Is the Raspberry Pi real at that price?

That part is easy. Now try to store the data and present it (turnover, utilisation). And while you are at it, add some management functions like different tarifs for different times & days. Lock-out during certain hours, etc, etc. Oh, and how about being able to do things remote from on -say- a tablet? Thats what customers want these days.

IMHO you are whining because you missed out on that opportunity.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

st

e). All

net

e by a

.

ne.

ver

el.

ing costs

s.

ould be

gh.

Yes, and if you had an onion it would make my stone soup taste a lot better too!

You are ignoring that you still need to connect the rPi to a display of some sort, usually about the same cost as a laptop (where did you get the grand price?) and keyboard and mouse. The difference is the laptop will actually do the job without screwing with how to connect it all up without being a tangle of wires all over.

Rick

You'rean idiot.I made a complaint about some label software we use.

Stop being a Larkinesque pathetic little bitch.

I believe the suggested idea was to use the Pi as an embedded DSP board for sound generation. Have it boot directly into the synth software, control it over MIDI (serial or USB) and you don't need any other input nor an attached display.

-a

The idea in this case stems from academia and the shortage of new undergraduates interested in the nuts and bolts of computing.

I agree. I cut my teeth taking apart TTL from failed ICL1900 boards and sorting the house codes into 74xx chips to test and build new things. These days with tight multilegged surface mount devices you stand no chance of getting bits to play with from old scrap boards.

We will have to wait and see how it plays out. The BBC micro in its day spawned a whole bunch of DIY add-ons as did the ill fated Sinclair QL.

The modern PC is just too complicated for children to learn to program well and interface to DIY external hardware.

I just hope that they have got the software programming toolset for this device right. Since Alan Mycroft is an expert in compiler design and static code testing there is a sporting chance that it will provide a useful environment for teaching computer internals at school.

I haven't seen one in the flesh yet. But the pedigree of the trustees of Raspberry Pi is excellent in terms of computer science skills.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I don't know about where you live, but around here a small TV with an HDMI input is a lot cheaper than a laptop. Ditto for a cheap display.

Keyboard 10 bucks mouse probably even cheaper.

Woolies are flogging usb kbds for $2.99 standard price.

Most college coursework is enhanced with laptop ownership. Any student in his or her right mind will have one, and it has nothing to do with interest in the science.

ALL engineers have them. There are only a few engineers' offices at work which are not fitted without a computer, but *with* a laptop docking station.

It also poses policy and protocol logistical needs for drive encryption to keep your company's data theirs.

That's why I said the "cool thing about hte Raspberry Pi is that it's quite hackable."

On a standard laptop, though, it's no problem to find cheap USB-connected GPIO cards if you like.

Debugging tools on a PC are good enough that you don't really need a JTAG connector -- even for Kernel debugging, you just use a second PC connected via an Ethernet or serial port link.

---Joel

How does highly integrated, and even *closed*, hardware accomplish that?

Yep. I started taking apart military stuff to salvage 2N697s and TVs for the passives.

Those weren't closed and certainly weren't highly integrated. This thing just looks like an appliance. "Don't look behind the curtain."

I'm not buying it. It can still be done. I don't see that a modern PC does much, either, though. OTOH, I don't see that this does *anything*, certainly less than any number of SDKs. Seems like a Broadcom gimmick.

It's *DOOMED*. ;-)

You can buy a *new* laptop for < $300 here (US). And, out of the box, you can start using it -- for other things besides "tinkering". You don't have to go hunting for a display, keyboard, disk drive, GB of memory, network interface, power supply, battery, case, etc.

If you're willing to go for *used*, you can often find a neighbor who has a sub-GHz machine that you can *have* just for asking. Second hand stores often sell them for ~$50 (though the batteries in those usually won't hold a charge).

TV's with HDMI input here tend to be > $100 (I've seen some little "portable" ones -- 7" dia -- for ~$80) *if* you can find a "small one" (the emphasis seems to be on very large displays approaching a kilobuck).

And you have a wider range of choices for using the laptop. When you are done "playing" with your SBC, can you use it to send email? Surf the web? Balance your checkbook? How many choices will you have for video capture devices? Motor controllers? Touch panel? Pen interface? etc.

If you are going to do real *hardware* tinkering, an SBC can be a win. But, if all you are going to do is slap together some black boxes and write "scripts" to drive them, you might find the toy losing its appeal in short order.

I curse myself for discarding several older laptops with integrated power supplies (no external brick) as they would have been ideal for "little projects", in hindsight. :<

I'm not saying there's not a market for this device. Rather, that I think many folks buying it will *play* with it for a while and then set it on a shelf. I've got a cute little CerfCube sitting on the shelf here (along with an assortment of other SBC-ish devices). For its day, a very nice little design in a tiny little *package*. Two 10/100 NIC's, mini-PCI, two serial, expansion port, Linux, build tools, and it's own little 2"x2"x2" case! At the time, I thought I would use it for "network services", here (DNS, TFTP, font server, time server, firewall, etc.).

