Why One Person Thinks Raspberry Pi Is Unsuitable For Education
An anonymous reader writes "Raspberry Pi was designed for education. As any popular product is bound to, Raspberry Pi has been criticized a lot for things like lack of a box, absence of supplied charger or even WiFi. Raspberry Pi has a much more fundamental flaw, which directly conflicts with its original goal: it is a black box tightly sealed with patents and protected by corporations. It isn't even remotely an open platform."
The author thinks that patents on ARM are a serious threat to the openness of the platform (among other things like the proprietary GPU blob needed to boot). But even the FSF doesn't go that far. Wired had an editorial with the foundation justifying "selling out a little to sell a lot" that has a lot of info on the choices they had to make to hit their cost target.
To speak about open hardware, there’s a device called Milkymist One based on an FPGA with an embedded LM32 processor. It’s as open as possible and is actually used in production (as opposed to mere hacking) to create some nice video effects.
I went to their site and I see one youtube video of a two man show using it and some screen shots. That's what you call "in production"? If I send you a video of my Raspberry Pi rendering Mandelbrot patterns in front of a crowded room, will you call it "in production?" Furthermore the first thing they say on their site:
Milkymist One
The Milkymist One is an experimental hardware appliance for live video effects.
I appreciate this blog's spirit and he has some valid points (like making it more durable) but he's really overselling some of these devices. He goes so far as to suggest TI's Beagle Board and casually dismisses that it's six or seven times the cost of the Raspberry Pi's Model A. I don't even ... know where to start. I own six Raspberry Pis and one Arduino Mega 2560. They cost me roughly the same.
My work here is dung.
Insanity. There is never going to be a product that satisfies these fucking purists. Go back to your cave and clean your 'pits. You make me sick.
Design something better if you don't like it. Who is stopping you? Most likely the submitter wrote the article.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Seriously, you're worried about patents on a microchip? If thats your concern, you're fucked as you won't find one anywhere anytime in the foreseeable future that ISN'T patented.
You'll find one without a patent some time AFTER a fabrication plant opens up that you can afford to use for silly ideas like FOSS chips.
I.E. its not likely to ever happen. Some people have no idea what reality is like at all.
--BitZtream
Paragraphs of text in that large of a font is unreadable. I DO have eyes. I can see things, including normal sized words.
I prefer a good apple pi myself.
Well that's just terrible. We'd best remove these horrible closed architectures, and revert to what we had before - those simple to understand Microsoft windows based PC's with simple lectures on how to use Microsoft word!
sincerely,
ghost of steve
His solution to getting away from ARM patents is to use an FPGA? Uhm, find me an FPGA chip without a patent then.
Dear Slashdot,
STOP ACCEPTING IGNORANT BLOG SLASVERTISMENTS.
So mr moaner moans about it being too closed. He also compares it to the BBC micro -- anyone know if that was open in the way he describes? I presume not...
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold much water. He's assuming that devices useful for education must be composed of parts that are free of any patents, etc. That simply isn't true, and the devices can teach valuable skills and lessons even if some parts are patented by other corporations. I learned a good deal of basic computing using an Apple ][ and I turned out fine, despite any patents of specific parts of the device I used.
Show me some open hardware with comparable price/performance ratio. Something that's actually available and shipping in quantity.
They're closed source, built in factories that don't allow public tours. The CAD drawings for parts aren't even available to registered Ford mechanics, never mind the consumer or student. Most auto tech classes only teach installation and repair of OEM parts.
There's no way a student can learn adequately about the repair and maintenance of cars while working on Ford products. This is unacceptable.
It's not perfect in achieving it's goals, so it's unsuitable and totally worthless. Let us go on not having any solution at all and twiddle our thumbs waiting for the 100% perfect option which will never happen.
Three weeks after Raspberry Pi was actually released, better bang-for-the-buck boards were already on the market.
Seriously, his only objection is "the hardware itself is closed"?
This is intended to be sold into schools, not top-end engineering facilities. Nobody's going to design the next ARM killer at the age of 15. They're going to be getting the idea of breaking problems down into their component parts and developing structured solutions to them. For which this is perfect.
a black box tightly sealed with patents and protected by corporations
So was my Commodore 64. So fucking what?
