Jump to content

Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Is it like the Beagleboard?

Seems to resemble Beagleboard quite a lot, just in a smaller form factor. Is it based on the same OMAP CPU? The specs seem quite similar. Panu-Kristian Poiksalo (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • You mean of course that the BeagleBoard resembles the Rasberry Pi which was originally developed in the 2004 and had working units in 2006. Twobells (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "Is it based on the same OMAP CPU?" <-- no the raspberry pi is based on a broadcom chip.
    • "Seems to resemble Beagleboard quite a lot" <-- they are quite similar in many ways, the biggest difference is the pricepoint, the raspberry pi is targetted to be somewhere arround a fifth of the price of the beagleboard. Of course you can buy beagleboards today while the raspberry pi is still a future product.
    • "Rasberry Pi which was originally developed in the 2004 and had working units in 2006." <-- while the raspberry pi foundation has been arround a while the current iteration of the Pi (arm based, "credit card" size) seems to be much newer than that though i'm having trouble detemining just how old. The beagleboard came out in 2008.
    • -- 130.88.108.187 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

network conneciton

Does it have network/internet connectivity? I don't see it mentioned either way and it a pretty crucial feature of a modern computer Back ache (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ISTR reading it'll optionally have a Wi-Fi chip. There may possibly be a reference to that somewhere. Otherwise, it'll be Ethernet-over-USB AFAIK. --Trevj (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The official website mentions an optional 10/100 ethernet controller ( http://www.raspberrypi.org/?page_id=2 ). Apparently, for 5 to 10 dollars more, you can get the "extended edition" with ethernet and 256MB RAM total. 137.226.181.41 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, I would assume you could plug in any USB WIFI adapter supported by the OS for wireless network connectivity. ThomasJ73 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Also there is a cheap chip (made by Microchip) (specifically the ENC28J60 [4]) that will add ethernet functionality to any device that has an SPI interface, (which the Raspberry PI has) if not using that there are also plenty of chips that do the same, as long as the CPU has an external (16-bit) data bus and a few address lines. (which the Raspberry PI also has), In any case adding ethernet connectivity shouldn't be that much of a problem. But all that is really irrelevant, because you see, the first version of the Raspberry PI had an interface for a (CCD chip) camera, and I learned that for a more recent version of the Broadcom chip Raspberry PI uses, Broadcom replaced that (unused) functionality and replaced it with an MII interface, so it became a simple matter of adding a cheap PHY to get Ethernet connectivity. And when designing the new "credit card form factor version" version of the Raspberry PI, that will be going to sell for $35, they did exactly that. Mahjongg (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Processor

The article currently states The prototype is designed on a Broadcom processor 2763 but this piece claims the 2835 (apparently derived from the 2722). As the info is officially unknown (and perhaps incorrectly reported) maybe it should be removed from the article here, pending confirmation. --Trevj (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The processor was officially revealed as a 2835 today. http://www.raspberrypi.org/?p=106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.254.6 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The datasheet for the CPU BCM2835 IC chip is NOT available to the public. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

I am considering adding a paragraph about licensing. The software part is easy, but there are some unanswered questions about the hardware:

Is the hardware under some sort of free / open source / creative commons license or is it proprietary?

Is the Raspberry Pi Foundation asserting that the hardware in under patent protection? I am assuming not - nothing there appears patentable.

Is the Raspberry Pi Foundation asserting that the schematics and board layout are under copyright protection?

Have they published the schematics or board layout? If not, do they assert that the schematics or board layout are under trade secret protection?

Is the Raspberry Pi Foundation asserting that the name and logo are under trademark protection? Have they ever used the TM mark? Have they gone farther and registered the name/logo and used the (R) mark? I would be very surprised if those are not trademarks, whether or not they mark them as such (and it is normal practice for FOSS projects to retain trademark rights). Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • "even planning to release the schematics and board designs for the Raspberry Pi": [5]
  • "We intend to release our schematics and board designs provided we are satisfied that the chips needed to build the device are available through distribution in reasonably small quantities": [6]
  • "We're partway through trademarking the logo": [7]
--Trevj (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a really good start. In case anyone doesn't know the subtleties of trademark law, in the US the logo automatically became a trademarked when they first used it. No doubt he is referring to it becoming a registered trademark; some nations do not recognize trademarks rights arising through use. Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
So I see. The UK IPO requries trademarks to be registered or to have Prior Rights. -- Trevj (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Release date citation needed

The FAQ at http://www.raspberrypi.org/?page_id=8 mentions that the product is scheduled for release in nov/dec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.201.202 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As of today, that FAQ says simply November, 2011. That ref has been added. --Ds13 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo image

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Raspberry Pi Logo.svg#Contested deletion. Trevj (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Programming languages

