Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Non existent documentation for the GPU

The choice of Broadcom (BCM2835) products result in non-existent documentation as always. See this thread at raspberrypi.org. When the RE starts, please post a link to results. Electron9 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the last page of that thread? I would hardly call [ http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf ] "non-existent documentation". There is also some supplemental material on the official Wiki: [ http://elinux.org/RPi_Low-level_peripherals ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for the GPU? do you have documentation for the GPU on the videocard in your PC? Probably not, and it only works because there is a "binary blob driver" from the chip manufacturer for windows, and perhaps for Linux for it. Documentation on how the innards of a graphics processor works are almost never released, not for the one in your ATI based videocard, and not for the GPU in the broadcom either. As they are considered a trade secret, also there is almost nothing you on your own could do with detailed knowledge about how the innards of the GPU work. Only a company with hundreds of highly trained employees could. Everything else, not related to graphics processing in the broadcom chip, is fully documented. Even the schematics of the Raspberry PI have recently been published. Mahjongg (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even in the area of graphics processing, there is extensive documentation available about how to tell the GPU what to do, which is a lot more important than the internal GPU details. The BCM2835 supports OpenGL ES 2.0, which is really nice to work with. You can even buy the OpenGL ES 2.0 Programming Guide at Amazon.com ( http://www.amazon.com/OpenGL-ES-2-0-Programming-Guide/dp/0321502795 ). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I think the OP was complaining about lack of documentation on the internal workings of the GPU, which reminded me of zealots who claim that a Linux computer with a standard graphics card isn't really a (open sourced) "linux computer" because the internal firmware in the video card isn't open sourced. Mahjongg (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's missing is documentation that is sufficient to write a driver that will provide the same software API for other OS flavors as for Linux Feodora software. So the hardware-API is the required documentation. The internals of the GPU is not really that relevant, but hw-API is. Asfair many Intel-GPUs provide this. But it might have changed. Electron9 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Intel GPUs have been a bit of a mixed bag:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAzOTI

But there are are some interesting developments on the Raspberry Pi / Linux front:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA1MTc

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0OTQ

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arm_mali_reverse&num=1

For those who are following along, it should be emphasized that we are talking about accelerated video. OpenGL ES 2.0 is more than sufficient to run X, Gnome, KDE, etc. Accelerated video is more of an issue if someone wants to write state-of-the-art games that take full advantage of the GPU. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Followup: there is a review at http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2012/04/16/raspberry-pi-review/ that reports a noticeable performance hit while web browsing from the non-accelerated video, so it appears that it is more of an issue than I described above. --Guy Macon (talk)

Time for a Open Graphics Project style of project? ;-) Otoh, maybe a Mali (GPU) based board with a Lima driver would be feasible at a low price? It's desktop, video and 3D that I find important in that order. Locked drivers make moved between operating systems ports messy. And will usually brick hardware in the feature when new kernels will no longer work with old library-APIs. And bare hardware assembler demos will also be f-cked. Electron9 (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes having those API's would be nice, but at the moment the list of devices that publish their Video Acceleration API's is a very short list of very low end devices who's manufacturers have nothing much too lose from revealing the details of their (older) hardware to the competition, all the more important manufacturers do not reveal any such details about their hardware, and expect software to use the supplied drivers. But who knows, many people supposed that there never would be schematics for the raspberry PI, as they were not needed for understanding and using the device, and relevant questions were usually answered by people in the know (like the trip value of some of the polyfuses used, etc), but still now we have a complete schematic (only the interface to the top POP RAM chip isn't revealed, but there isn't much that you can do with that). A similar situation exists with the video API, but people who have used it (from the RPF) had to sign a non disclosure statement, so I would not have too high hopes of them revealing the API. nevertheless there is talk of such people having enough access to the API to write accelerated video/2D drivers, and other drivers they have made have not been tied to one single variant of Linux, (or for that matter the OS itself) so it doesn't seem too much of a problem. All this is a very similar situation to the larger bulk of video hardware that is out there. Mahjongg (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GPU firmware

Is the firmware image some kind of FPGA image, or CPU/DSP code? and what's the status on redistribution rights of that binary file? Electron9 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's comparable with the firmware of any other video card, it's the code the GPU (which is a vector processing unit) runs to create 2D and 3D images. On Video cards its mostly stored in very fast RAM directly coupled with the GPU, and is normally partly loaded from an on-board flash, containing the "Video BIOS" which contains elementary stuff like fonts so that even without an OS the videocard can display a (text based) image, and later more code is uploaded from storage for doing vector calculations.

