Slashdot Mirror


Open Hardware and Software Laptop

New submitter mihai.todor85 writes "It looks like Andrew 'bunnie' Huang has been quite busy lately, developing a nice open hardware laptop. He was even kind enough to provide all the schematics without NDA. For anybody interested in owning such a device, he says that he 'might be convinced to try a Kickstarter campaign in several months, once the design is stable and tested' if enough people are interested."

152 comments

  1. that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    maybe

    1. Re:that will make RMS happy? by mihai.todor85 · · Score: 1

      Only if he can compile the schematics into chips.

    2. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get those yourself with an electron microscope in most cases. Plus, unless you've got a ridiculous amount of money, you're not going to be replicating a chip anyways. You'll just worry about what goes in and what comes out. And hopefully it's always the same in all cases.

      I don't care for RMS, but I think your comment is ridiculous. Now, if at some point in the future it becomes cost effective to make chips in quantities of 1 from ones own home, that might change. But for now, unless you've got hundreds of millions sitting around, or probably more, you're not going to be able to make much use of it anyways. The chip manufacturers pretty much always provide a compiler or make sure that there is one available that will work with the chips.

    3. Re:that will make RMS happy? by mihai.todor85 · · Score: 1

      Why so serious? :)

    4. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You sir, are an idiot.

      RMS created the free software movement. He is the original author of gcc, emacs, and others. Unless you only use windows (probably the case based on your post), you have benefited from his work. Lots of kids here on /. like to trash talk RMS at every opportunity, but they are either stupid, or ignorant of what the world was like without RMS's free software movement.

      No, free software doesn't feed starving babies, but it is the basis of the education of millions. And, many thousands of those millions contribute back-- keeping this movement of sharing knowlege alive-- now across generations.

      You. What have you done with your life that makes you think you measure up favorably against someone like RMS who has done so much? Yeah, thought so. Nope, being a pathetic loser troll doesn't give you any bragging rights.

      World needs more dedicated folks like RMS (in all fields).

    5. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough emoticons or coffee. I'm not sure which, but one of them is lacking right now.

    6. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Free software is a very large part of the reason these idiot trolls have the ability to annoy people. They should be thankful. the era of software freedom seems to coming to a close though. Open source has won the battle for the server, but is in a losing battle for the client, with walled gardens springing up all over.

    7. Re:that will make RMS happy? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Even if he only uses Windows, he has visited websites running on open-source software, so he benefited from RMS' work.

    8. Re:that will make RMS happy? by snadrus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's just a flicker in time like DOS vs Apple ][. HTML5 & the open web is the standard. For example the preferred graphing calculator for many isn't local, but Wolfram Alpha. Then local apps are only a manifest file away, like Firefox OS does.
      Sure native's faster, but HTML5's write-once, run-everywhere (a feature no one else can offer now) is big.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    9. Re: that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AKA: The users cannot be trusted.

    10. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Informative

      RMS is not a destination; he is a journey.

    11. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone who recently did a bunch of HTML5 code for a multi-platform app, your use of "write-once, run-everywhere" amuses me.
      More like "write once, then rewrite once per OS and browser version, avoid any advanced features, and run (almost) everywhere but don't expect it to work or look the same". YMMV.

    12. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominem much?

    13. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if he only uses Windows, he has visited websites running on open-source software, so he benefited from RMS' work.

      [Citation needed]

    14. Re:that will make RMS happy? by dririan · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Is it not common knowledge now that the majority of sites run on Linux with Apache (which almost certainly has all the GNU libraries and tools since it's not embedded)? I really am glad Slashdot isn't Wikipedia. How about you try spamming [citation needed] there? I'm sure that position is in demand.

    15. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the software I buy is proprietary. I use open source stuff a lot, but when it comes down to it, I buy proprietary.

    16. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Is it not common knowledge now that the majority of sites run on Linux with Apache (which almost certainly has all the GNU libraries and tools since it's not embedded)?

      [Citation needed]

    17. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RMS created the free software movement.

      No, he popularized "his" version of "free" which really isn't free depending on your perspective.

      He also did it after Berkeley had already been distributing their software, for free.

      And, there was software distributed freely long before BSD too.

    18. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u mad bro?

    19. Re:that will make RMS happy? by mister2au · · Score: 1

      You sir, are an idiot.

      maybe a troll - yes
      disagrees with your views - yes
      an idiot and an AC - no

      free & open-source software existed before RMS and would have existed without him ... and he is clearly politically driven more by a philosophy than practical considerations ... and is somewhat of a nut-job !

      ignorant of what the world was like without RMS's free software movement.

      what was it like? i seem to recall that we got by just fine ... like we did before "Steve jobs invented the iPod" or "Bill Gates invented DOS/Windows"

      Just because someone was the front-runner or the biggest fanatic in an area DOES NOT mean the world would have been a disaster without them !

    20. Re:that will make RMS happy? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      As someone who recently did a bunch of HTML5 code for a multi-platform app, your use of "write-once, run-everywhere" amuses me. More like "write once, then rewrite once per OS and browser version, avoid any advanced features, and run (almost) everywhere but don't expect it to work or look the same". YMMV.

      Yep. The same can be said about Java, and I presume, any product that claims to be "write once, run anywhere" -- Write Once Debug Everywhere is more like it, and when I consider that, I might as well be writing cross platform native code which is write once, Debug on 3 to 5 platforms vs write for the web and test on 3 to 5 platforms times three to seven browsers... ~20 testing environments vs ~4.

    21. Re:that will make RMS happy? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Only if he can compile the schematics into chips.

      Alas, at the moment it looks not to be - are there open-source schematic to RTL and RTL to transistor layout tools yet?

      After all, the existing VHDL and Verilog compilers are horrendously buggy and expensive.

    22. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is because of the side effect of open source being usually free, as it is much harder to make money with it, when the source code can be freely distributed.

    23. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ultimately you could say that closed source is the most free, as it frees you to distribute your programs as binaries if you want to. Then again GPL is probably the best choice to keep the source code and all its modifications available to anyone.