This addition to the table has been reverted with the summary Revert: Every language with an ARM port will work on Raspberry Pi. We're not going to enumerate them all. Why not? Although other hardware within Category:Single-board computers doesn't list languages, I believe the Raspberry Pi to be fundamentally different in that it's intended to encourage programming. The interview with David Braben is presented in a reliable source. Does anyone other than me think it's valid to include 'Programming languages' in the table (with more languages to be added in the future)? I can't see anything at WP:NOT suggesting the exclusion of such material. Is the removal of this content justified by any policy? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it's listcruft. There are two possible states for listcruft:
1) The list is incomplete -- thus its selection is arbitrary.
2) The list is complete and way too long for the article's scope.
Neither of these are desirable. State #1 will invite people to add their favorite language to the list, until the list eventually grows to #2, at which point the list is too long for anyone to bother reading through it, therefore useless. Chances are we would end up duplicating List of open-source programming languages (which itself is incomplete), as most open source language implementations work on ARM too.
Further, I find that including BASIC -- a mostly obsolete language -- in such an incomplete list gives it undue weight. -- intgr [talk] 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a listing of items within a single cell in a wikitable, not a list. By the stated logic, the following should also be removed: 'Video outputs', 'Audio outputs', 'Onboard Storage', 'Low-level peripherals' and 'Supported operating systems' and 'Unsupported operating systems'. Listcruft is not policy. Regarding state #1, Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Trevj (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there are no policies directly covering this, and yes it's not a bullet list. But that doesn't address any of the arguments I made:
  1. Listing all languages that work on the ARM platform would be way too long, I'll bet you that nobody would bother reading through the list. That would make this list useless.
  2. Such a long list is out of scope of the article. You're welcome to start a separate article and link to it.
  3. BBC Basic is an obsolete language; mentioning it on a limited list would give it undue weight.
  4. I'd say the list of operating systems for ARM is way shorter and they're relevant here because they directly depend on the hardware and perhipherals on the board.
So here are some languages I can think of off hand that probably work on the platform: C, C++, Objective C, C#, VisualBasic.NET, Java, Scala, Clojure, Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, Java, JavaScript, ActionScript, Pascal, Delphi, Pike, Lua, Scheme, OCaml, Go, Haskell, Smalltalk, Lisp, Forth, Fortran, Erlang, Ada, shell script, Tcl, Self, R, ColdFusion, Eiffel, VBScript, Guile. I probably missed many. All of these are general-purpose languages, used to this day to get work done -- something I doubt about BBC Basic. -- intgr [talk] 17:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your argumets. Here are my thoughts.
  1. Listing all languages that work on the ARM platform would be way too long, I'll bet you that nobody would bother reading through the list. That would make this list useless.
    • I don't think it's the place of editors to selectively omit relevant sourced information on the assumption that "that nobody would bother reading" it.
  2. Such a long list is out of scope of the article. You're welcome to start a separate article and link to it.
    • A long list (if it really were a list) may be outside the scope and be undue. If I've correctly understood your comment, you're suggesting that List of programming languages running on the Raspberry Pi would meet WP:GNG. At this stage, I think that's highly unlikely and such an article would very soon be merged into Raspberry Pi. The included "list" was a single wikilink in what is effectively the bottom of the article, and comprising just 9 characters. I fail to see how that could possibly be viewed as WP:UNDUE.
  3. BBC Basic is an obsolete language; mentioning it on a limited list would give it undue weight.
    • Have you read BBC BASIC? It's not clear which implementation Braben is referring to. But if he considers it to be obsolete, I think he would have responded accordingly to the question "So is it safe to assume there will be an analogue to BBC Basic on Raspberry Pi?"
  4. I'd say the list of operating systems for ARM is way shorter and they're relevant here because they directly depend on the hardware and perhipherals on the board.
    • There are probably a great number of Linux derivatives which could run on the hardware, potentially leading to a long "list". Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't understand how OSes "directly depend on the hardware and perhipherals on the board" any more than programming languages do. Do you mean that specific OS builds are required for the hardware, whereas languages are only indirectly dependent because they depend on the OS?
All of these are general-purpose languages, used to this day to get work done -- something I doubt about BBC Basic.
Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

People who say that BBC BASIC is obsolete and listing it would put "undue weight" on it do not grasp the (historical) significance of providing BBC BASIC, in a way it is the singular programming language for the Raspberry PI !

The reason that BBC BASIC has that status is because in Britain (the raspberry PI was created for the British educational market) it was the foremost language used in education in the 80's, and this system is more or less a "remake" of such a "learn to program computer".

Another reason for the BBC computer's historical significance is that the creators of the BBC computer (Acorn) also designed the ARM processor architecture that is used in the Raspberry PI.

If you read the "mission statement" of the raspberry PI foundation, [8], and some of the interviews and such it is clear that a longing for the days that all British children were exposed to programming on the BBC computer with BBC BASIC directly lead to the wish to create this educational computer, cheap enough to give away to all British school children to give them back the direct exposure to programming that we do not have anymore in schools these days.

Obviously using the same language as a previous generation learnt programming with is more or less a prerequisite "to put the fun back in programming". Programming in BBC BASIC is fun because BBC BASIC has a high turnaround rate because its an interpreter, not a compiler. So you can type in a few lines of code and run it immediately. Also because its such a clean and simple programming environment it doesn't distract from the basis of learning to program.

Its not meant for "getting work done", but meant for "getting to know how computers work" in a fun way.

