud the decision to focus on hardware which is Open Source friendly, this isn't exactly rocket science. Linux has matured to the point where odds are pretty good that any given system will function "out of the box", without resorting to proprietary drivers.
Full hardware acceleration on newer GPUs can still be problematic, of course. The Intel 950 -- while it is in fact relatively new -- isn't particularly current in terms of features or performance. So effectively we're still in a situation where we're settling for second-rate GPU performance, just to avoid the need for proprietary drivers. AMD/ATI's push to work more closely with the Open Source community is starting to bear fruit; I'm hopeful that we'll see better support for current GPUs going forward.
All the good folk who are say they can "get a better machine, for less, and it's even got Windoze installed!" just totally miss the point.
There are many people out there like me who'd happily pay EXTRA to get a machine that is completely free of Micro$oft or Apple, and doesn't count as a sale for either of them. I will not contribute to either of these organisations in any way.
(I think maybe the webcam doesn't work, but I don't really care.)
Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but THIS is my biggest problem with both Linux and Linux fanboys (I'm not necessary saying you're the latter; you just caused me to think of it). Core functionality is relatively easy to get, sure, even if it occasionally takes more work than a Windows user like myself is accustomed to. However, it's all the boundary cases that keep Linux from being mainstream: certain drivers not existing, certain hardware not being supported, poor excuses for replacements of legitimate products (OpenOffice versus Microsoft Office, for example), etc.
I've tried hard for two years to like Linux (I installed Ubuntu on two computers during that time and used it reasonably frequently), and it just never happened. But the absolute worst part of all of this is how Linux users often say that people should switch over to their OS because it's free, there aren't any viruses, and everything works just fine. However, they neglect to mention how much work and inside knowledge is required to make everything work, and when people point out things that just work better on a different OS (or work at all, period), they say "well I don't really care about that, so it doesn't matter." I've got news for all of you: we like our OSes because they're simple and functional, with no headaches involved. Maybe if the Linux community started caring when things didn't work, their OS might actually have a shot at competing with the other two.
Real Linux Users build their own computers!
Predicted Reply:
"We used to compute with 5 ton stones and dead penguins, now get of my lawn!"
Indeed. Intel graphics are useless for nearly every use.
Only if you define "useless == not the best".
They're mostly completely acceptable for all "normal" desktop use, including non-gaming non-professional 3D. Stuff like compiz works just fine with Intel graphics, even if processor is just Atom.
And in the context of Linux and Free Open Source drivers, they're simply the best.
Please don't confuse American prices with European prices. €359 is very reasonable over here - you won't find a laptop for that price over here either. The laptop you describe would be €600 if you're willing to stand in line at 8AM.
Remember, we pay around 20% in sales tax.
As everyone's being so negative about this, I thought I'd throw in my 2c.
I quite like this idea, in fact I may well buy one. I'd never heard of it before today.
Reasons I'd buy it:
1. Form factor is neat and a sensible design (I'm tired of my big old clunky PC box taking up a lot of space).
2. I only use Linux, and the fact that someone's gone to the effort of ensuring everything will work for me is great. No hassle searching the net trying to work out which hardware to buy. I'm busy and this saves me time.
3. The price point is good. Macs might offer you a better price/performance ratio - but I don't care. I want something that is sufficient at a low price. This is 190 euros cheaper than a Mac Mini, so that is 190 euros saved. I don't care if it could have been more powerful for just a bit more cash. I also know exactly what hardware is in it, and it's been chosen by people thinking about more than margins (unlike Apple, who anecdotally at least seem to be very good at choosing hardware that breaks frequently).
4. I like the idea of the project and the fact that it gives money to the open source community.
My main criticism is that the hard disk size is a little small.
RS
I mean, sure, it may take it 4 minutes to launch a browser that would take a normal PC 2 seconds to launch
you have PC that lauches a browser in 2 seconds? Wow, where can I get one of these super-computers. FF on my 3x core AMD takes ...well, longer than that. Even IE takes longer, but that's cached at startup to pretend its slim and fast.
Yeah, but my point is - most computing tasks nowadays require feeble CPU, its IO that is the bottleneck - reading all that bloated code into RAM for example. So as long as you don't use CPU-intensive tasks (like video/photo editing) then a simpler CPU is more than sufficient, and that's also a trend i'd like encouraged simply because if software developers are reminded that code still needs to be efficient and performant even under low-power CPUs, they will develop such code. if they think that everyone has 20Gb RAM and a 50-core 12Ghz CPU, they'll develop code that requires such a beast.