    24. Re:that will make RMS happy? by CodeheadUK · · Score: 2

      http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/

      Dec 2012, 55% of web servers run Apache.

    25. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a long-time web developer, I say that there has never been a better time for cross-browser web development.

      If you're using in-development features of an in-progress standard, you can't realistically complain about lack of consistent implementations.

    26. Re:that will make RMS happy? by knarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source has won the battle for the server, but is in a losing battle for the client, with walled gardens springing up all over.

      Android is the biggest mobile platform at the moment. It has eclipsed Microsoft in the number of installed systems. Although these typically are not traditional desktop/laptop PC installations, the market seems to be heading more in the direction of Android (and similar systems) than it does towards those 'traditional' PC configurations.

      In other words, the biggest platform at the moment is open source. Never mind that are several closed markets which serve this platform, you are not bound to them.

      A quick look around the farm here shows that the advent of Android has pushed the last stronghold of closed source - mobile - off the cliff. All our PC's, servers and laptops run Linux in some form or other. All our phones run Android in some form or other. All our tablets run Android in some form or other. There is a television in the house somewhere, served by a DVB-T receiver/decoder. The thing runs Linux. The DSL modem? Linux. The router? Linux (OpenWRT). There is only one remaining 'closed' box attached to the network here: the (HP Laserjet 2200) printer. Guess which of all these devices is the most troublesome?

      In contrary to what you state, gaining software freedom has never been as easy as it is now. Even better: it looks like it will become easier still with the advent of open hardware.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    27. Re:that will make RMS happy? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      free & open-source software existed before RMS

      No. Please at least try to educate yourself on the basics.

      Before RMS there was no Free Software. There was open source. In fact most software was open. The Free Software movement was started in response to the closing of software. Specifically when a company took a printer driver written by RMS, tweaked it and refused to give him the source.

      Free Software as a mechanism to protect user freedom certainly did not exist before RMS created it.

      i seem to recall that we got by just fine ...

      Yeah, the unix wars were great. I enjoyed them.

      Shitty fucking awful terrible proprietary embedded venduh compilers were lovely too.

      Of course humans survive. It would be very, very hard to wipeout th human race.

      But the world is certainly a better place because of RMS.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    28. Re:that will make RMS happy? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      free & open-source software existed before RMS and would have existed without him

      That is much less likely than you might think. (Perhaps you confuse free software with public domain software.)

        Richard Stallman founded the FSF and without the FSF and the accompanying, carefully designed GPL free software would have very likely vanished from the earth already in the 90s when the first anti-free-software lawsuits came up. RMS frequently makes the case that many other people were just as important, though. For example, the fact that Eben Moglen got involved quite early with the FSF was probably also extremely important for free software and GNU/Linux in particular.

    29. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Amazingly low figure.

      I guess it translates as "45% of web servers are slow and prone to crash, or insanely overdimensioned".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:that will make RMS happy? by mathew42 · · Score: 1

      To post the comment, the poster has visited slashdot. It is likely the poster might have visited wikipedia. In both cases this means the poster has benefited from RMS' work.

    31. Re:that will make RMS happy? by slim · · Score: 1

      But ultimately you could say that closed source is the most free, as it frees you to distribute your programs as binaries if you want to.

      Public Domain is the most free, by that definition. Then licences like BSD and Apache.

      But they make it possible to make a non-free derived work, which many authors of free software find undesirable.

    32. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like him or not, RMS' work has benefited a lot of people. Those that don't like him, probably do so because of the radical way he presents himself and the movement he leads and is such a big part of; but if he didn't carry himself the way he does, we probably wouldn't have seen (and benefited from) the results of such kind of work as fast as we have.

      If we didn't have RMS, or someone with his radical "extremist" attitude towards free software, and had settled for a kinder, gentler approach to bring about software freedom, we'd probably not be seeing any of it for a decade or two...

      Now, I don't like RMS as a person/personality, I find his attitute to be too much in-your-face, with-us-or-against-us black & white, no middle ground, and so on. But I can't help recognizing the achievements he (and others like him) have had over the years.

    33. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the part where Android allow walled gardens....

    34. Re:that will make RMS happy? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, he popularized "his" version of "free" which really isn't free depending on your perspective. He also did it after Berkeley had already been distributing their software, for free. And, there was software distributed freely long before BSD too.

      Duh, the RMS "free" doesn't mean "no cost". Of course there was no-cost software before RMS, like the shareware I bought in the late '80s and early '90s, but "free" in this context means "free" as in "you have the right to use this." It ensures that the software remain open so anyone can use it for any purpose, can change it, repurpose it, sell it, do anything you want with it as long as you pass the freedom along with the software.

      There is nothing more free than that. You people who put dollar signs on everything disgust me.

      Season's greedings to you!

    35. Re:that will make RMS happy? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      A few wrong points there:

      RMS did not create the free software movement, it already existed.
      RMS did not create emacs, it already existed. He just refused to learn VI.
      People on windows have benefited from related projects.

      GCC was wonderful in its time but it's due to be eaten by LLVM/CLANG around about now. Good on RMS for writing it though. GCC wasn't the only free compiler but it was by far the most useful.

      RMS is an outspoken advocate and that's a wonderful thing, sadly he is a bit of a looney too.

    36. Re:that will make RMS happy? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Even if he only uses Windows, he has visited websites running on open-source software, so he benefited from RMS' work.

      [Citation needed]

      Google is Linux based. If you use google from a windows client you still benefit from Linux systems that were no doubt compiled with GCC.

    37. Re:that will make RMS happy? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Should I mention nginx again?

      Somehow a whole load of /.'ers don't seem to know about it.

    38. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Interesting.

      Less than 15% usage according to http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-nginx/all/all, but creeping up on IIS and serving more high-usage sites.

      (w3techs.com gives Apache 64% of websites rather than 55% from netcraft).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    39. Re:that will make RMS happy? by renoX · · Score: 1

      > Free Software as a mechanism to protect user freedom certainly did not exist before RMS created it.