Bill Gates learned to program on a computer he didn't own though a terminal and look how damaged he is, from that terrible experience. Or not. The point of Raspberry Pi is not to teach children how to build computers, the point is to teach them how to use computers and development scripts, software, and websites, while giving them access to the educational and social benefits of the Internet, inexpensively. Using a binary blob doesn't diminish that.
So i saw This and couldnt agree more.
Now manufactured in the UK by Sony, in a factory a few miles away from the company audio CDwho coded the rootkit for them.
While I agree with his idea that hardware should be more open, perhaps it can be turned around as a teachable moment; for example (a little fudged since I am in a rush and cannot RTFA, but hopefully the point gets across):
Teacher: ... ok and let's now try to see how the video works, pull up the software code.
Student: OK! .... Hmm, I can't. What am I doing wrong?
Teacher: Nothing, they just won't allow us to see it and use it, or know what it is doing. This is not a good philosophy to have for education, science, or any learning in general. Everything must be out in the open if we are to take it seriously and build on it with new research or ideas.
The Raspberry Pi is an ultra-low-cost embedded system with Linux and an ethernet connection. Why do some people feel a need to tilt at "designed for education!" windmills whenever some cool low-cost high-capability electronics comes along?
The quoted article is a troll. It is also whining and elitist. Do we want to encourage programming as a skill, or support a cult of purity? Is a lack of low level open source drivers for the Pi going to have any impact on novices? If you want complete open source platforms, they exist. Just not for $35.
Why is Snark Required?
Where does the FSF endorse the Pi? Do binary blob drivers really fall under the exemption for "auxiliary processors or low-level processors, none of whose software is meant to be installed or changed by the user or by the seller"?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Um... hello? For the last year the Raspberry Pi foundation has being constantly saying exactly that - designed specifically for education!
Please show us a general purpose CPU that is unencumbered by patents. Relatively modern would help too.
It's interesting that his choice is an FPGA based processor. FPGA's are anything but open. The vendor's backend tools are the only ones allowed to exist. The file formats are architecture details are propriety and secret. Reverse engineer the format and try to create your own tools and the vendor will sue you.
that's what we're doing with the http://rhombus-tech.net/ project. the scope of the project has the goals of the raspberrypi foundation as a subset; CPUs that we are actively pursuing have to have full GPL compliance, and are as open as possible / practical. where binary blobs exist, reverse-engineered alternatives are encouraged to be created. the first CPU Card is based on the Allwinner A10 (ARM Cortex A8, 1ghz, overclockable to 1.5ghz). the binary startup blob which is essential to set the DDR3 RAM timings before continuing with the 2nd phase of the boot process was reverse-engineered a few months ago; the MALI GPU has the limadriver project on the case; efforts are underway to investigate the proprietary video hardware encode/decode engine. we were given full access to the GPL kernel and u-boot sources within 48 hours of asking (even though we did not have a GPL compliance request outstanding).
answering your question, archiebunker: designing something better is a bit harder than you might imagine. full access to technical datasheets is often denied: you are literally at the mercy of the SoC vendor and if they don't like the way you dress, or smell, or if you're not one of their pally-pal pals you can flat-out forget gaining access to the documentation. one of the key reasons is that they simply don't know if you have the expertise, or if you can be trusted not to pass on information to their competitors. so, if it turns out that you don't have the expertise, and you have to come to them with questions, you just cost them money. if you leak information to their competitors, you REALLY just cost them money - serious money.
so what we're doing with the EOMA-68 initiative is to make the hard part - the CPU+DDR3+NAND - be "just a mass-produced component" that you can literally buy off-the-shelf in a retail store. if it comes in a case, you get access to the EOMA-68 interfaces and whatever else the CPU Card has on the user-facing front edge; if you buy it without the case, you also get access to the internal jumpers and additional connectors, for educational and R&D purposes as well as factory-install purposes.
we're getting there. it's been a long haul, and we will not stop. the team behind the initiative will be sticking with this for the next decade, keeping it constantly up-to-date and ensuring that new CPU Cards are always available.
here's the previous article about it - actually it was the PCB layout that was completed - the schematics were completed 2 months ago:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/2322207/rhombus-tech-a10-eoma-68-cpu-card-schematics-completed
And as with any results of R&D work are easier to copy than develop your own from scratch, and so closing of portions of a design is needed to protect investment.