Mahjongg (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding this row (and BBC BASIC) again, as there's no consensus (or good reason) to keep it out. -- Trevj (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking into this a little more, Python is to be the main lang, with C & Perl also to be used. These are now included in the table. Others have been tested but including them could be classed as original research, so it's probably best to omit them for now. -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
After thinking about this for a bit, what bugs me is that these languages are listed in a table for factual hardware specifications. But they just don't belong -- the hardware in no way constrains which languages can be used; nearly all open source languages have at least one ARM-compatible implementation.
However, it would very much make sense to create a separate section/paragraph about Raspberry Pi Foundation's educational project and list these languages there. Because that's a statement about their educational vision and not the hardware platform.
In that light, I went WP:BOLD, rearranged the article a little, and moved the "promoted languages" to the 2nd section. But I don't feel strongly about these changes; all I want is to make it clear that the hardware can support any language. -- intgr [talk] 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea that hardware in any way determines what kind of language can be supported is in a way a "red herring", as any computing system that is Turing complete (and has enough storage) can emulate any other computer, and consequently can support any programming language. So that aspect simply isn't worth any discussion. What is worth discussing about is, for what purpose a system was designed. And in this particular case its obvious it was designed to make learning the basis of programming simple and fun! Making it simple means that all superfluous distractions from the task of entering code, and see what the code does should be removed, so no "windowing systems etc" to distract from the task. Making it fun means that you can do something creative with that generates immediate gratifying result. Mahjongg (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
intgr, that edit makes a lot of sense: the table wasn't the best place for that info. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tidied up by removing a number of these. Remember this is a wiki, those aren't appropriate external links for this article. If someone wants info on ARM11 (say) they don't come here, they go to that article. Similarly if someone has started here and wants more detail on ARM11, they follow that wikilink and that contains the pertinent resources... --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Raspberry Pi is nothing more than a single board computer that isn't hidden inside of a case, thus main IC chips are an important part of such boards. I added a better link to the Broadcom chip and added a link to the SMSC chip. These are related to this article, thus should not be removed. Concerning the ARM11, technically those links were NOT datasheets, but I let them slide. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sbmeirow. Links to the major ICs used in the RP should be included here for the same reason links to the Atmel ATMega are included in Arduino. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the external links in arduino and links to underlying data sheets aren't there. If people want to know about ARM11 they go to the ARM11 article, not here. Sure we might have a summary of ARM11 here with a link to "main article..." as we see all over the place, external links to such detailed documentation belong there. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
when I said datasheets etc. the "etc." was a giveaway that they weren't all datasheets. If we believe it's little more than the core chip then we should delete this article and add it as a subsection of the article on that chip. (WIth a redirect of course). Got to admit I'm suprised this is at all controversial. It's the way all articles work, PCs have been based around x86 architecture for ages and it's incredibly well known and an intrinsic of the platform - we don't link the x86 reference documentation from the article on PCs. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Arduino most certainly does reference the datasheets for its major ICs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino

has a link to

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?PN=ATmega328P

Which is the overview of the Atmel ATmega328P.

The "Documents" tab on that page leads to

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_docs.asp?category_id=163&family_id=607&subfamily_id=760&part_id=4198

which has a link to

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc8271.pdf

(If a manufacturer has an overview page that links to the datasheet, it is better to link to that than to link directly to a large PDF.)

A Raspberry Pi is like an Arduino, Beagleboard, or Pandaboard, and is not like a PC, Macintosh or Commodore 64. Those are general purpose computers -- the point of the PC. etc. is running apps (even though you can hack them). The point of the Arduino, etc. is educational hardware hacking and software hacking (even though you can run apps on most of them). The audiences for the two classes of product are completely different, and thus the Wikipedia pages should have different emphasis.

You may be surprised that a proposal to treat an educational bare board computer like a general purpose computer is controversial, but it is very controversial. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Great response. Generic PC's must be 100% compatible at a specific level, otherwise Windows and other O/S wouldn't be able to run on them. Arduino single board computers are different yet are very similar because of the Arduino high-level software and common AVR. There are some similarities between different ARM chips, yet there is a mountain of differences between the "jillion" proprietary peripherals that get attached to the ARM cores, especially when vendors like Broadcom lock down their datasheets. Compare the Beagleboard vs Pandaboard vs Raspberry Pi, they are all ARM-based, but they are all 100% unique and not compatible with each other, thus is why technical details are mandatory for single board computer articles. The Raspberry Pi is a unique one-of-a-kind board, thus more technical details MUST be linked to describe it properly. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning Arduino, examine the Processor column at Arduino#Arduino_board_models, and look at all those links to the exact microcontrollers. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Headers, header connectors, and pin headers

8x2 Male Pin Header
13x2 IDC Connector ("Keyed and Shrouded Pin Header")

