Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
OpenSparc (Score:2, Offtopic)
are there other open-source processors ?
Re:OpenSparc (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
The PC Showed Open Source Hardware Not Necessary (Score:2)
If you have a good idea for a new capability, then make and market an add-on. If it's a good enough idea, then if you don't do it, someone else will.
Make your open standard with a way of extending and upgrading your hardware, and 90% of what you want with open hardware is already yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't It Simple? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is any bug, or desireable feature that is missing, or really any kind of improvement to be made, it can be made by anyone. This includes you, but you don't have to do it yourself - chances are there is somebody who wants the same improvement and will make it and share it with the world. Sure, companies will also enhance closed-source products, but now it's not just the company that does this, but a large group of volunteers, as well. This means that improvements can be expected to be made much more quickly and in many more directions at once. Plus, if the company ever stops supporting the product, the community will continue supporting it until the last person has lost interest.
There. Was that so difficult?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. But so are the reasons for closed hardware. Your argument that ANYONE (your word) can modify a device that uses electricity is, for the majority of the population, an argument against, not for, openness.
Yes, I know this is slashdot, and people here see the benefits of hardware openness (even though for most it's just a matter of principle and never hack anything anyway).
BTW for another good piece of op
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point! I honestly hadn't thought of that.
People are right to be concerned about others tampering with their devices, and the concern that this will happen when it's open source (which about literally means "anyone can tinker with it") is definitely understandable.
Perhaps it wou
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was trying to communicate. Anyone can change their own copy, and you can apply the changes to your own copy if you want, but you don't have to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is any bug, or desireable feature that is missing, or really any kind of improvement to be made, it can be made by anyone. This includes you, but you don't have to do it yourself - chances are there is somebody who wants the same improvement and will make it and share it with the world.
There ought to be a Slashdot autoresponder for this suggestion. It is not and never has been true of software, and is even less true of hardware. If you really think you can personally add whatever feature you fan
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't It Simple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, you win. Open source clearly isn't perfect. Therefore, we should all throw in the towel and go back to closed-source software. After all, since open source software isn't perfect, closed source software is clearly better.
No, we should just stop over-selling open source as if the mere fact that the code is available makes all things possible and solves every problem from bugs to world poverty and acne. Selling points for the general public are more along the lines of long-term availability of the software, a better record on fixing bugs and a culture that encourages interoperability. "You can fix it yourself" isn't a selling point for most people, even if it were true. "This car comes with no warranty, there are no dealers, but you are free to cast your own engine parts when it breaks down, and even to distribute those engine parts to third parties" isn't a sales pitch you are going to see on TV any time soon.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
``solves every problem from bugs to world poverty and acne.''
Have I ever claimed it does this? I didn't even start out talking about open source per se, I said "generally, anything that's hackable". But now that you brought it up, I do thi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you are astonished and angry. But your post went
In future, if you must be patronising, try to be patronising and right. I've explained why I think your entire explanation heads off in the wrong direction, and some of what you say is downright wrong. For example, your claim that open sourcing of code
Re: (Score:2)
"This car comes with no warranty, there are no dealers, but you are free to cast your own engine parts when it breaks down, and even to distribute those engine parts to third parties" isn't a sales pitch you are going to see on TV any time soon.
No, it isn't. How about 'this car comes with no warranty, but you can purchase one from the manufacturer or from any of the mechanics in your area who have read the (free) maintenance guide, or you can maintain it yourself if you prefer?' Not likely to appear in any TV ad because it's not really in the manufacturer's best interest at the moment, but if I were in the market for a car this might be quite attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll bite. Since my earlier example concerned emacs, how much does Richard Stallman charge for an emacs warranty?
Re: (Score:2)
How much are you willing to pay?
The argument is that you are allowed to change the s
Re: (Score:2)
A choice you can't afford to make isn't a choice. I understand the benefits of the code being available to be modified. I'm simply pointing out that, in practice, most people have no option but to use open source software as if it couldn't be modified, because they do not have the resources (technical or financial) to modify it. This means the theoretical possibility of them modifying the code isn't any kind of selling point for them.