But, by the time I looked at what I would need to add (secondary storage, even *more* NIC's, etc.) it was easier just to grab swomething that I could plug COTS hardware and software into.

How many folks do you know who've built MythTV boxes? How many still actually *use* them??

According to what I've read, the point is to use the RPi as something to which one can "bolt-on" hardware which you can then play with by writing software to run on the RPi.

An appliance with a GPIO header, which I presume is documented and accessible to the user. I would have preferred an 8-bit or 16-bit expansion bus with a couple pre-decoded chip-select lines as well.

Yea, I've got a few stories about CS majors who tried to get a little too close to the hardware...

--
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Clear the laundromat!!
                                  at               This whirl-o-matic just had
                              gmail.com            a nuclear meltdown!!

So it is a script-kiddy toy. You can do that with a PC.

USB to whatever.

I love it when they try to do VHDL. ;-)

So what is the use then of all the pic boards, Arduino etc, by your logic we don't need any of them just use cheap laptops.

AFAIK, the only thing "Closed" about the Pi is the graphics processor which has to be access through and API to a closed blob.

It seems to me that there is a good deal of fear and loathing about the Pi from entrenched interests.

I see "little boards" *trying* to address a few markets:

- "one off" projects where the cost of laying out your own board (or the expertise required to do so) is not within your means. But, note that you have to be able to buy or build whatever "extra" hardware is needed!

- "low volume" production -- for similar reasons as above. Here, you *might* be able/willing to "layout a small board" for I/O that you can't get COTS

- "high markup" production where you can afford the overhead (in components and cost) of a "less than optimal" solution (*and* can accept everything that comes with that!)

- "prototypes"/"proof of principle" where you are just throwing something together for a dog-and-pony and have no plans for the SBC *after* that

- "reference design" alternatives for developers exploring new processors but not wanting to pay for a manufacturer's "kitchen sink" reference design that tries to address every conceivable application

- "tinkerers" who want a building block that they can play with. I.e., the sort of person who installs his own "stereo" in his *car*

- "tinker wannabes" who *think* they could use this to "do " -- but, who often don't have enough of a self-starting attitude to actually follow through (without peers engaging in the same sort of activity). The low "cost of admission" is seen as "not prohibitive"... "It's only $50..." so they write the check (charge), fondle the device when it arrives, then end up putting it aside

I know several folks holding Arduino's in this last category. These are the folks that are *claimed* to be targeted by this particular device. Time will tell, a year from now, how many of those devices are actually in use vs. "never powered up".

The "foundation" could do everyone a service and conduct a poll a year from now to see how -- or *if* -- the devices were actually received. I suspect such a poll would be biased towards "higher usage" than "never powered up" as the level of enthusiasm associated with "higher usage" would motivate those folks to respond, more.

If a "tinker wannabe" isn't motivated to "try " using the laptop/desktop/surplus PC that he already has (which can just as easily run Linux, has a keyboard, has a video display, has a disk drive, has...), then, IME, he/she may BUY such a "toy" but never actually invest the time to *use* it (since there is a far higher hurdle to use it than there would be to repurposing a laptop/desktop)

In my case, I use SBC's like this for prototype/PoP's *or* to get an idea for how a particular CPU performs. In the days before accurate simulators, often the only way to get a

*real* feel for performance was to run real code on real hardware and *time* it: "Gee, with X wait states on program memory and Y wait states on data memory, the routine took Z seconds to execute. That compares favorably/unfavorably to this *other* CPU for constant memory dollars/constant CPU dollars/constant system cost/etc."

I, personally, wouldn't design something like that into a product simply because I'd have to design the I/O's, anyway, so what does a "CPU on a board" buy me (besides another sole source supplier)?

Similarly, I had need (recently) for a "handful" of low power SBC's for "control terminals" in the house. Should I buy *this* and figure out what else I have to add to it and how I have to modify the kernel to support those changes? Or, just put

*everything* on a board and "build three of them"?

YMMV

monkeys

level

Software,

I admit that I haven't studied this thing in detail (I do hardware not software, if I can help it) but it seemed to me that the whole middleware slice was closed, as well as the hardware platform itself. Specs? What specs?

Me? Fear and loathing? No, disappointment. I'd *love* to see something that would get kids interested in electronics again. I'm close enough to retirement that they're not a threat to my lunch (which has benefited immensely from the lack of kids' hardware skills). ;-)

monkeys

level

Software,

You should find something there, all it takes is to look.

Not necessarily you, but there are several posters in this thread who have a vested interest is selling similar products, and they seem to be the ones questioning the project.

I see that the price on the RS Australia site has dropped to $A38.00