      As a license only, but people already cared about licensing and did work to ensure that code could be freely redistributable for example the "Networking Release 1" of the BSD software distribution.

    40. Re:that will make RMS happy? by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 1

      > World needs more dedicated folks like RMS (in all fields).

      Since he sees no problems with Child Pornography or pedophilia maybe folks like RMS shouldn't be in fields caring for children.

    41. Re:that will make RMS happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, from experience writing Java that can run anywhere isn't hard.
      If you can't write Java that isn't write once run anywhere, you're doing it very wrong!

    42. Re:that will make RMS happy? by unixguy98 · · Score: 1
      According to RMS, Android is NOT free software, and this is because of nasty policies of google to misuse free software.

      Is Android really free software?
      The version of Linux included in Android is not entirely free software, since it contains non-free "binary blobs" (just like Torvalds' version of Linux), some of which are really used in some Android devices. Android platforms use other non-free firmware, too, and non-free libraries. Aside from those, the source code of Android versions 1 and 2, as released by Google, is free software – but this code is insufficient to run the device. Some of the applications that generally come with Android are non-free, too.
      Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU.

      Richard Stallman,Guardian

      Also, Google deliberately delays in publishing source code, and with all of these, it is shameful for Google to call Android "free software".

  2. Except that it's not by acariquara · · Score: 0

    Binary blobs required for 3D acceleration and many Wifi drivers. Nothing to see here.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:Except that it's not by mihai.todor85 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. It depends on what your needs are and how much money are you willing to invest.

    2. Re:Except that it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binary blobs required for 3D acceleration and many Wifi drivers. Nothing to see here.

      Stupid.

      Would you be happier if the chips had on-board flash and loaded their binary blobs without the OS' involvement? Then what would you find to complain about?

      What's the difference between hardware you can't touch, other than via its documented interfaces, and "software" running on that hardware that you can't touch, other than those same documented interfaces?

      Did you know your SSD drives are running real software, often on embedded (and occasionally multi-core) ARMs? Whether or not the "binary blobs" are visible, most hardware hardware has software running on it.

    3. Re:Except that it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think that makes it better or worse?

      Also many SSDs may be running GPL'ed software and noone would know.

    4. Re:Except that it's not by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Would you trust a network card with a Chinese binary blob to run it? My strawman could have a much bigger backdoor than the average blob'ed SSD.
      The difference is also what we give the future: "Greek Fire" in ancient times won them many battles, only we have no idea how they made it today.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    5. Re:Except that it's not by davydagger · · Score: 1

      we have equivs like napalm, and white phosporous.

    6. Re:Except that it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it makes the complaint pointless. Unless you get every single schematic, and every single breakdown of every single chip, and the fabs to produce those chips, and the EE skills to work on the hardware and decipher the chip designs, and the source/assembly for all the MCUs and embedded ARMs and whatever else, then you have "binary blobs" *everywhere*.

      The fact that the "binary blobs" are loaded from the OS instead of internal flash, or having their logic implemented in hardware, is a pointless distinction.

    7. Re:Except that it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you trust a network card with a Chinese binary blob to run it? My strawman could have a much bigger backdoor than the average blob'ed SSD.

      What do you think those Chinese-manufactured chips are if not binary blobs? The fact that the logic isn't loaded by the OS doesn't make a whit of difference.

    8. Re:Except that it's not by ssam · · Score: 1

      FSF is happy with binary blobs as long as they are burned into a ROM.
      https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/task2-openmoko
      The openmoko did not see any benefit from the course of action, and so kept the blob on the filesystem in the hope that one day it can be replaced.

      (Also i have huge respect and am very grateful for the great code that has come from the GNU project)

  3. ARM is not open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a proprietary design. If you want open hardware you can have a look for example here:

    http://opensparc.net/

    1. Re:ARM is not open by mihai.todor85 · · Score: 1

      "401 Authorization Required" - The irony...

  4. Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's not by Fubari · · Score: 2
    "The bunnie" says otherwise (from The Fine Article's comment section):

    bunnie says: December 16, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Clarification: Wifi does not require a closed-source blob, if you use an Atheros 9k mPCI-x version. An example card is linked under the mPCIx feature bullet.

    The USB card is provided as an option just in case you want to put something else in the mini PCI slot, or you wanted a second wifi interface for some reason. Also, the USB card is much cheaper than the mPCIx card, so it’s a cost-down option for those who don’t care as much about a small blob in the system. Basically, if you care about having no blob for wifi, you can pay for an option that is open source.

    GPU, on the other hand, is probably out of reach. nvdia and ATI have set a pretty strong precedent for closed source drivers to use those elements, and the IP vendors for integrated GPUs (like Vivante) are following suit. However, GPU is non-essential IMO for a large application space.

    An interesting project, I wish them luck. Even if it is never widely popular in the marketplace, who knows what spinoff projects this might launch?

  5. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by acariquara · · Score: 0

    "The bunnie" says otherwise (from The Fine Article's comment section):

    bunnie says:
    December 16, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Clarification: Wifi does not require a closed-source blob, if you use an Atheros 9k mPCI-x version

    The USB card is provided as an option just in case you want to put something else in the mini PCI slot, or you wanted a second wifi interface for some reason. Also, the USB card is much cheaper than the mPCIx card, so it’s a cost-down option for those who don’t care as much about a small blob in the system. Basically, if you care about having no blob for wifi, you can pay for an option that is open source.

    GPU, on the other hand, is probably out of reach. nvdia and ATI have set a pretty strong precedent for closed source drivers to use those elements, and the IP vendors for integrated GPUs (like Vivante) are following suit. However, GPU is non-essential IMO for a large application space.

    An interesting project, I wish them luck. Even if it is never widely popular in the marketplace, who knows what spinoff projects this might launch?

    Yeah, for Wifi IF you use one specific mPCI-x version, but he also ammends GPUs are "out of reach", as in "binary blobs required". So, from a purist point of view, no different than the myriad of ARM netbooks/tablets/convertibles/whatnot.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  6. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    horseshit.... how many netbooks/tablets/convertibles/whatnot have a RPi header + many servo/motor PWM capable controllers?

    I can count them on no fingers.

  7. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by acariquara · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying this is not a cool device. As cool as the Raspberry Pi for instance, but you can't say it's really "open hardware" if if needs binary blobs. Open is open, and this is not.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  8. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by Splat · · Score: 1

    horseshit.... how many netbooks/tablets/convertibles/whatnot have a RPi header + many servo/motor PWM capable controllers?

    I can count them on no fingers.

    So you're going to do what with this, put your entire laptop onto an RC Plane? No, for that you'd use a Pi, Arduino, or any more appropriate form factors. Same on a RPi shield - are you going to cut a hole in your keyboard for the shield to stick out?

  9. resolution resolution resolution... by rroman · · Score: 1

    If the hardware would be good enough, mainly the screen with good resolution (FullHD and more) it could be interesting for me. There simply are almost no options for people who want good notebook with high resolution without Windows preinstalled.

  10. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need a binary blob to boot to a console...

  11. need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    need more usb ports 2 is way to few

    1. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      need more usb ports 2 is way to few

      Pah, USB hubs are cheap.

    2. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by aliquis · · Score: 1

      USB hub? Bluetooth? WiFi?

    3. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Nyder · · Score: 1

      need more usb ports 2 is way to few

      They can get rid of one of the ethernet ports, 2 on a laptop is not needed.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    4. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      What for? Moderns motherboards have about 10, and I don't think most people use them for anything else than keyboard+mouse. And since this is a laptop, it unlikely even a usb keyboard would be used.

      Just because they're cheap and everybody give you more than you use doesn't mean they're needed.

    5. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      it's a laptop. I don't think I've ever used more than 1 USB at a time on my laptop, because the keyboard and mouse are already there.

    6. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by davydagger · · Score: 2

      and forget digital cameras, USB Sticks/card readers, external HD's.

      3 is the magic number, at least for laptops, that permits most reasonable combinations of commonly used devices for most common scenarios.

      6 is also nice.

    7. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      External HDD, USB stick with bookmarks etc., trackball mouse, proper keyboard, digitizer tablet, USB cable to charge phone, flatbed scanner, local printer, cable to sync MP3 player.

    8. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get a USB hub, goddamnit.

    9. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But 5 is right out.

    10. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Or better yet, stick a powered USB hub into the power brick like Lenovo does with one of their power supplies (http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-57Y4600-ThinkPad-65W-Adapter/dp/B0044KR91U) . Sigh. Dammit Lenovo, can you PLEASE make this in 95-watt size? (for those who don't know, 65W is enough to run a Thinkpad OR charge its battery, but not both at once. To charge AND run simultaneously, you need 95w).

      Combine a USB3 hub with beefy power brick big enough to supply the laptop itself with 95w so we can use it to power a bright second travel monitor, and there'd be just two words to describe it: Flawless Perfection.

    11. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kensington also makes a PSU with USB.

    12. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by mattr · · Score: 1

      This is so it can act as a filter/router he says. There is a use case someone wanted something like this just recently on /.

    13. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by ssam · · Score: 1

      wish my laptop had a build in mouse instead of a crappy trackpad.

    14. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      Bingo. I'd probably buy half a dozen of these to build out as really powerful and small firewall boxes (no screen, headless and so on) for some of my customers.

    15. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      I don't think most users use all three of those things at the same time.
      In parcitular, you won't plug your digital camera if you're using a card reader (wouldn't you just use the card reader).

      I understand we can list more than 3 usb devices, my point is that most people won't use more than two USB ports on laptops, even if 3 to 5 ports is quite common.

    16. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      USB hub?

      We're talking laptops, the less junk to lug around, the better.

      Bluetooth?

      Bluetooth in my notebook is a USB dongle.

      WiFi?

      You have a wifi keyboard and mouse? Your camera has wifi? Your printer has wifi? Your scanner?

    17. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      it's a laptop. I don't think I've ever used more than 1 USB at a time on my laptop

      I have. One for the bluetooth dongle, one for the memory stick (we don't have floppies any more, you know) and one for the terabyte drive. That's all three on my box. I could plug the drive into the tower and use wifi to get the data there, but it's easier just to plug it straight into the notebook.

    18. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You have a wifi keyboard and mouse? Your camera has wifi? Your printer has wifi? Your scanner?

      No I don't. But it could be used for say storage by using a wireless NAS.

      And there's cameras with WiFi.

      And there's phones with WiFi.

      And there's printers with WiFi.

      And who knows maybe there's those multi-functionality devices with scanners with WiFi to.

      The suggestion wasn't to use either. I brought up options. For instance there exist keyboards and mice with bluetooth and if the device got bluetooth support then you wouldn't need USB for those. Whatever it have bluetooth or not I have no idea, I didn't looked into it much.

    19. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      The laptop described has provision for built-in bluetooth. Every laptop I've bought for the last 5 years has had bult-in bluetooth, even when I had to pay an extra $20 to get it, because I was expecting to need it in the future. To date, the only bluetooth I actually *use* is my cell phone pairing with my car's hands free system, but I am still ready for it if I ever buy a BT keyboard or such.

      As to the memory stick and the external hard drive, you could invest in something like this (there's many alternatives, that's the one I bought), and be able to connect to it from all of your computers at the same time. Having a memory stick for sneakernet makes sense, but using a USB external drive to move large amounts of data between systems makes less sense.

      Though ignoring that particular limitation, actually checking the plugs on the back of my (Dell) laptop, there's an eSATA connector, too. It's probably one of those dual-purpose connectors and can be used for USB as well, but I've never needed it. If I really wanted to connect an external drive rather than a NAS, that's the connector I'd use.

    20. Re:need more usb ports 2 is way to few by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      ^^^ Not quite. Kensington's is just a power supply with a few USB-shaped 5v receptacles. Lenovo's is a real, honest-to-god powered USB hub. HUGE difference.

  12. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably not for people with ARM CPUs in their open laptops.

  13. And a matte screen. by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    None of that glossy shit.

  14. USB 2.0 by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    But why not USB 3.0?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:USB 2.0 by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Most likely there's not a sufficiently Free USB3 implementation to make it into the design.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:USB 2.0 by chaered · · Score: 5, Funny

      I want USB 3.14 -- it has rounder cables.

    3. Re:USB 2.0 by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      My USB goes to 11.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    4. Re:USB 2.0 by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      USB 3.0? It's an ARM based design that uses a SD card for storage... how are you going to saturate even USB 2.0?

      And here I was, all excited, thinking someone had designed their own *laptop* and not an oversized clamshell smartphone... :(

    5. Re:USB 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm looking forward to the 3.142 spec. Sure, it's just a minor update to the 3.14 platform, but you will really want that if you are serious about your cable roundness.

    6. Re:USB 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure but I think I'll wait till 6.28 for the full experience

    7. Re:USB 2.0 by suutar · · Score: 1

      how do you define a laptop, then? My main gripe with this is that I'm not sure I consider an ARM chip sufficient, but I haven't kept up with the specs, and it may be that for what I would actually do on a laptop, it'll work. The video transcoding and editing will stay on the desktop with the two big monitors regardless :)

    8. Re:USB 2.0 by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      What I consider a usable laptop? At bare minimum, Core i3 level horsepower backed up by at least 4 gigs of RAM and a real SATA(3) SSD. Which is, in terms of perceived speed, about 100x the power of the proposed design, even for basic internet and office use.

    9. Re:USB 2.0 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Be careful, I tried USB 3:16 and it literally crucified my data!

    10. Re:USB 2.0 by cyborg666 · · Score: 1

      USB 3.14 only has half a cable

  15. RMS - a spark by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    RMS is not a destination; he is a journey.

    Actually, RMS is the STARTING POINT of (hopefully) a very llooooooooooonngg journey.
     
    For every inferno, there must first be a spark that started it all.
     
    RMS is _that_ spark.
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:RMS - a spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS is not a destination; he is a journey.

      Actually, RMS is the STARTING POINT of (hopefully) a very llooooooooooonngg journey.

      For every inferno, there must first be a spark that started it all.

      RMS is _that_ spark.

      Root-Mean-Square is neither a destination, journey or starting point. In locomotive terms I guess it would be analogous to continuous velocity, and as such it could be used to derive the peak velocity.

  16. scratching an itch that may not exist by hhw · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What exact benefit does this supposedly 'open' laptop have over just buying something like a Thinkpad that uses Intel components that are well-supported by open source drivers on open source operating systems (Linux, *BSD, etc.)? If it's to promote the use of standardized components that can be re-used in different laptop designs, it may serve to reduce costs or to increase the useful life of some of those parts. On the other hand, the standardization would also limit designs and prevent some cutting edge innovations from being utilized. All-in-all, as great as it's been to have interchangeable components on desktop builds, there's a reason why there's been limited standardization on laptops and servers, where innovation has more benefit. And considering how inexpensive laptops have already become simply due to competition, I see there being little to gain but much to lose from this approach.

    --
    http://astutehosting.com/
    1. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None. This is Bunnie's pet project. He may or may not actually sell these.

    2. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. This guy is making the laptop he wants, the way he wants it.

      One of the features: dual ethernet jacks, so he can use the laptop as a packet filter or firewall.

      Another one of the features: an analog meter. He's setting it up for software control so it can display battery life, audio peak loudness, or silly things like time of day represented as the position of a single needle.

      He doesn't claim anyone else wants one. He did say that if, after he does all the work, there is sufficient interest, that he might do a kickstarter.

      I presume this meets with your approval?

    3. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benefit is to experiment and to gain knowledge from the process. This is one man's hobby or goal, and as such the only real benefit is for him. If other people are interested maybe he will make money. He never said he was going to sell one to you, or that you had to buy one. People noticed he was doing something interesting and decided to share. Go back to whatever you were doing that was more beneficial to humanity than this.

    4. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My personal itch is that we are at a point where BIOS and firmware can be suspected of hiding some backdoors. Having a verifiable design with 100% of the source of any code running on any chip inside is actually an interesting goal.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity is a good thing. I don't mean the bs multiculturalism that says we shouldn't think about cultures and just call them equivocal; I mean that diversity of players, forces, designs, technology, etc., are good from many perspectives, one in particular being paramount: denying one or two players total control or decision-making, given human nature.
       
      But beyond that, this is /.--why's there have to be an immediate overall benefit to everyone or anyone in particular, rather than enjoying that someone else is exploring some nerdiness, and letting us in on it? If this works and is not too expensive it may even let others be even nerdier too.

    6. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few - Shunryu Suzuki

    7. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by dissy · · Score: 1

      What exact benefit does this supposedly 'open' laptop have over just buying something
      *snip*
      I see there being little to gain but much to lose from this approach.

      Oh great. Now we are not allowed to create a personal hobby electronics project that does not meet your approval, or that of the market?

      What next, I am not allowed to use my gcc compiler to write a program just because I want to write a program for myself, unless it meets your approval and is marketable?

    8. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like I would be more supportive of this effort if the graphics component was not dependent on a blob (and simply being able to boot without it is NOT enough). I'm all for supporting companies like ThinkPenguin which are making a difference although this project is missing something big. I don't care to see another "almost free" system appear. It's got to kick the last bits out that aren't free. Otherwise I'm sticking to my x86 system which isn't dependent on the non-free bits for graphics, sound, wifi, etc.

      I read enough to know there are major issues with this “open” laptop that I can't support it. Maybe that will change.

    9. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some fine flamebait, well done sir!

    10. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Dual ethernet jacks are kind of silly, just because USB ethernet jacks now cost about $10, and are now almost smaller than a PCMCIA ethernet jack dongle ALONE used to be 15 years ago.