Also, I think you'll find that a lot of closed source companies are willi
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Dig (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does everyone keep going after Apple for possible bricking of iPhones? You're applying 3rd party hacks which mess with the firmware, bricking is a possibility. No one has gone after Linksys for a bricked router after trying to apply 3rd party firmware.
Apple ships the iPhone with firmware:
#AAAAAAAAAAAA
Some 3rd party comes along and hacks that firmware to do nifty stuff, even if it is a hack. Firmware is now. #AAAAFFFFFFFF
Apple decides to update all the firmware in their iPhones to
#BBBBBBBBBBBA
However since you applied your hack, you now have firmware:
#BBBBBBBBBBBF
Which could very well possibly brick the iPhone. Apple doesn't have the resources to test with every single firmware hack out there. They test their firmware with what they shipped, if nothing bad happens it gets pushed as an update. If I secretly swap a Ford engine into my GM engine and take it back to the dealer, they're not going to fix it no problem.
If you don't want the iPhone and Apple's product model, get an open source phone. Get another brand. Apple makes stable platforms for people who sometimes don't want to tinker. Things may be tinker friendly, but if you fuck something up don't go suing or crying to Apple.
I got into an argument at work about living in one of the more socialist countries (Full healthcare, full welfare, full retirement, etc) and then I bring up income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg) and they start bitching about how much the USA already takes, who in their right mind would let someone take MORE.
There are trade-offs to every single thing in the world. Make up your fucking mind and take the good with the bad. No, you're not entitled and no you can't have everything the way you like it.
Get over it.
Re:Apple Dig (Score:4, Informative)
1. People were only applying 3rd party firmware because Apple intentionally prevented people from doing all the stuff you usually expect to do on a SmartPhone.
2. Apple knew the firmware would brick the phones - they made a press release saying it would _before_ they released the firmware, yet they did nothing to correct the problem (they could at least have prevented people uploading the new firmware to hacked phones). Read into it what you will, but it looked to me very much like the bricking of the phones was an accidentally-on-purpose thing.
No one has gone after Linksys for a bricked router after trying to apply 3rd party firmware.
To my knowledge, LinkSys have never released a firmware that would brick your router. Sure, you can brick it by applying a broken 3rd party firmware(*) but applying an official LinkSys firmware (even after you've been running a 3rd party one) won't brick it.
(* Actually, it's pretty hard to brick the WRT54GL - the boot loader, which is never replaced by the user firmware, is pretty smart and will let you upload a new firmware even if the one already on the router is completely screwed. So even if you uploaded a compeltely broken 3rd party firmware, you can usually just upload the official LinkSys one again and it'll all start working).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I actually only checked this thread just to see how many people noticed what an obvious dig
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes trade-offs are necessary because of physical or technical limitations. The iPhone is not such a case. Apple should not be fighting developers who want to make the iPhone a more valuable product by writing software for it. Nor should they be fighting their customers who want their iPhone to
Re: (Score:2)
This is an idiotic way to upgrade firmware on a phone. The only reason not to include a full image update is for size purposes. Updates to software used to include full executables, but as the size increased and people were stuck with 360K floppy disks or dial-up networking a new way was devised to distribute updates. They would include a binary patch system whe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I'm not completely irate at the idiotic use of the word 'brick' (which even the dumbest PSP gamer can use correctly, but iPhone users can't) is that I think it might just influence the market to move back to a more open way of doing things, instead of following Apple's le
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
bricking != disabling a hack (Score:3, Informative)
Cynical of "Open source friendly" marketing (Score:2)
Easier (Score:3, Interesting)
Following the old adage "Do it right the first time."
Patents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I've thought for a long time that we should have separate Linux distributions for the retarded parts of the world. For example, Fedora US Edition and Fedora Rest Of The World Edition (complete with the ability to use patented file formats). I for one am getting pretty tired of having to jump through hoops just becaus
For a different kind of open source hardware ... (Score:2)
For a different kind of open source hardware, how about open source compressed earth block machine?
From Factor E Farm Weblog [openfarmtech.org]:
Licensing? (Score:2)
Who becomes responsible/liable in the case of open-source hardware, the project owner? The people manufacturing the hardware? The people selling the hardware? Only one thing is guaranteed: If it is successful and makes money there will be lawsuits. Heck, i
Looks great but why no AVC/H264? (Score:2)
Also, they only mention NTSC resolution (720x480). That would be a problem in PAL countries (720x576).