If people want to donate their time they are more than welcome to - if you can design and build an equivalent processor+GPU combo for the same per-chip cost then knock yourself out...
Mike
Over the summer, I talked to a lot of teachers and experts about the raspberry pi and it's rollout in UK schools - everyone said the same thing. It's unsuitable because it doesn't solve any problems. It's not that much cheaper than a PC because most of the cost remains in the monitor. DVI/HDMI monitors are not cheap or abundant, especially in primary schools, where the main issue is. It's not smaller, because a keyboard, mouse and monitor need space.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
there are quite a lot of other points made in the original post - mention of patents, mention of cost etc etc - so it is quite easy to miss the key words "black box". focussing on the patents themselves in isolation is missing the point. it's *NOT* about the patents. it's about the fact that the device is a "black box".
so it depends on whether you consider hypocrisy to be important or not. many people do not. what broadcom is really saying is "we support education and learning using our products because it's a good wheeze that makes us money and makes us look good at the same time. but you're not permitted to learn about this, this or this feature: we're keeping that entirely secret. if you want the source code, you can fuck off".
the CPU being used has a rather unique design: the GPU boots up the CPU. the fact that the boot-up sequence is critically dependent on a proprietary blob to which no-one is given access REALLY pisses people off. privacy concerns, education hypocrisy: the works.
Um... hello? For the last year the Raspberry Pi foundation has being constantly saying exactly that - designed specifically for education!
Hello. I was including the Raspberry Pi foundation itself in the set of "some people". They can design for education all they want, but if the final product is better suited for a million other things, then stop clinging to "Buh whaddabout the chillllldren??!?!" and just use the thing. Surely you can think of some uses for this awesome board that have nothing whatsoever to do with education... can't you?
I started working on an embedded project (hobby, not work) that needed something beefier than an Arduino. Took my time looking at what's out there: various ARM dev boards, the Raspi (with its proprietary Broadcom chip) and one or two other "embeddable" platforms.
Last week, I was working out how to interface to a display (and the grinding that would entail). The same day, Slashdot ran the "hardware is dead" article. So, I took a chance and ordered a generic 7" tablet. They aren't kidding - these things are under $60 shipped. That's like 2 days' parking in downtown SF.
It uses the Allwinner A13 SoC (ARM core, integrated 10/100 ethernet, GPL'd kernel sources). Runs Android 4 out of the box, but Debian will also run. I can just hang an Arduino off the USB bus for my custom I/O, and code up a touch-based interface. Shoot, looks like it'll be easier to develop for than the Raspi.
I'm all for hackery for hackery's sake, but now that it's "the future," I'm glad we don't have to lift ourselves up by the bootstraps in order to do every little thing. It lets me concentrate on hackery at the macro level.
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
I was at the Multicore Challenge at the UWE in Bristol, UK on Monday.
I went last year. It was fascinating.
Anyhoo... David May was there talking about multicore parallelism. It turns out that the last patent protecting the Transputer designs has lapsed.
SOoooo... if you want some open hardware get cracking! You can probably run them fast enough these days to bit-bang an LVDS/HDMI/CSI interface with little more than an amp.
Make mine the one with the 16 by 16 array please....
Seriously. Anyone got the balls to try it? I'm in!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Don't the /. mods even read what they're posting anymore? This is not worth showing on this site. STFU!
Google gooseberry for alternative
-- David
It doesn't need to be open hardware.
The whole point on the education side is to have cheap computers that schools can use in bulk for teaching kids, not a lesson on open platforms. Not a lesson on building tiny computers. It's designed to be a small linux box that can run/make applications; nothing more. How many other computers in education now are completely open down to the individual chips, eh? Hasn't crippled their use in education yet!