It seems there is a bit of a confusion on the wording of "pin header connectors". A "header", without the word "pin", or "connector" is mainly used for a software construction, like a header of an e-mail, it is not normally used to describe a hardware connector. A "header connector" can be either a pin header, or the band-cable connector connected to a (boxed) pin header. It is also sometimes used for a "female pin header", that is a header without pins, but female receptacles instead of pins. Googling for pictures using "header connector" will normally produce "pin headers", except for the few cases where the header happens to be a female header. Headers are also normally associated with connectors, while pin headers can also be used for jumpering. On the raspberry PI the 2.54 millimeter spaced rows of holes are obviously intended for the male version of header connectors, thus "pin header connector" seems the description most fit. The first description also just mentioned "pins". Mahjongg (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"pin header" in this context is a very common term. I buy mine here: http://cpc.farnell.com/pin-headers-sockets Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are a trillion websites out there selling pin headers. Only an edge connector is cheaper (as its simply the edge of a PCB) than a pin header connector, so they are pretty common. If you only leave holes for them they are even cheaper.
Pin header sockets are not pin headers though, they are the female counterparts for pin headers. They do not have simple pins, they have (brass) springs inside a hollow plastic "box", into which the pin of a pin header is inserted to make contact with the brass spring. Mahjongg (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
They sell headers as well as sockets. I don't get to re-write the URLs for the second-biggest (?) electronics component dealer in the UK, but I consider their use of the term pretty compelling evidence that the term "pin header" is a real one, in current use.
They're also often cheaper than edge connectors. Edge connectors really need to be plated if you want reliability, and for most production volumes (i.e. Raspberry Pis and Arduinos) it's cheaper to buy a pin header and use existing drill / solder steps than it is to send the boards out for extra plating. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering I just wrote the article pin header , triggered by the fact that I read this article and came to the conclusion that a pin header article did not exist, (and header was just a disambiguation page) I can safely say that I am also of the opinion that "pin headers" do exist. I have been using them in my designs for almost 30 years now. The term "header" is also sometimes used in this context, perhaps because if you want to mention the number of pins (for example 20) its a bit awkward to say something like a "20 pin pin header connector", its easier to say a "20 pin header connector". There are thousands of manufacturers of pin header connectors, many from China or Taiwan. Your point about gold plated edge connectors is true, but lately it has become less important, as many ROHS compatible PCB's that use SMT already are gold plated. If you look closely at the fiducials, and the unpopulated single row pin header you will see that this is also the case for the Raspberry PI's board. I agree though that an edge connector should be heavier plated than the very thin plating used to assist soldering. Also edge connectors are normally bulkier. But true pin headers are still the most cost effective, (also considering the cost of board space) if you do not actually mount them to the board, but only provide the drill holes. Mahjongg (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"Pin Header" is just one of the many variants that have been used to describe the connector. Each manufacturer and part of the world appears to use various names for it. A lot of people that I know over the past decades call them headers, male headers, header strips, but NO ONE sits around arguing what to call them. Samtec calls one group of parts SQUARE POST HEADER. You really can't generically call them square, because a person can use Round Machined Pin Headers. To be picky, it should be called "Male Pin Header", because they sure don't look like females to me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Technically, if they are shipping the boards with a bunch of holes for connectors and nothing more. You can put Male Pin Headers, or Female Pin Sockets, or Shrouded IDC sockets, straight or right-angle, or any other connector on this planet that will fit in those holes on either the top or bottom side. I'm very amazed they pushed up a bunch of stuff next to the 2x13 header, thus preventing the placement of a keyed-shrouded IDC socket, unless you put it on the bottom side or mount one with very long solder pins. Since this board is targeting schools and the non-engineers, it was a fail to not design it for a keyed connection, because I'm sure some noobie will plug into it 180-degrees and damage/destroy it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If I used this board with a bunch of noobies and students, I would install a keyed connector. Because of mounting constraint issues, I would likely mount either a RIGHT-ANGLE version (to point the connector away from the board) or LONG-STRAIGHT-SOLDER-PIN version (to get the connector up higher in the air) of Samtec Shrouded Post Headers or Samtec Shrouded IDC Ejector Header style of connector. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this very common type of connector/jumper-header system goes by many names, sometimes brand names such as Berg strips are also used, although later berg connectors were more often associated with the 4-pin power connector used for floppy disk drives. Some pin headers differentiate from generic pin headers by having small holes on one of their sides, and a plastic pin on the other side, so that they can be horizontally stacked together, these are often translucent green rather than black. Its a quite a common practice for pin headers to be optional, and not populated by default. It reduces system price which is quite important for a device as low priced as this one. Not all users will want to connect stuff to their system, or are able to solder. In many cases where in a school the connectors will be used its practical for the teacher to do the soldering, (or guide the students to do so) and he can then decide whether he wants or needs to use a polarized connectors. In any case, there are so many options by which these holes can be used, for shrouded angled connectors, or for long pins to connect to Arduino style shields, (piggy back boards) that its another valid reason the leave these connectors unpopulated. Mahjongg (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Shortcomings?

Lol, I have been reading other wiki articles of Raspberry Pi copies/clones such as the BeagleBoard etc and none of them have a 'shortcomings' section and don't believe that the Raspberry Pi needs one either. Twobells (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The board lacks a battery-backed real-time clock (RTC), and documentation for the Broadcom SoC isn't available to the public. (removed text)
lolz back at ya. Just because other articles don't have such a section, doesn't mean that such a section shouldn't be included. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The information is allowable. There is no requirement to do what other articles have done.
That being said, you can't call it "shortcomings" or list what you think are shortcomings. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for the reasons why. You need to call the section "Criticism" and you need to provide citations to reliable sources for each criticism. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've seen positive and negative criticism in "Reception" sections, so that might be the best place to put it. The board lacking a RTC has been stated in some articles already, plus it is obviously missing, per the table. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Summary Of Limitations
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A reception section would have to neutral and be based on reliable sources reviewing the product, but so far none have been shipped to be reviewed. Shortly after the first boards ship would be an ideal time to research and write such a section. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing, hell must have froze over, because Broadcom has released a partial datasheet to Raspberry Pi group.
Read about it http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/615
Here it is http://dmkenr5gtnd8f.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Risc OS

The article RISC OS is stating that Raspberry Pi supports or supported Risc OS, but in this article it states that it's unsupported. I didn't read the articles fully but it looks like contradictory information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.180.57.12 (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's contradictory. The ambiguity isn't helped by the OSNews article being titled "Raspberry Pi To Embrace RISC OS". This isn't strictly the case. They provided a loan board for the show in London and coincidentally a Broadcom employee happens to be a RISC OS developer (this latter information has been mentioned on the RPi forum). -- Trevj (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Raspberry Pi FAQ is used as a citation to state RISC OS as supported platform, but there's nothing definitive in the FAQ about it, just a link to a BBC article claiming the same thing whose author could have just lifted the claim from this article. I suggest removing that citation. I also wouldn't rely very strongly on OSNews as a source, either. You really need to have someone actually associated with the project stating fact, rather than some gossip site claiming something, potentially based (again) on what they read here. PaulBoddie (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits which should help to address this. The BBC News article makes no reference to RISC OS, apart from in the spec box. There appears to be offical acknowledgement (JamesH is a forum admin) of the RISC OS work, but that post isn't ideal as a reliable source, and it's a primary source anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed RISC OS from the infobox. The infobox and "specification" sections should agree, but they didn't. The "specification" section omitted RISC OS and footnoted some background. I don't care either way, but it's confusing for a new reader to see inconsistency in these lists. --Ds13 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is desirable for readers. I'm not going to revert the infobox and spec table myself now. This edit could have used a more explicit edit summary, but the extra note is a valid addition. -- Trevj (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This article on zdnet.de claims Der Nutzer kann zwischen Linux und RISC OS als Betriebssystem wählen (Google translate to English). It doesn't seem to say how the user chooses, so this has probably been inferred by the authors from the expected availability of the port. The choice may well be along the lines of "Use this alternative SD card instead." -- Trevj (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:third-party

