| |||||||||||||
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry PiPyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry PiPosted Mar 21, 2013 12:19 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)In reply to: PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi by dlang Parent article: PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi
Indeed. It's just a pity that this fine project about computer literacy chose a proprietary platform booting a proprietary OS to implement it. So many other things would have been better. But it is cheap, and it turns out that 'cheap' plus 'good marketing message' is ridiculously successful.
And there are now so many pi hackers that videocore reverse engineering is going on at a reasonable rate. They have a binutils already, I understand. So hopefully what goes around comes around...
(Log in to post comments)
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi Posted Mar 21, 2013 17:15 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That really doesn't matter. The BBC B, the ZX81, the C64, all of those were every bit as proprietary. People dug into the guts and figured out how they worked. My only worry is that these days, if people try to publish disassemblies and the like, they'll get sued by the likes of, well, Broadcom...
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi Posted Mar 21, 2013 18:39 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] The hardware above the chip level was documented in the manuals for the Acorn machines and I've seen a pretty thorough manual for the Amstrad CPC series that upholds this level of documentation. Most of the ICs were commodity components, and the only notable exceptions in the Acorn machines (and in the Sinclair machines) were the ULAs, for which you did get a block diagram in the former case. Ignoring the physical reverse engineering done on various ULAs, particularly the successful work done on the Spectrum's ULA, it is completely possible to logically reverse engineer these components, and I believe that various emulators actually achieve reasonable accuracy. An interesting test would be to actually try and use such software to drive the hardware and see how compatible the implementation is, although I imagine that you'd need to put work in to do things like refresh the DRAM and other bus signalling that "just happens" in an emulator. Of course, the software in the microcomputers of that era was proprietary and disassembly listings that were actually published in books did lead to legal action. So some things haven't changed at all. (I wrote this stuff up here.)
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi Posted Mar 21, 2013 19:28 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] You didn't need to dig very hard on the C64, at least Stateside; the same stores that sold C64s also sold a $19.95 book documenting its internals (including schematics, pinouts, the 6510 instruction set, the memory map, ...)
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi Posted Mar 21, 2013 20:30 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
I wasn't comparing with the 1980s, but with other much more open platforms of recent years. Two I've been particularly involved with were the lart and the balloonboard. More recently things like beaglebone (yeah I know, powerPV GPU lets it down). The Pi's lack of freeness wouldn't matter if they didn't go on and on about the openness, which is pretty ironic given that it comes out of Broadcom. There have been plenty of very misleading statements (all that hullabaloo about their free graphics driver for example). If they didn't say that stuff then it wouldn't make me grumpy.
PyCon: Eben Upton on the Raspberry Pi Posted Mar 21, 2013 17:27 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
so have someone buy a chip and development kit from broadcom, that should give them all the documentation that they need to re-write the binary blob and release the source.
|
|||||||||||||