      On the other hand, a real sliding switch to physically cut the connection to the speakers, so you can safely boot up someplace where you CAN NOT have it making noise... well, that's another matter entirely, because that's NOT something an end user can go graft onto the system himself after purchase (at least, not without completely destroying the laptop's resale value).

    11. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exact benefit does this supposedly 'open' laptop have over just buying something like a Thinkpad that uses Intel components that are well-supported by open source drivers on open source operating systems (Linux, *BSD, etc.)?

      Why build any mechanical or electronic item yourself when you can just buy an assembled one?
      The hams and hackers sometimes come up with innovations that large manufacturers copy later. And sometimes they just make a better product because no one's offering them cash to bundle crapware with it or spy on their customers, or they don't limit functionality to justify the price of an unlocked model, or they don't design obsolescence into it.
      It's good for consumers to be aware of open source alternatives. It makes them less tolerant of evils like ridiculous software patents and the erosion of the doctrine of first sale etc.

      I see there being little to gain but much to lose from this approach.

      Could you expand on what there is to lose?

    12. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the standardization would also limit designs and prevent some cutting edge innovations from being utilized.

      No, I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

      Standardization sets the baseline. Take HTML for instance. What if there was no openly accepted standard in the early days? It'd have taken a lot longer for things to take off; the improvements, variations, and deviations (MS HTML, VRML, HTML 4.0, etc.) would not have occurred. Everyone would've been attempting to (more or less) completely one-up the other person (see: Flash) and nobody would benefit until a monopoly were established, forcing everyone else out.

      In the case of hardware: if you have a standard, then anyone can create components for it. Without the standard, it is essentially locked down. "We have a sound mixing device compatible with the board", "we have a video processor card compatible with the board", "we have an extended run battery pack for the board", and so on. If I recall correctly, having a simple hardware interface standard was what made Nintendo so wildly popular with the NES, back in the day (regarding things like controllers and other misc. input). While everyone else did crazy things to retain control and make it complicated, Nintendo made it a simple serial interface.

      As someone who has attempted doing just this (albeit almost 7 years ago, now), let me just say: I want one. My ultimate goal was a 'laptop' which could be both always on and have a day or more worth of connectivity (massive battery). The biggest problem I ran into was trying to figure out how to make the case and how to interface a board with a monitor of suitable/proper size. Thankfully, options for monitors looks a little more mature nowadays with the prevalence of tablets, and ARM hardware has improved markedly as well while dropping in price.

      The case is really what held me up. I had no idea how to get something useable with the materials I had. Fortunately, we have something now available to us which was not available then: printable 3D objects. If someone were to design a laptop chassis CAD file around one or two commonly available components (an inexpensive/common LCD panel, and the Lenovo UltraNav keyboard) we would be well on our way to something useable, I think. Make it 'shim layered' in design, so you print the whole thing out, reinforce it with metal (possibly thin metal rods/tubing in key structural tension points, like around the display bevel and longitudinally across the base

      As for the board, I think SATA is mostly extraneous at this point for most laptops. miniPCIe is going to suit most needs for storage in a mobile device where USB and SD do not. The idea of having a rotating platter in a laptop is really quite extraneous and risky these days.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    13. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by nazsco · · Score: 1

      Because all thinkpads came with a portable fpga and cpu Ports...

    14. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't know how complex hardware interacts with the BIOS. The hardware has code stored in a ROM that the BIOS reads and executes to set it up. It is usually x86 code, with non-x86 BIOSs having an emulator built in, although now it can also use generic bytecode with the advent of EFI.

      So unless you want to develop your own chips as well there is no way to run 100% verifiable code.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only drawback is that there's no FOSS support for the GC2000 on the SoC. Annoying beyond words, but I'm intrigued by his idea here. For low-to-mid end laptop uses, this thing would probably work REALLY well for someone with either Android or something like Ubuntu or Bodhi on it. Make it cased up sort-of like an ultrabook and it'd be a win.

    16. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      USB won't do things the same way as two hard Ethernet devices would. It'd be close for light-duty things, but at 100Mbit speeds things start faltering because the devices can only sort-of keep up because of USB overheads, etc.

      You honestly want both a handful of USB's and two hard NICs if you can get them.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    17. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Well, ok... you have a point. I'm kicking myself right now for forgetting the best example of all -- the near-impossibility of getting host/AP/master mode to work properly with ANY USB-based wifi adapter due to timing requirements. You have to either move 99% of the active AP logic to the "interface" end of the USB cable, or wantonly abuse the way USB is supposed to work by firehosing a nonstop stream of nonstop isochronous USB data (with error-correction) in both directions (regardless of actual activity) to eliminate the delay you'd otherwise get if you tried to just poll the interface for activity and react to it (and in the process, render the host PC almost unusable for anything BESIDES monitoring and responding to the network interface).

      That said, perhaps a pair of internal mini-PCI slots, and a healthy assortment of CardBUS and ExpressCard slots might be more useful. Then you'd have direct access to the PCI/PCI Express bus, and could implement "real" interfaces of whatever kind you desire (including legacy parallel ports... handy for realtime bitbanged i/o).

    18. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1Gig is from the i.MX6, the 100Mb/s Ethernet port is just an ASIX USB chip on board rather than you having to plug one in.

    19. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, one should be gigabit over copper and setup to be able to provide power over ethernet or use PoE to power the laptop, and the other should be 10 gig with a SFP port. That really keeps your options open.

    20. Re:scratching an itch that may not exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, a real sliding switch to physically cut the connection to the speakers, so you can safely boot up someplace where you CAN NOT have it making noise... well, that's another matter entirely, because that's NOT something an end user can go graft onto the system himself after purchase (at least, not without completely destroying the laptop's resale value).

      Actually, a speaker kill switch is one of the easier things you can graft onto a laptop. The schematics are easy, connecting to speaker wires is easy. (No need to mess with the circuit board)

      And there are plenty of switches to buy, you can find one that fits available space in your laptop and looks good. Why would that ruin resale value - the thing is used anyway. . .

  17. RhombusTech? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Yet another open hardware project?

    Might he combine resources with Luke Leighton, who as recently as last week was interviewed about a FSF endorsable arch, in addition to his eoma-68 project?

    Diversity is good but with economies of scale there's a KDE tablet, Golden Delicious openmoko successor, replicant.us and geeksphone all promising varying degrees of openness but failing to develop much of a market up against the big boys...

    1. Re:RhombusTech? by Menkhaf · · Score: 1

      lkcl has already been talking about the possibility of teaming with Bunnie on the arm-netbook mailing list.

      --
      A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
  18. Good effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not ideal but a big step in the right direction for me. I'm very much interested in getting one of these but need to take the time to carefully compare it with the Open Pandora. It's a shame about the graphics, I'll be looking at taking the graphics as far as possible with open source drivers.

  19. Making RMS happy. by formfeed · · Score: 1

    RMS won't be happy until the entire planet lives in hippie communes. You can't satisfy a person like that.

    Of course you can satisfy RMS.

    As long as you don't have cats, or dogs that bark, but net access with ssh-connection, and maybe a parrot to talk to, he might even find your house an acceptable place to stay

    1. Re:Making RMS happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But for christ's sake don't buy a parrot just because he's visiting, dude would not be cool with that.

  20. look at the authors on the software you use by decora · · Score: 1, Interesting

    extremely high chance its not RMS, but some guy whose day job is at a huge corporation, "selling out" to the man. the whole thing is hypocrisy stuffed inside the asshole of elitism. most 'free software' is built by work-a-day nobodies who prefer anonymity and the act of building itself to any kind of idealistic horse shit.

  21. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're living in an imaginary reality where there is no possibility of a handful of vendors dominating the market. It''s always better to have open source alternatives to insure that startups have something to work with, and it doesn't in any way impede the "cutting edge".
    It's the opposite. Engineering enthusiasts and hobbyists come up with a myriad of ways to use a new platform large corporations invariably don't think of. We could see much greater innovation in laptops through this - the kind of concept laptops that are just mockups in some unused lab in some company would become a reality.

  22. sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like you're angry that there isn't enough progress in open hardware for smart phones. There's really not much need for that. Smartphones already have the sensors you need and want and the app ecosystems to power them. Would be nice for security and privacy though.

  23. Did you *read* the article? by Chirs · · Score: 4, Informative

    This motherboard has a built-in FPGA, multiple channels of analog/digital I/O, PWM output, Rasp-Pi compatible header (to allow use of R-Pi accessory boards), builtin speaker amp (for small speakers, but still), 3 UARTs, and a USB-OTG port.

    This is a hardware hacker's *dream* system.

    1. Re:Did you *read* the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    2. Re:Did you *read* the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree it is a hacker's *dream*..... but not as an laptop, just give an option to buy only the mainboard,
      You can do anything with this board, I never seen so many features and many possibilities on 1 board.

      Kickstart it

  24. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need a binary blob to boot to a console...

    So fucking what? None of the typical PCs usually require binary blobs to boot to a simple console either.

  25. signed compiler by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> Having a verifiable design with 100% of the source of any code running on any chip inside is actually an interesting goal

    We still cannot be sure that this is the code that really runs on the target.
    Who will invent signed/verifiable compilation / code distribution???

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:signed compiler by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Compile it yourself, then.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:signed compiler by stooo · · Score: 1

      No. The resources obviously don't allow that. (can't wait days for a system to compile itself)

      Furthermore, you can't be sure the compiler you use is not infected with a malware compromising it's output (there's an old paper on that)

      There are crypto solutions to these problems, but it's not an easy path, that's sure....

      --
      aaaaaaa
  26. I would buy this... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

    And if it goes onto Kickstarter I probably will. Why? I had ARM desktops back in the 1990s, they're really nice chips for a range of reasons. If you program close to the metal they're really nice chips with a very clean instruction set; they're very low power and run cool, so battery life is good and noise level should be low. An ARM laptop - particularly if it could dual boot RISC OS and Linux - would be a very nice machine. Also, I believe in the value of open source hardware; it keeps us - the users - in control, which becomes more important as the walled gardens grow.

    Yes, it isn't pure open source. But purists are missing the point. You can't actually buy an OpenSPARC chip, and as I don't own my own chip fab I can't make one. You can't (currently) get a GPU with an NDA-free data-sheet, and while the ultra-purists will say, well, you can do without a GPU, actually having a GPU is pretty nice. Also, if we demonstrate that there is a market for a more open GPU, someone may come along and offer one.

    IN summary: yes, this specification represents a machine that is a compromise. All engineering is about compromise. But in my view this looks like a good compromise. I'd buy it.

    Oh, and, the idea of a little analog power meter appeals to me.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  27. Re:Actually closed-blob free? Re:Except that it's by makomk · · Score: 1

    Atheros ath9k and ath5k mini-PCIe cards are not exactly exotic hardware...

  28. Still suffers for being ARM, not Intel by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if it had some horsepower to it (versus just being another ARM knockoff), there might be some value to it. Until then, the Thinkpad is about the closest thing you can get.

    But then you'll probably respond with the thought-terminating cliche of "not the target market". Be more original than that (or more original than modbombing).

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Still suffers for being ARM, not Intel by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with ARM for the target device here. "Just another ARM knockoff" is quite insulting to the amount of work that has gone into this... the value of this isn't necessarily in the CPU anyway but in everything else that's on that board. The FPGA, headers and just generally the incredibly geeky ideas that are realized here are fundamentally cool... and yes, I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is. I would love one of these!

  29. Hackers dream? - Yes Sir, it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it came to my mind while looking the picture of the board that instead of being cheapskate and using ordinary electrolyte capasitors (5 x 220uF 10v) it would be worth replacing those with Tantalum capacitors, which are ofcourse a bit more expensive but far more durable in long term. It could be that the price of the board would be few dollars more but certainly worth doing it.