Following a review of the article, which followed a reversed edit of a paragraph I deleted, I believe the sources cited throughout are very close to the subject, and thus do not give a balanced or neutral POV. Please comment herein. Regards. Lynbarn (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked any wikipedians on the official Raspberry Pi forum to lend a hand at generally improving the article. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this tagging is well-intentioned and agree that there are a few references to primary sources. However, a different tagging approach would be more helpful IMO. For example, {{Primary sources}} is also available. Some distinctions between that and {{Third-party}} were discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 4#Template:Third-party. Or are you concerned that the many secondary sources used are in some way linked to the Foundation and are therefore not independent?
I think it would be better to use specific tagging of identified sources with {{Self-published inline}} or {{Third-party-inline}} as appropriate. Then editors can seek out secondary sources as replacements, if available. -- Trevj (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't done much in terms of tagging articles, and {{Third-party}} seemed the closest I could find to what I felt was wrong. My concerns are that many refs. are to comments in fora and blogs closely associated with the official website, but not necessarily endorsed by the Foundation, and also there are comments that don't accurately reflect their cited sources. I will certainly look at the tags you've mentioned - Thanks for pointing them out! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A related problem is that there simply are not a lot of reliable third party sources for products that have no yet started shipping. I expect a lot more coverage once the boards are available for sale. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a comment from the forum isn't reliable unless it's known that the poster is directly connected with the project (but basing aspects of the article on such comments may be original research). The blog would IMO qualify as a reliable source, although it's a primary source and so may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. But as Guy Macon points out there's not (currently) a lot of coverage in the press for some aspects. -- Trevj (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The time has come to put the Crystal Ball into storage

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We need to stop putting claims like "Scheduled for introduction in November 2011" (now "updated" to "Scheduled for public release in January 2012", and due for the next "update" in a couple of days). WP:SPECULATION is quite clear: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is ... almost certain to take place." It is time to stop playing Whac-A-Mole with these predictions and to start reporting things only after they actually occur, like we did with the eBay auction. Other speculation that should be removed include statements such as "shipping versions are planned to be credit card sized." If a prototype was built and it was the size of a credit card, report that, but don't speculate on the size of what will eventually ship. Likewise, "KOffice and Python are bundled with the Raspberry Pi" is something that may change, so we should not include speculation about it.

There are some things that are almost certain to be true about the boards when they ship and thus can be included in the article. One example: "It does not have a built-in hard disk drive, instead relying on an SD card for long-term storage." There is a vanishingly small chance that between now and when the boards ship the design will change to use a hard disk instead of a SD card, so it's OK to say that "It does not have a built-in hard disk drive."

Let's take out the speculation and report only verifiable events that have already happened or are almost certain to happen, and let's report only features that are known to be on prototypes, reporting them as "the prototype has..." if they may change. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles are not limited to events that have already happened. As the WP:CRYSTAL policy above states, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." So WP editors themselves should not be predicting nor speculating, but as long as this article has an NPOV, then it's just fine to cite speculation and predictions from reliable sources. --Ds13 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The Rasberry Pi foundation is not a reliable source on the subject of when the boards will ship or what software will ship with them. This is evidenced by the various past predictions that were later revised. This is in no way a criticism of the RPF - most entities involved in electronics manufacturing are unable to accurately predict whether they will encounter delays --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
...and to be fair, the foundation has never suggested a firm delivery date - they have expressed hopes that they would be able to deliver within certain timeframes, but these have been mis-interpreted and solidified by observers. In truth, there IS NO reliable source on the subject, so it may be better to avoid repeating the mistake herein, by leaving the delivery date open. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there broad agreement that the product release will almost certainly *happen* some time? I've not seen anyone saying "this may not make it to market". --Ds13 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is, but as nobody - even the manufacturer - knows when, there is no point including a non-statement in the article.
I wouldn't say "almost certainly." Organizations closing down are not unknown, and there are external factors that are likely but not "almost certain." For example, Broadcom might suddenly stop making the BCM2835 SoC. Unlikely, but not impossible. Fortunately, we have a solution for this sort of issue, which is already in the article. Just say "The foundation plans to release" rather than "The foundation will release." Although the Rasberry Pi foundation is not a reliable source on the subject of when the boards will ship or what software will ship with them, they are a reliable source for what they plan to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup, agree. And I'm always in favour of qualifying *everything*, such as "proposed USB port", "proposed price", "scheduled date", etc. It's heavy, but this lets verifiable plans get through while still emphasizing that *anything* can still go sideways before release. --Ds13 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