What I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Free and open source software are great. I can get the source code, study it, modify it, and recompile and install it if I like. Cool.
On the box I'm typing this on, I have access to a lot of high-quality development software for the work of installing it, which isn't much. It's easy to set up a world-class development environment (particularly with the neat new big screen my wife gave me for Christmas). I paid less than a thousand dollars for the computer, and everything's cool.
So what am I supposed to do with open source hardware? I have few skills for working with hardware, not many tools, and everything costs money. Tools cost money. Sensors cost money. Parts cost money. Developing the skills costs money (either for formal instruction or to replace stuff I break). It's much more of a commitment.
Now, suppose I come up with a neat new software hack. I can distribute it freely, and people can use it easily. Suppose I come up with a neat new hardware hack. I can distribute the plans freely, but the only people who can use it have the skills, have the tools, are willing to spend money for the parts, and are willing to live with the risk of breaking something that can't just be rmed and replaced.
I like the idea of freedom of information, but there's a very large difference here between hardware and software.
Slashdot greatly overestimates the mainstream (Score:2, Interesting)
The sad truth is, the general public really doesn't care about open source. They want something that works, and to them, the things that you buy from Sony, LG, Microsoft and others work. They don't care whether the hardware is open-source or proprietary. The fact that the iPhone lacks support for 3rd party applications surely didn't stop hundreds of thousands of people from getting one on opening day.
I think you all are grea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Neo whatever-its-called as hardware will be able to run OpenMoko-- but it can also run Trolltech's Qtopia [molkentin.de] software, which is further along, development-wise.
As far as Google's Android platform-- it's my understanding that it won't run on the Neo hardware due to some kind of lack of backwards compatibility [benno.id.au] wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GSM radio and GPS receiver are covered by NDAs. The GSM radio provides a plain serial interface, so the software side is completely open. The GPS receiver requires some processing to be done on the host processor though, and this requires a binary blob. The binary blob provides an NMEA output though, so everything above it is open.
I understand that these ar
Re: (Score:2)
(hint : Binary Large OBject)
Re: (Score:2)
(hint : Binary Large OBject)
Blob isn't an acronym. "Binary Large OBject" or the alternative "Basic Large OBject" are both backronyms. Additionally, the backronyms refer to a data type stored in a DBMS - I have never heard them applied to binary blobs in drivers.
Re:Warranty and expectations of the average consum (Score:3, Informative)
So does most closed source software... or did you expect Microsoft to compensate you every time Windows crashes?
Side note: I'm excited about openmoko, the open hardware (and open source software) cell phone. Waiting for the second revision, which will include 802.11.
Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the OpenMoko project for a while, since my experience of devices (phones, routers, PDAs, etc) of the pa
Re:Warranty and expectations of the average consum (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Warranty and expectations of the average consum (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you actually read Microsoft's EULA? Any of them?
Besides, one could argue that the source code is a warranty unto itself: a warranty that nothing is hidden, and if it doesn't work, you can check it yourself. And if the development stops, you can pick it up yourself.
Therefore, Open Source software in itself warrants you the ability to check for spyware, to make provisions for continued development (what can you do when MS decides to EOL one of their products?) and the ability to fix bugs if you have or can afford the know-how.
And it seems to me that's much more than closed source software guarantees.
I'm buying it the moment it's ready for mass market as well.
Our microcontroller kit, guide, and free videos. Your GCC compiler. Learn digital electronics today! [getarealsignature.org]
Why don't you use a real signature? I don't mind seeing them, but I do mind having to edit them out.
Parent
Re:Warranty and expectations of the average consum (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that already the case? Most warranties cover only manufacturing defects, and only for a limited period of time. Damage that results from a user's actions - whether it be hacking it to add functionality, or simply spilling a coffee on it - are generally not covered. The trick is determining whether it was the user's actions tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sharp DVD Recorder DRM and open markets (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for the info. DRM will only survive in an open market if alternatives are outlawed. Defective products don't sell the momemt a working alternative appears. Remember the DAT? DAT by law required Serial Copy Management..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System [wikipedia.org]
Computer hardware unencum
Re: (Score:2)