While the Apple ][ documentation was so complete that it included Woz's annotated 6502 assembler source listings (I still have my copies in storage), the provided documentation was less extensive for the Atari 400/800 and Vic-20/C-64...
However, that's not really the point.
Those old-school bits of tin had no abstraction layers, so for coders to make any use of them beyond the basic (pardon the pun), they needed to address the hardware directly. I still remember having to load assembler routines on the Apple in order to toggle the speaker port sufficiently often to get actual musical tones (as I am equally old-school).
This really is not the case today - you only *need* that level of *hardware* documentation if you're going to write low-level OS drivers, and that's really beyond the scope of the project in question. The documentation of the abstraction platforms that sit on top of this Pi hardware are extensively... extensive, and are more than sufficient for most educational situations.
In addition, part of the learning process is discovering and understanding the limitations of the platform you're using, and deciding if you want to progress your learning further...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
A Raspberry Pi can't compete with older, used PCs for purchase price, performance, expandability, etc.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Where are schools able to buy identically configured old used computer hardware that is still healthy enough for prolonged student use and small enough that it doesn't take up half the classroom for everyone to have one at $25 a pop, while consuming a fraction of the power usage from traditional machines?
Why would students need expandability for such a learning device?
What performance critical code are students going to be running on the devices that isn't met by what the Pi provides, keeping in mind it can run Quake 3 Arena at 1080p at a modest framerate?
I think your statement is also irrelevant to be honest.
Oh for crying out loud....
The R-Pi is perhaps the best $35 computer out there.
Sure it might have some constraints but heck textbooks are copyright for ever.
Multiple ABI and API.
Multiple programming languages.
Opportunity for improvements abound.
Yes it lacks this and that but
it takes ten min to reflash a SD card to
load a homework task, to load a new OS,
to load a new ABI of the same OS.
It is like making bread, did you clear the field,
till the field, did you gather native grass seeds, did you harvest,
thresh, winnow, mill, the flower. Did you start the
fire with a match or wait for nature to flash a bolt
of lightening and give you fire. Did you culture your
own strain of natural yeast.
The R-Pi may be the best teaching tool for computer science
in the last 50+ years.
In a year, in two years who knows.
But it is cool to live in the future.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
These is but one question that any administrator is going to ask about the Pi: "Does this thing improve the school exam results?"
The answer is no. It isn't on the curriculum. The skills the Pi teaches aren't graded, so a better exam improvement would be had by just spending the time revising basic Word document formatting, which is. The Pi is a technical solution for a non-technical problem: A dumbed-down IT curriculum that long ago abandoned any real computer science or technology in favor of basic Office skills, because those are the skills demanded by most employers. Improve the curriculum first, and the Pi will be the tool to serve it.
I run an after school electronics club. In six days, I will be talking the group through installing a dual H-bridge into their robot. In thirteen days, I'm going to have to teach them to program the chip that will drive it. A PIC16F628A. In ASM. I have a policy against using any black-box in this design: They need a microcontroller, and they *will* understand and write every last instruction to make it go if it takes all year. So I really, really wish they had been taught something about the fundamentals of computer science already, and I didn't have to start from the foundations for this project. They really want to drive their robot around, and that's not happening without programming.
Fortunatly it is a very simple program they must write, probably only about twenty instructions at the most.
The problem with the Pi is none of the above. The problem is it's DEFECTIVE!. USB doesn't work properly, the SD card driver hogs the cpu, the board was revised because of some big flaws. The worst is, USB will very probably never work alright due to defects in the USB IP in the processor and a terrible kernel driver for it. Try to do anything even remotely meaningful with the Pi and you'll hit a brick wall.
See:
http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=11529
http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=5249
http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=7866
http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=12097
http://www.element14.com/community/thread/19573?tstart=30
And there's more: several people have been banned for stating the Pi is defective in several forum threads. Apparently this foundation enjoys behaving like a big bully. First the fanboys come and bully the person who complains (it can't be... that's not really a problem... what do you expect for a few bucks), then the moderators come and look for excuses to ban him/her.