deleted material and protected article

User Lynbarn has twice and user Macon once deleted notable and well sourced material that I wrote and that user Sbmeirow restored the first time. Tom Morris in protecting the page refers to "unsourced/badly sourced" material, but every sentence has a precise citation to 4 independent sources, all of whom corroborate the others. Lynbarn claims that the material may be unreliable because one of the 4 sources uses a pseudonym on the R-Pi forum, and that R-Pi forum members are not neutral third parties. But this is the pot calling the kettle black. Lynbarn is an unabashed cheerleader for the R-Pi foundation. His user page says: "I discovered a fantastic British computing initiative with massive potential - the Raspberry Pi Foundation." He himself is one of the R-Pi forum's top posters, with 159 posts as of today. He acts as a self-appointed R-Pi forum administrator, dispatching suspected trolls. [1] User Lynbarn apparently feels it is his role to keep the wikipedia article the way the R-Pi publicist would want it. He raised the issue on the R-Pi forum, and the R-Pi publicist Liz, wife of the R-Pi ceo, responded: "Very pleased to see that Lynbarn has taken out some of the references to this forum, which were being used as source material; I'm a Wikipedia editor myself, and I'd have stomped all over it if it was on an entry I was allowed to edit!"[2]It seems Lynbarn is doing the dirty work that Liz is unable to do herself as a representive of the R-Pi Foundation. Liz and Lynbarn use the excuse that references to the forum should not be used as source material, on the presumption that forum poster would be too close to the R-Pi, and therefore biased in its favor. And in fact two of the sources do work for Broadcom, the R-Pi's close partner and SoC supplier, and the other two are enthusiastic supporters. But their words were being used not as puffery or cheerleading for the R-Pi, but to temper and balance the R-Pi foundation's fundamental claim that the device is intended for, and is suitable for, developing software, particularly Python software, on the device itself. In a recent published interview, R-Pi trustee David Braben is quoted as saying: "The Raspberry Pi Foundation hopes to offer children (of all ages), the opportunity to learn hands-on computing skills by creating software on the low cost, credit-card sized device." Perhaps the Broadcom empoyee was exagerating when he said it took 5 hours on a R-Pi to compile an app that took only 10 minutes to compile on his PC. The app's own users's guide says it should only take 5 minutes to build on a "P4 1.7Ghz/512 Mb." But it is unlikely he would be exaggerating in the opposite direction, trying to make the R-Pi look worse than it actually is. So Lynbarn should be happy about any possible insider bias in this case, not afraid of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.206.238 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you are referring to this edit. It would help if you were to provide links to diffs as i did above. If you don't know how to do that, just post the exact time and date of the edit you are referring to and I will insert the link for you.
Re: "User Lynbarn has 3 times so far deleted notable and well sourced material that I wrote and that user Sbmeirow restored the first time", it does not appear that the material is the same. See link 1 and Link 2.
I will address the meat of your argument later; the above is just some housekeeping so that we are all talking about the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that there were two versions of the deleted material (and your links are correct). The original was first removed on 11:06 7 February 2012.[9] The second (improved) version was removed on 11:58 9 February 2012.[10] 72.211.206.238 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but 224 MB (256BM - 32MB for a video framebuffer) should be plenty for a rudimental OS (based on the Linux kernel and X-windows) and a (Python) compiler. The reason its not running (fast) now is that they are probably running it on a complete unmodified Linux distro with all the overhead, using so much memory that the system is forced to use virtual memory, and virtual memory on a SD-card is bound to be extremely slow, even when the system supports faster (non SPI) I/O with the SD-card, swapping will take ages. Recent Linux distro's are simply not "lean and clean" enough for these kind of systems anymore, except perhaps for special implementations like puppy linux that do not use a large and memory hungy desktop manager like GNOME. I predict that a reasonable python implementation will run fine on the Raspberry, if they simply only implement the software that is really necessary, leaving out all the unnecessary cruft. Modern programmers are simply spoilt with resources. It can't hurt to learn them from the beginning to be a bit more frugal. Mahjongg (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mahjongg. I am reminded of this guy who can get 59 miles per gallon in a honda accord, but he has to jetison everything not bolted down, tailgate behind 18-wheelers, and wishes he could lose 60 pounds.[3] Yes, you can do it, but you wouldn't want to do it on a daily basis, and you wouldn't advertise an accord as getting 59 mpg. More seriously, if you reduce the GPU to 32MB, can you still get accelerated 2D graphics, like X-windows? I presume someone doing programming would also occasionally want to use a pdf viewer and/or web browser to look up documentation, so you'd want those to be accelerated. I don't think you can adjust the GPU memory allocation without rebooting, and you don't want to do that very often because it takes forever. Some fun and educational things to do in Python are not even remotely possible, like the "natural language toolkit", nltk, with multi-gigabyte corpora. But even with more modest programs, Python can use up memory in a hurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.206.238 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am on a hot project right at the moment and don't have the time to give it my full attention, but I do intend to analyze this and weigh in on the content dispute. Right now I am supporting neither side. In particular I want to examine the sourcing before I express an opinion. If everybody involved would re-read WP:RS and WP:V, that would be a big help.

I do have time to chip around the edges a bit while waiting for a test run to be set up, so let me comment on some side issues.

First, could we all please indent properly and sign our comments? Just look at what you are replying to, count the colons(":") at the start, and use one more colon. Then end the comment with four tildes ("~"). Thanks!

Second, don't make assumptions about how people will use the Raspberry Pi. For example, I am very likely to be using it headless - no monitor or keyboard, running a single embedded program. I have several uses where an Arduino is not quite powerful enough and I want to replace a 100Mhz 486DX system with 64MB of RAM with something modern.

Third, be careful about speculations on what the RP is likely to be able to do. Read the section above about crystal balls again. In particular, I would like to respond to the above comment "...to temper and balance the R-Pi foundation's fundamental claim that the device is intended for, and is suitable for, developing software, particularly Python software, on the device itself." Wrong, wrong wrong! This is a completely wrong kind of thinking. We are not to "balance" the claims of the RPF. If they claim it cures cancer, we simply report that they claimed that. If some other reliable source claims that the cancer claim is wrong, we report that as well. We don't say whether or not the claim is true.

Fourth (and I haven't dug into the details, I am just responding to a couple of things that caught my eye in the comments above) blogs and online discussions are not as a rule considered to be reliable sources. Again please study WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed two mistakes in what I wrote here. I claimed that user Lynbarn deleted the material 3 times, but the second deletion, was instead by user Macon, on 10:42 8 February 2012. I also said that Lynbarn claims the material is unsourced. That should say that Tom Morris in protecting the page refers to "unsourced/badly sourced". My appologies to Lynbarn for the mistakes. I have taken the liberty of correcting the original, in order to minimize any further damage or confusion. 72.211.206.238 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynbarn's response

Yes, I did twice revert a section of text from this article, and I gave what I consider to be two reasonable and reasoned explanations for the reversals. I did not break the WP:3RR rule, so I was (As far as I am concerned) perfectly justified in making those reversions. I have also made other changes, in an attempt to improve the standard of the article (in Wikipedia terms, using the MoS and other wiki resources as my guide) to make it into a more general enclopedia article. I still believe that the article relies too much on a small number of sources, including the Raspberry Pi Foundation's own forum (more of that in a moment). It was not and is not my intention to make the article biased for or against the project, but to make it wikipedia standard-compliant, neutral, informative and generally of interest. Wikipedia is not the personal fiefdom of the editors, and I welcome all those who like me, wish to improve the quality of this and any other article.