    Another thing I was thinking that if possible it would be worth changing the 100Mbps ethernet to 1Gig too, the price of the gigabit ports are so close to 100Mbps ports that there is not much excuse to use latter any more. 1Gig ports bring in addition to larger bandwith more capabilities such as lower latency, defaults to larger tcp window size, capability to use jumbo frames which is useful when you need to use 802.1q tagging and MPLS. The latter may seem why would you need to use those with laptop? Perhaps you didn't think someone would like to have a laptop where you can test things locally wherever he is traveling instead suspending the idea to be used much later while able to sit in lab and use clumsy desktop PC just for that. Advanced networking capabilities benefit greatly of gigabit interface vs. 100Mbps interface. And if you put already 1 gigabit interface you could as well put two with almost same price. Only in the situation where you mass-produce huge amounts devices and every cent counts and if you want to price-differentiate different products on the market it might make sense. But both reasons are business justified reasons and does not make sense from techie perspective.

    1. Re:Hackers dream? - Yes Sir, it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The single gigabit is provided by the SoC, the 100Mbit is an addon USB chip. You really don't want to try gigabit over USB.

      Getting a SoC with 2 gigabit interfaces is substantially more expensive.

  30. WTH, Slashdot? by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2

    So much freaking negativity on here about this. I for one think this is a really cool project... and oddly enough actually fits the tagline of "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters".

    I have read several pages of comments and so far there have been only a very small handful of positive comments, while I think this is one of the coolest and most exciting things I've seen in a while. If this goes to a Kickstarter campaign then I for one am all over it. The very idea of building a laptop with everything I want and nothing I don't (including R-Pi headers and some really freaking cool ports on the board for getting down-and-dirty with the hardware) just excites me. I want one, and I will not be dissuaded from that opinion. Come on; an integrated FPGA that you can turn to any task you like? How many laptops have that? The PWM headers mean that you can take one of these motherboards and make it the brain of your own robot... an incredibly powerful one compared to most of the hobbyist kit that's out there.

    I would ask what happened to the Slashdot that I used to love, but I think I already have a pretty good idea.

  31. Do you know Lemote Computers lemote.com/en ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemote seems to have a similar project. http://www.lemote.com/en/ . I got to know them because Richad Stallman uses it http://www.stallman.org/stallman-computing.html , then I got curious and went to search for it. You can buy one here: http://www.tekmote.nl/ .

    Be good and share,

  32. Open Source Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS defined Free Software and started the GNU project. Open Source was defined as a business-friendly alternative many years later, in particular by ESR.

  33. reply by newnewshop · · Score: 1

    If this happens, then this really is a very exciting news. I think this is a really cool project. Expect to achieve

  34. Cool Project by aardvark26 · · Score: 1

    This is just sweet. Way to go Andrew!

  35. Not Android's problem by DrYak · · Score: 1

    According to RMS, Android is NOT free software, and this is because of nasty policies of google to misuse free software.

    Read your quote. The problem is not Android it self, the problems are BLOBs (binary large ojects) - big pieces of non-free software that is installed on some machine and is required to run them.

    Android it self is open-source. You can get 3rd party modified builds (like CyanogenMod), a sure sign that the freedom to tinker (FSF's and RMS's goals in life) are respected. BUT...

    Several ARM chipsets (including the one used in the TFA's motherboard) need a proprietary binary driver for the graphic core. (Some other components, like webcam, and radio interfaces, might need such modules too. Like the camera of HP's phones and tablets. At least for this laptop, TFA's author plan to USB webcams so it would be easy to select some standard UVC cams).

    So the stuff installed on an Android phone might not be entirely opensource. You can get a 3rd party firmware, but you're not entirely free to tinker it: you might need non-free bits (mostly the openGL ES modules and drivers) to make it work.

    FOR NOW.

    People reading sources like Phoronix might have noticed that some mobile GPUs are either getting reverse engineered drivers (similar to Nouveau for Nvidia on the desktop) or even getting collaboration from the original manufacturer (like the opensource drivers for AMD on the desktop).
    Lima for Mali, Freedno for Adreno, even Nvidia having released specs and code for the 2D part of Tegra, etc.

    So, someday it should be possible to install a fully opensourced variant of Android on your phone/tablet/netbook. Although maybe not with all feature fully functional (it's going to take some time until the opensource drivers are on par with the current closed source BLOBs. And some other parts, like webcams, might still not be opensourced).

    I addition to RMS's rant, I should add another problem: DRM/Tivoization. Some devices don't let you install your arbitrary firmware, and require you to jump through hoops in order to be able to run non-signed code. (like the whole story with "Gold-Cards" and replacing the booting firmware on some HTC phones).

    Also, Google deliberately delays in publishing source code, and with all of these, it is shameful for Google to call Android "free software".

    As the author/copyright holder of the code of Android, they can do pretty much anything they like with their own code. (as any author holding copyright on any other piece of software can, too. Even Linus could make shit with the few parts of the Linux kernel he holds copyright on. Except that, as the copyright of Linux parts is distributed among lots of authors, the possibilities are much more limited).

    In addition to that, the code is licensed under a BSD-like license. 3rd parties using it aren't require to release it either (the phone manufacturer aren't required to publish their modifictaions. Don't hope of HTC releasing their HTC Sense).

    Now, the most critical part is the Linux kernel, and due to its GPL licensing, 3rd parties like Google and manufacturer ARE REQUIRED to publish their modifications, and they do.
    So anything required to boot an android device (minus binary drivers and DRM as mentioned before) is available, even if you might be limited to use another users space (using stock opensource android, instead of HTC's sense).

    As of google delaying releases (well beside the fact that as mentionned before, they have the right to do it being the authors and copyright holder) well:
    - They have explained their reasons: Android 3.x was a quickly hacked/cobled together version to have it run on tablets. The code was a hackish mess, they didn't want to publish the code until having cleaned and stabilised it for Android 4.x.
    - They have always kept their promise to release code (even if they weren't required to): Android 4x *IS* out.

    And most importantly:
    free software is above all about the

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]