Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The NES Classic is a $60 Single Board Computer Running Linux

Posted by EditorDavid on from the boards-vs-booths dept.

"Nintendo's accurate NES emulator apparently needs no less than a quad-core CPU," joked Ars Technica. "The next step, of course, is unscrewing of the nostalgic little box to see how it ticks -- and whether its limited functionality might ever be expanded, either officially or by hackers." Slashdot reader romiz summarizes what's inside Nintendo's new miniature emulator for classic games: With a quad-core ARM Cortex-A7, 256 MB of RAM, and 512 MB of NAND Flash, it is typical of the hardware found in Linux single board computers, like the Raspberry Pi 2. Surprisingly for Nintendo, there does not seem to be any custom components in it, and it looks like it even does run Linux. [YouTube video] The GPL license for the kernel and many other open source components is visible in the legal information screen. The source, however, is not yet available on Nintendo's open source page.

But it is the re-edition a 1980s video console: there is no network access, no hardware expansion port, and the 30 games cannot be changed. Changing the system running on it will probably be difficult.

17 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Emulator by Dwedit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, it's not even a good emulator.

    1. Re:Emulator by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      I'd say the failed sound reproduction is the bigger issue.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:Emulator by Calydor · · Score: 2

      We didn't get that back in the day, why should people get it now?!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:Emulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering that the sound emulation in an official Nintendo product is easily bested by 10 to 15-year-old emulators written by high schoolers and college students, it's pretty shameful, especially considering that the NES Classic Edition isn't even free. ;)

  2. FPGA by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If ever there was a product that should have been an FPGA this was it. People have already reverse engineered a large part of the NES and implemented it: https://danstrother.com/fpga-n...

    Nintendo also has the advantage of knowing what they put in the original NES.

    1. Re:FPGA by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, why? Not only this was quite possibly much easier to implement on a Linux mini PC, it was also way cheaper.

    2. Re:FPGA by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would have been a more elegant solution; but why would Nintendo use a ~$70 FPGA to do something they can get a bottom-feeder ARM SoC to do; with the added advantage of being able to share the emulator software with any of their other products that are adequately powerful?

      If cost-per-unit were the binding constraint, Nintendo would presumably be best served by building their own, hopefully less eccentric, version of the NES-on-a-chip hardware that you find under a glob top in the assorted 'famiclone' consoles of the world; but doing that would both make doing the design relatively expensive; and be useless for any of their products that don't have the resulting hardware embedded.

      Emulation is kind of an ugly, brute force, approach; but it gives Nintendo the flexibility to add 'NES' to just about anything powerful enough just by providing a copy of the software.

    3. Re:FPGA by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      Except, you know, not having to read a bunch of manuals learning how to install Linux on it, the custom hardware and aesthetic, and also it's y'know, legal.

      Both my grandmothers used to play a lot of NES. I could see either of them buying this to replay some of their favorite games - I can't fathom them trying to set up a Pi.

    4. Re:FPGA by tk77 · · Score: 2

      So, one of these:

      http://www.retrousb.com/produc...

      3x the price of the Classic and you have to supply the controllers and games.

      I'm considering buying both..

  3. Re:So they're currently violating the GPL? by mysidia · · Score: 2

    Since you dont know how it works, then surely you being a bright intelligent person knew that you didnt.... which begs the question....

    No.... That IS exactly how this works. If they are distributing binary copies of open source software then they MUST provide the source code for the components shipping in the product at the same time, by choosing and implementing one of the GPL's provided options for source code distribution.

    There are a few different ways that they can accomplish it, But there's no provision in the GPL that authorizes a delay between distributing the binary GPL-covered program and offering its source code.

  4. Re: So they're currently violating the GPL? by mysidia · · Score: 2

    Not until someone *who owns one of these* requests the source code.

    FALSE IF they don't utilize option (A) by accompanying the program with its source on the same distribution media as with the original program, and they they thus choose (B), then they must:

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    Note that the GPL requirement is a valid offer made to ANY THIRD PARTY, not just the person you originally distributed the program to.

    And Option (C) the GPL says is allowed Only for Non-commercial redistribution of non-modified executable code you received, and says you can redistribute the GPL'd Binaries you receive to someone else sent you and just pass on the the Offer for source code you received from someone else.

  5. Re: So they're currently violating the GPL? by mysidia · · Score: 2

    The GPL has no clause that says the requirement to distribute source doesn't kick in until someone asks for the source code.

  6. Re:So they're currently violating the GPL? by tepples · · Score: 2

    In British English, it's common practice to put the full stop outside quotation marks when the full stop isn't quoted. Even in American English, technical writing tends to follow the same practice.

  7. Offer under GPLv2 is to "any third party" by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not until someone *who owns one of these* requests the source code.

    That's true for GPLv3, but GPLv2 is slightly different in that the offer for a copy of the source code must be valid for "any third party". From GPLv2 3b, with my emphasis:

    Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

    And from GPLv3 6b, with my emphasis:

    Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

    But I imagine that for GPLv2-or-later software, Nintendo is choosing the GPLv2 option because of the effect on Tivoization. The GPLv2 requires distribution of "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable," but many believe this condition is substantially weaker than the "Installation Information" condition in its successor.

    So if Nintendo turns you down for not possessing a copy of the object code, you can assume they're relying on GPLv3, and you can request Installation Information.

  8. Re:In Nintendo's Defense by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it would be harder than you think, classic hardware can't drive an HDMI interface or handle modern resolutions, so if you cloned the original hardware to spec, you would then need another layer to upscale it and send it out over HDMI, which would end up costing more than the COTS mobile phone chipset they are using, while having far less options for interchangeable competition if one of the suppliers went tits up. as it is now, if their supplier vanished, there are dozens of options which could be subbed in changing only the system drivers and configs, none of the emulator system would need to be changed.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  9. Did you know it hasn't been made since 2012? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

    "versus", not "verses". Verses are in poetry. PROTIP: Use "vs" from now on.

    I guess if you want to say "verses", you should expect it to be followed by a...

    (puts on sunglasses)

    ...chorus of disapproval.

    YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  10. Re:So they're currently violating the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

    It's right there in section 3. Are you completely blind?

    They have made no changes to the source code of the original OS being used.
    The following from the GPL comes into play:

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

    The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

    If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

    They provide the very link required above on their OSS website.