It was also I who requested that the article be semi-protected, and I gave a reason. A wikipedia Admin reviewed my request, and acted accordingly, In truth, I was surprised he protected the page for a full month, as I had expected perhaps a week, to protect the article and give an opportunity for myself and others to continue the tidying exercise.

There are a number of comments in the text above which relate personally to me, and I will therefore address them accordingly:

  • Lynbarn is an unabashed cheerleader for the R-Pi foundation.
Nothing is perfect and where I find fault, I will criticise in a constructive and civil manner - it is my way. - although I have no link to the Foundation, and no inside information, I do happen to believe it is generally a GOOD THING.
  • His user page says: "I discovered a fantastic British computing initiative with massive potential - the Raspberry Pi Foundation."
Yes, I did, and I still think its a fantastic initiative - why is that relevent to this discussion?
  • He himself is one of the R-Pi forum's top posters.
Yes, but again, why is that relevent? Not all my posts are pro the Foundation, or the project.
  • He acts as a self-appointed R-Pi forum administrator, dispatching suspected trolls.
No, I don't, I act as a responsible member of an on-line community, making my views known, answering questions when I know the answers, and being civil and friendly to all I encounter, just as I do on Wikipedia. What I actually said here was:
Maybe you got off on the wrong foot, but 10,000 others seem to be quite happy with the way the Admins perform their often thankless tasks.
Just take a step back, breath deeply, count to ten, then start again. Do bear in mind though, that not all the Admins are involved with the Foundation in any other way than as Admins to this forum.
Far from "dispatching trolls", this was merely some advice to a new member of the forum, who was having some difficulties getting his point across to other members. It would also help to read it in the context of the other posts on that thread, but here is not the place.
  • User Lynbarn apparently feels it is his role to keep the wikipedia article the way the R-Pi publicist would want it. He raised the issue on the R-Pi forum.
Yes, I did raise it there, for precisely the same reasons I edited here - because the article was not of good quality (in Wikipedia terms). I said:
The Raspberry Pi has an article on Wikipedia. For many people, this is likely to be their first place of reference when they hear about the project.
To my mind though, as it stands currently, the article is in need of some reworking to bring it up to an acceptable wikipedia standard. At present, it relies heavily on references to this forum, the blog and other sources very close to the project, and as such contravenes several of the Wikipedia guidelines. Are you Wikipedia editor? Could you help to develop the article in line with the general wikipedia principles? I have already been involved in a difference of opinion with one wiki editor over one particular paragraph, and it would help to get consensus on the best way to develop the complete article into a trustworthy, objective, complete and well-written article.
Again, this is not really the place, but I feel it necessary to respond to the comments made about me above.
Note, there is no mention of favouring the project, merely of improving the article. Liz did indeed respond afterwards - I had not known until then that she too was a Wikipedian.
Every edit page contains the following comment to editors:
If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.
All editors would be well served by reading and remembering this basic tenet of Wikipedia. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh - and I should add, I have today been asked to act as Admin on the aforementioned forum, so although I will continue to monitor, and perhaps make quality improvements to this article, Wikipedia POV guidelines indicate that the majority of improvements to this article from now on may need to be applied by fellow wikipedians. I do hope, trust and believe that the result will be an article that is trustworthy, objective, complete and well-written. Lynbarn (talk)
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
Lynbarn has addressed my concern that he does not have a neutral POV, confirming that he is now an official administrator of the R-Pi forum. He has also demonstrated his comfort in using the Argumentum_ad_populum fallacy against anyone who dares to disagree with the 10000 R-Pi forum members. However, he has not addressed the main issue of why the non-self-serving first-hand published reports of his fellow R-Pi forum administrators, including Broadcom employees JamesH and Dom, should be considered unreliable third-party reports, unsuitable for Wikipedia. 72.211.206.238 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
How about discussing content, not throwing mud at editors? It's also a bit rich to attack one editor who has been clear about their involvement with the Raspberry Pi, whilst you remain an anonymous spa. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
72.211.206.238,"Argumentum ad populum" is not an appropriate response. My 10,000 others seem to be quite happy was merely to point out that the poster was one of a small minority - I wasn't suggesting he was wrong! As for the main issue (Incidentally, the sentence However, he has not addressed the main issue of why the non-self-serving first-hand published reports of his fellow R-Pi forum administrators, including Broadcom employees JamesH and Dom, should be considered unreliable third-party reports, unsuitable for Wikipedia. seems to be counter to your own argument - I believe there is a NOT missing towards the end), on first reading the article, I realised the accuracy, verifiability or appropriateness of various sections was in need of improvement. I dealt with what I considered to be the most urgent requirment first. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is an expression I well remember from my childhood. It may not be commonly known in California, or wherever you are, but it is a well-used phrase where I come from. That I hadn't tackled the other issues I saw is a matter of time available, and other, non-wikipedia priorities. (and at the time, they weren't fellow administrators in any case. As I mentioned above, I was only asked to become an Admin after all this took place (and before you ask, No, it wasn't because of all this!).
Having been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and with several thousand edits behind me, I think I do have some idea of what is required, and would say that even forum entries from acknowledged RP Foundation members cannot necesarily be considered as a reliable source, unless perhaps made in some official capacity. As a single-interest editor (or perhaps a sockpuppet), I'm not sure what your credentials are, but I suggest it may be more appropriate and productive to take a less agressive attitude towards others with whom you do not agree.
I think I have made enough of my point. My conscience is clear. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You can demand to see my credentials on the R-Pi Forum, but not here. I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last nite. OK? You can slag off the posters on the R-Pi Forum, but not here. Liz is appalled that there are editors here that aren't R-Pi Forum members in good standing. So what? Liz doesn't make the rules here. I could ask about your credentials, but you've already boasted that you didn't understand a word of the R-Pi datasheet, so I won't bother. You raise the issues of accuracy, verifiability, and appropriateness. Those are reasonable issues. But it is very well established that compile speed is atrocious on the R-Pi, just as it is for similar ARM processors with limited memory and a slow swap device, for modest applications like Stellarium that JamesH reported takes 5 hours rather than the 5 minutes or less it's supposed to take. Can you imagine walking into your child's classroom and seeing all the kids with their heads on their desks waiting the 5 or so hours it takes to compile their code, and not being able to use their machines for anything else while they're waiting? No, I can't either. There's a good reason why Pentium II class computers were removed from classrooms years ago. 72.211.206.238 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
72.211.206.238, put the flamethrower away. This is Wikipedia. You have two choices; you can choose to be WP:CIVIL or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Re: "It is very well established that compile speed is atrocious", either provide a citation to a reliable source that says exactly that (blogs and forum comments are not reliable sources) or stop making the claim.
Re: "Can you imagine walking into your child's classroom and seeing all the kids...", stop it. Just stop it. Nobody here is going to pay the slightest amount of attention to your speculation. We will consider that argument right after a teacher outfits a class with Raspberry Pis and reports - in a reliable source - the results. Nobody cares what you think will happen in a classroom. Even if you are right nobody cares. Even if your arguments make perfect sense nobody cares. Even if you buy a bunch Raspberry Pis, put them in a schoolroom and post a video showing you are right, nobody cares. We don't care about any of that because it none of that is a citation to a reliable source. So just stop it. You are wasting everybodies time with stuff that Wikipedia cannot use. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Stop your crystal ball gazing, and dismissing the ability of the RasPI to provide a platform for kids to learn to program in Python before the official software package to do so is even released. These kids do not want to compile extremely large application programs, they want to run "hello world" programs, up-to maybe a hundred lines of code, on a software package expressly tailored to do that. If such a package is released and cannot do that, then you can add information about it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your POV. Mahjongg (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I do believe that people either in the Raspberry Pi group or related interests have been trying to spin this article to be more positive for them. I think the most important thing that needs to be driven into people is: "Though the raspberry pi queen has 100% control over her blog doesn't mean her fanboys can do what they want on wikipedia". The raspberry pi is an interesting product and I'm sure it will be very popular, but it sure the heck isn't the "jesus" computer that you all act like it is. The ONLY reason that people care about it...is the price...and if you think otherwise then sell it for over $100 to see how many people truly think the same about it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe there is a fundamental difference between how two groups look at the RasPI. one group seems to think the RasPI is somehow a "PC for $35", and they compare it with a normal desktop computer, and point out its (obvious if you look at it that way) shortcomings. The "enthusiasts" see the potential for the RasPI to fundamentally change how "computer education" might change from "learning about IT" to going back to the fundamentals about having fun learning about how computers work on a fundamental level, and how to program them. Its what kids learned on the BBC Micro, writing simple little BBC BASIC programs. They see the rasPI as a "BBC Micro 2", bringing back what was good about learning to understand how computers work, by writing small programs on them. Obviously no longer by using BASIC, but by using a more modern but still appropriate language (such as Python). On which you have immediate and rewarding feedback, so its still fun to do. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be, (and isn't) a platform for "spinning" any story, whether negative or positive. If you look at it as if it was a "low cost PC replacement", you can only become disappointed, it certainly isn't a "jesus computer" (a terminology which seems to be borrowed from iPAD bashers). But that simply isn't what the RasPI is for, it is an extremely low cost (so massively applicable) platform to learn programming, and the fundamentals of how computers work, on. And as such I hope it will succeed. It isn't a "honda accord" it might not even be "road safe", but I hope it will be a great "tricycle" for kids learning about computer fundamentals. Mahjongg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Mahjongg, I don't think it makes sense to say small programs will work and large ones will not. It also matters what language features are used. I believe integers take 16-bytes each, so a simple loop like the following can take 160MiB. It simply prints the factors of x, that is, the numbers whose remainder is 0 when divided into x. Give it a try if you have python installed. And yes, I know this example can be made more efficient using xrange.

                         x = 9999999
                         for i in range(1, x): (Mahjongg: you can get even a mainframe grinding to a halt with this "program" if you add a few digits to the x= assignment)
                             if x % i == 0:
                                 print i

It also seems unlikely that R-Pi users will only compile small programs. It used to be the case that beginners would type in code from magazines, since it's much easier to modify someone else's code than to start from a blank screen. The equivalent these days is that students tend to download large amounts of source code for applications, games, and utility libraries from the internet, and expect to be able to compile it. 72.211.206.238 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You are still concentrating on the wrong "problem", and still assuming the RasPI will be like a PC, running on top of a typical PC OS that takes up 80% or more of the memory. I'm assuming instead that the RasPI will be like a BBC micro with BBC basic replaced by some form of a limited Python system, without large (GUI) libraries, and running on as simple an OS, with as small a memory footprint, as is possible, do not think "windows", but think DOS with a dedicated graphics library. It remains to be seen whether such a system will perform satisfactory, but I would not simply dismiss it beforehand, as you seem to want to do. Mahjongg (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to edit the page so that is does not contain any hint of either assumption. Instead it should report what is in the sources, and if the sources don't exist (likely considering it hasn't shipped yet) we should be silent until they do. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed without reliable sources there is simply nothing to report, one way or the other. Until then we should remove all speculation. Mahjongg (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_1&oldid=1045642526"