From the "specifications" page at the link:
Only components with complete technical specifications, as provided by the manufacturers, were used.
So where are the schematics, PC board artwork, parts lists, mechanical drawings of the chassis and brackets, etc.?
Not to mention the fact that the chip designs are copyrighted by Intel...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I personally think you are mixing up task friendly with user friendly which are two completely different things. Linux is task friendly, it doesn't care if you use a GUI or CLI, it doesn't care if you string together huge amounts of commands from separate programs, if the desktop is here, there, or even exists at all-Just like the old batch running mainframes of old Linux will happily run whatever. Which makes sense, as it was based on Unix, the classic big iron mainframe OS.
Windows and Mac OSX are user friendly, in that you can spend your entire life never seeing a CLI interface, the GUI is designed for the "hunt and peck" type of exploration, with lots of icons and wizards and GUI menus. Linux guys don't care for it because it is NOT designed to be Task friendly, although with Powershell Windows is getting better in that regard, but in the end expecting Windows and OSX to be task friendly is like expecting a laptop to behave like a mainframe-they are simply two different beasts.
In the end it comes down to taste and experince. The problem IMHO that Linux guys have with adoption is because they like task friendly and find it a more powerful way to work, they assume that others will too, and that simply isn't the case. The average Windows user, which I come into contact with in my little shop every day, won't even go near control panel in Windows because they find it "too powerful" and they are scared they will "break something". To those type of people, which is the vast majority of modern computer users, ANY CLI is simply too much. Task friendly will simply never ever work for them, because they don't think or behave in a task oriented manner.
But since Linux is written BY geeks and FOR geeks, with a much higher than average IT degree holding client base I just don't foresee Linux ever changing from a task friendly to a user friendly design. It would simply change too much of the underpinnings, and Linux users like their CLI interfaces too much to give them up. Which is fine, hammers and screwdrivers and all that, but don't think because YOU like task oriented and are comfortable thinking in a task oriented mindset that you can convert the majority away from a user oriented mindset, because it just ain't happening.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Sadly with the 945GC chipset you are not even using less power. A cheap AMD machine on a 760G motherboard runs at less than 30 watts, while some of these 945GC atom boards idle in the 30-35 watt area. I agree on the family time, though. The a Regor build might keep you too busy. This is one of the Atom's "features".
Is Ubuntu 9.04 new enough for you? Sound? Needed CLI. Wireless? Whole bunch of CLI. And I have been building and selling PCs since the days of Win3.x and can count the number of times I have had to go CLI on one hand with fingers left over. Do I use CLi on occasion? Sure, because especially networking it is more comfortable for me to use CLI.
But You are making the same mistake that many Linux users make, because you are comfortable with CLI you think others will be too, or because you use CLI or Regedit in Windows, well others must do it too. They aren't and they don't. I'm sorry, but only what most would call a "power user" touches either of those in Windows, and they are a very small minority. I can tell you that if I offered my clients $100 to bring up a terminal or registry editor in Windows that I wouldn't lose a dime. Windows simply doesn't need either of those in day to day tasks.
Lets try the same in Linux, and you can see if the same holds true. there is a way to disable bash, yes? I'm sure that there is a CHMOD command that will allow you to disable bash so you can't access it, yes? So do it, disable bash. Agree to run WITHOUT any CLI for 6 months. No bash, no Bourne, no shell access to you the user at all. I'm willing to bet the first major update and you'd be borked, because there would be something that needs CLI access to tweak or fix. Sound, networking, wireless, something.
Which as I said makes sense, as Linux is based on a mainframe OS (Unix) and is developed largely by corporations using Linux as a server OS. On servers there are admins, who by and large prefer the speed and control afforded by CLI. But as I said that is a task friendly mindset, not a user friendly one. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I have plenty of Windows customers that don't even know Windows HAS CLI or regedit. They have never used them, never needed them, and wouldn't know where to even find them. That is a user friendly mindset, which is what OSX and Windows excels at. Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does make their users vastly different.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The fact that you found it necessary to use a terminal with Ubuntu doesn't necessarily indicate an Ubuntu failing.
Plenty of old timers don't realize that Linux isn't perpetually stuck in 1998.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.