I've sold my Pi on eBay for more than it cost me (yeah, for real), and you should sell yours too. It's not worth the trouble.
Look. What Raspberry Pi has done is great and commendable. I applaud it. But it has also issues, and shouting those down who think about those issues and want to do something about them is -- uh, forget it. I don't know how to put it politely.
In Tomorrow's news:
"Peter Zotov (who we wrote up didn't like the closed source nature of the Raspberry Pi) suffered a massive heart attack when he learned that some schools are using iPads as a teaching aid. Doctors were able to revive him, however, and he was recovering well in hospital before someone showed him a BBC Micro, whereupon he had another heart attack and died. The pathologist has cited "closed source" as the reason for the massive heart attacks which ultimately killed him."
Don't think students are going to re-architect the CPU of the thing, only use it to build apps and find ways to use it in robotics or other applications requiring a cheap on-board computer. I mean according to this guys rant, standard desktops/laptops can't be used in education because all the patents and proprietary code involved in bringing them to market.
Also, education is not going to turn around an invent something using Pi that will be re-sold as a product, meaning the licensing, patent, proprietary nature of Pi is moot.
Sure, if there are shortcomings in the way that the Pi hardware works then by all means claim it is not effective as an educational tool. But people have to get over this whole "open = good, closed = bad" mentality and applying it in situations that simply are idiotic to defend.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It isn't irrelevant, but there are matters of degree here. The Pi is a relatively open platform that would be a great educational tool.
Would I love to have an even MORE open platform - absolutely!
Right now I am typing this on an FOSS browser on an FOSS operating system. However, there are a few bits here and there that are proprietary, as is much of the hardware and firmware in my system. I'd prefer that stuff to be FOSS, but since no such computer is currently available, I make do with what I have.
Even RMS lives with this kind of compromise - since to do otherwise is to deny himself the use of a computer entirely.
There are a number of suppliers of off-lease computer equipment. I've deployed hundreds of them for large companies... A classroom worth is a small order. You'd have to tell me where you are located for me to come up with a list of specific distributors near you.
Just to prove the validity of the point (for an international audience) a reasonably close qualifier would be the P4 Samba from geeks.com: http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?InvtId=SAMBA845V-24-4-R
That's a nice little logical-fallacy you've got there... Setting the goal-posts so nothing but a Pi equivalent will match. Sorry, but no. The monitors attached to a Pi aren't going to be any smaller than the monitors attached to a PC, nor will those same monitors use any more or less electricity... And while PCs will consume more power than a Pi, it's probably overshadowed by the power usage of those monitors, and if not, electricity is cheap enough in the first-world to make it a non-issue for running PCs a few hours a day.
For EVERYTHING THEY DO. Computers are boring if they just light-up the screen and browse the internet. During my school years, we had PCs with EXPENSIVE analog-digital capture cards, allowing the PCs to be used for all kinds of lab work. Software-defined radio is also a great subject to learn about.
I'm also fond of wiring things like solenoids off serial ports to turn power outlets on and off, or interfacing with Arduinos and other embedded systems.
That there's something cheaper that can do everything the Pi can, and many things it can't, is irrelevant HOW? If a Pi isn't about the hardware being open, then it needs to be better than other computing devices in some objective ways. Lower power is all you've got, and that's not worth much.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Jazelle is a bit of a red hearing. Even on the Pi's limited CPU a JIT VM will nearly always be faster.
Our OLinuXino project is completely open source both hardware and software with all files on GitHub: https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO :) then moved to 1GHz Cortex-A8 again in TQFP package.
The goal was to make hack-able Linux ARM board which everyone can tweak for it's needs and even solder at home.
We started with iMX233 as this is ARM9 in friendly TQFP package you can solder at home
You can see A13-OLinuXino here running Android 4.0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0q2e6u_vc4&list=UUBLijWZ1jr_6VrIlhp3fFtw&index=0&feature=plcp
and here running Debian: http://olimex.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a13-olinuxino-running-debian-preview/
OLinuXino is completely open surce hardware and software alternative https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO