Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Build Hardware Technology

The State of Open Source Hardware In 2008 88

ptorrone writes "MAKE Magazine has put together their 3rd annual 'State of Open Source Hardware 2008' — in just a few years, the number of projects has grown from a small handful to an amazing 60+ offerings. Similar to open source software, open source hardware is available with source code, schematics, firmware and bills of materials, and allows commercial use. The most popular project, Arduino, the open source prototyping platform for artists and engineers, has shipped over 60,000 units." The article is formatted such that the first link for a particular device will usually take you to the project home page. Some will bring you instead to where you can purchase the items, but most still have a "How To" tab which will direct you to guides and instructions on how to build your own gadgets. There are a bunch of interesting devices, from the Game of Life on the outside of a cube to a home-made MP3 player to OpenMoko.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The State of Open Source Hardware In 2008

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @02:42PM (#25926579)

    Companies, in a never-ending pursuit of getting our money, are only testing the water. If we don't BUY products for Linux these companies will drop us like a hot potato. There is no "open source = freedom" to make-a-buck companies, only bottom lines.

  • What's new? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by svirre ( 39068 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @02:52PM (#25926677)

    So what's new with 'open source hardware'?
    I work in a semiconductor company and we got lots of designs including schematics board layouts firmware and BOMs, other companies do the same thing.

    The point is of course to sell our devices by having customers using our designs, but the point is that there are lots of free designs out there, and they have been made available for many years not just the last few as it has been stated in the article.

  • open source hardware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eil ( 82413 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:20PM (#25926897) Homepage Journal

    I read this exact same article the other day. Only at that time, it only listed the Arduino and it's progeny along with a couple of related projects.

    In particular, I'm happy to see the x0xb0x [ladyada.net] make it to the list. The x0x is one piece of open hardware that doesn't nearly get enough attention. It's a perfect clone of the Roland TB-303 analog synthesizer which spawned an entire musical genre and left its impression on electronica in general. The parts list, build instructions, schematics, and board layouts are all open and free and there's an active community [ladyada.net] supporting and hacking it.

    I consider the x0xb0x to be the perfect example of how to successfully translate the ideals of open source software to hardware hacking.

  • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:32PM (#25926981)

    Am I reasonable to expect this?

    Not if you expect to buy a complex bit of hardware like a colour laser printer for a few hundred bucks.

    These things are subsidized by the sale of cartridges (which is why a new, consumer, laser printer often costs less than a set of cartridges) - hard to do if your design is "open source" - and rely on the economies of scale of mass production and custom-made parts (very expensive to tool up, but low marginal costs). Even so, the store that sells it to you probably only makes a profit if you buy a $20 USB cable with it!

    Problem is, open source software can be copied and distributed for near-as-damn-it-zero cost. If its hardware, some bugger has to buy the bits and make every single unit. Even if you don't expect it to be free-as-in-beer, its hard for small manufacturers to compete with a big factory in China, and hard for something made from generic components to be as slick as something with custom-made parts. C.f. software where there's nothing technically that Microsoft can make a computer do that open source could not, with purely human effort, match.

  • RepRap (Score:3, Interesting)

    by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:35PM (#25926995)

    The RepRap [reprap.org] is interesting here - not just as an open source hardware project in itself, but in that the ability to easily reproduce arbitrary shaped plastic widgets could make other "open source" hardware a bit less clunky.

  • ARM7 JTAG (Score:3, Interesting)

    by epine ( 68316 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:18PM (#25927293)

    I've done ARM7 development in the past. I've just started a new ARM7 project after a four year hiatus. What seems to have changed the most is the availability of cheap hardware debug tools such as cheap FTDI FT2232 based JTAG pods.

    I'm also interested to see what comes of Eclipse's DSDP initiative.

    http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/dsdp-charter.php [eclipse.org]

    I've always thought the Balkanization of the debug hardware was one of the major barriers in the wider circulation of open hardware.

    Concerning the Adweebo, I've programmed this chip before using the free download (for Windows) AVR Studio. What an amazing tool. Despite the AVR having a dedicated hardware call stack, this thing can't even display a call stack.

    Nor can it display local variables for call frames up the stack. The upshot of this is that if you have a complicated protocol subroutine that calls get_byte() which blocks waiting for the next byte of input from USART or SPI/TWI (as slave), then whenever you break the program (yes, you must break the program for AVR Studio to display *anything*) you'll inevitably end up looking at the local variables of get_byte() which won't be interesting, while all the variables you wish to inspect in the calling routine are unwatchable.

    In another nod to genius, whenever you break execution under AVR Studio, it changes focus to the source code tab where the execution happens to break. Even if you just had your cursor on the variable you wished to watch, or the line of code where you wished to add a break point, neither of which can be done while the program is running. Breaking the program changes your view, and then you have to find it again among twenty or so tabs you might have open.

    I've never managed to develop much proficiency with GDB. I expect my new project will finally cure that. Generally I write my code so that I don't spend time debugging at that level.

    It's nice to see prebuilt packages such as Yagarto where the GDB to random JTAG-of-the-month debug interface is pre-configured, and you're not forced to invest $700 in a "professional" level debug pod to get debug features that we really ought to take for granted in this day and age.

    Also, I can't sign off without coughing up a hairball to describe the modalities of the Atmel debugWire interface. Bluuurp. There, that feels better.

  • Patent Encumberance (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:35PM (#25927423)

    Is open-source hardware ever going to be a reality outside of circuit designs and/or designs for odd gizmos that are either in the public domain due to expired patents or have flown under the radar of patent trolls? Can you, for example, apply something like the GPL to "meatspace" hardware, such as an efficient solar heater? I had an idea for a solar heater that could heat water, or potentially other fluids, to temperatures in excess of 1500C, and I had wanted to create a development community for it by open-sourcing it using a license such as the GPL, but we (meaning myself and others interested in the design) instantly ran into problems on the legal front. For one thing, there was the spectre of hidden sandbag patents that we would probably want to/have to pay a high-priced IP lawyer thousands of dollars to find. If such patents did not exist, then there would be the question of whether or not the design would be covered by an existing, expired patent (thereby making it public domain and furthermore off-limits to licenses such as the GPL). And, beyond that, there was the question of whether or not a patent troll would attempt to file for their own sandbag patent regardless of whether or not the device was previously unpatented, patented, or in the public domain due to expired patents. To make a long story short, it sure looked like we would have to patent it ourselves (if possible) before we could open-source it just to prevent anyone else from patenting it. And if we did that, we'd be paying out the nose just for the patent, not to mention any of the lawsuits and other challenges that might arise in the course of defending the patent.

    Naturally the design itself has not yet been taken as far as some of the other designs mentioned in TFA; specifically, a prototype has not been built, nor are there instructions (yet) or a bill of parts. A development community sufficiently interested in the project might be able to fill in the blanks, so to speak, and make the design into a more robust product, which would please me greatly.

    The greatest fear I (and others prithee to the project) have had is that there appears to be nothing stopping some scrooge from patenting the device and preventing anyone from being able to build or use products based on the design should I simply release the design I have "for free" and let people tinker with it as they please. In fact, there's no way to even compel those who might be interested in the project to release their results to others in the development community should one ever form short of receiving a patent and then applying something like the GPL.

    If I wanted to release the design plus notes that might lead to a working prototype, bill of parts, etc. without having to worry about a patent holding firm locking up the design to quash all discussion of the product, much less production of units for personal/internal use or sale, what could I do? I'm not 100% sure that the granting of a sandbag patent would enable the IP troll to stop people from discussing the design or using devices based on the design personally or internally (should a corporation or government agency build units for their own use), but it sure seems likely that said patent troll would be able to halt sales of devices based on the design, which would be pretty disappointing.

  • Re:RepRap (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GenP ( 686381 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:21PM (#25928115)
    How does the quality on the RepRap compare to Fab@Home [fabathome.org]?
  • Re:OpenMoko? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mustafap ( 452510 ) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @07:40PM (#25928541) Homepage

    >You need files showing how the wires are routed on the pcb (assuming you're going to modify it somehow, why else would you go to all this trouble?). Oh and by the way you need > $1000 software to generate the files you'll send to manufacture the pcb

    You clearly know nothing on the subject.
    Go google "EagleCad"

    >And after you do that you'll have to locate and buy each of those components on the board, assuming they'll even sell you > 10 of them at a time

    Go google "Farnell" or "Digikey"

    >And after that you'll have to solder fine pitch leads

    Go google "soldering SMDs"

    Then go get lost.

  • Re:OpenMoko? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sketerpot ( 454020 ) <sketerpot&gmail,com> on Sunday November 30, 2008 @02:03AM (#25930821)
    To solder BGAs, try a toaster oven [instructables.com]. I haven't tried it so I can't vouch for its effectiveness, but others have had some pretty impressive success with the method. Also, please note, ">" is generally read "greater than". What you wanted to use was "<", read "less than". (I have no other disagreement with you, so forgive me if this sounds a little confrontational.)

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...