As without the "blob" the GPU has nothing to run, AFAIK it is an indivisible part of the "video generator", so if you own the hardware (the SoC, including the GPU) you also have the right to use the "blob". The GPU is worthless without it, and the "blob" is worthless without the GPU.

The only difference between a normal videocard and the GPU is that the latter is much more integrated with the whole SoC (shares memory with it), and the GPU doesn't have a "VideoBIOS" as such, but only a small CPU (yes, a third CPU, after the ARM, and the vector processor) that is tied to a very small ROM containing code that loads the "blob" into the GPU from the SD-card, part of that code is code for the ARM CPU who boots with it, and loads the rest of the code into normal RAM and executes it. So the GPU is also used for booting the system. In fact the SoC is nothing more than a GPU that can boot itself, with an ARM CPU attached to it. For more info you can ask questions on the R-PI forum. Mahjongg (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Block diagram

this block diagram, on the right:

Block diagram

is a bit confusing in that the block marked ethernet actually functions as a USB hub with three USB ports to which one of them the actual USB Ethernet adapter is connected. it Is true that the hub, and the USB ethernet adapter are integrated into a single chip, (the LAN9512) but the block diagram as drawn doesn't make sense. Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from "Raspi"

Hi, not sure if I'm remembering wrong, but I thought there used to be a redirect from "raspi" to this article.
If not, should there be? Seems to be a common shortening. 118.209.10.121 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of RasPi? -- Trevj (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just checked all the redirects to this page for errors (many had no categories) and added a few. The list of titles that redirect here is now:

R-pi
RASPI
RasPi
Raspi
RaspPi
RaspBerry Pi
Raspberry pi
RaspBerryPi
RaspberryPi
Raspberrypi
Raspberyy Pi
Rasberry Pi
Rasberry pi
Razberry Pi
Razberry pi
(15 redirects)

"Raspberyy Pi" was already there and isn't worth the bother of removing it, but I avoid redirects for things like that. Let the "Did you mean: Raspberry Pi?" system take care of those. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Raspberyy Pi, I got pissed off with mistyping it more than once! -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM vs Arch Linux

There currently is no Arch Linux ARM article, a project *completely* separate from Arch Linux. Do not "fix" the "Arch Linux ARM" links by making them redirect to the Arch Linux article. Make the article if it bugs you that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhman (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I have done exactly that. No bugs were hurt in the process. Mahjongg (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it; much better; thank you very much Buhman (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AROS

When is somebody going to add AROS as a planned operating system choice for Raspberry Pi? In-Correct (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source mentioning the porting of AROS to the Raspberry PI? The standard version will never work as its written in x86 code. Mahjongg (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro is written like a sales pitch

"The device also features proprietary high performance video and graphic capability as well as a low price at currently 25 USD for model A and 35 USD for model B, taxes apply."

Please, someone rewrite this in a more convenient manner, the whole intro block is written like a sales pitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.243.112 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the problem, the sentence is factual and lists relevant and defining points. Mahjongg (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, well I've taken it out now (didn't refresh this talk page before editing). -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Side by side object comparison photo

Somebody please post a everyday life object vs Raspberry Pi photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.93.242 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

One original promo photo (used historically here) included a British 20p pence. This isn't much use to the rest of the world, so a credit card would be a good choice of replacement IMO. I'll do this when mine arrives, unless someone beats me to it. -- Trevj (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An "everyday item" is likely to depend on a specific country or culture. I suggest putting a ruler marked in mm and inches next to the RPi board. It's informative and likely to be understood by more people in the world than even a credit card. --Ds13 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're still interested, I took a pic with a 50 pence, 50 €cent and a quarter dollar coin... Ideeman1994 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rastrack Raspberry Pi Tracker map

This map (created by Ryanteck) has been recently included and removed from the 'External links' section here. The Foundation's blog post has also been used as a source for the number of units shipped (although the figure of 20,000 wasn't derived from the map). I see a few issues:

1. The existence of the map itself is IMO of legitimate encyclopedic interest, and could be included (perhaps under #Community) per the blog source - but a direct external link is another matter
2. That Foundation blog post about the map's existence has been picked up by a news aggregator but there doesn't seem to be any sort of stated editorial policy there, so that's not exactly WP:RS
3. The map is obviously developed with good intentions but relies on people's goodwill (much as Wikipedia itself does, ironically) - however, presumably there are no means of verifying the data, e.g. cross-referencing to the suppliers - therefore, it can't be used (on its own) as a reliable source on which to base future edits
4. Additionally, we do know that back in April 2012 there were 350,000 pre-orders (or, more likely pre-orders and "expressions of interest", although that's WP:OR).

Thoughts? -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you have it right; it's an interesting and unreliable map. I think WP:USERGENERATED is the relevant guideline here. Those are user-generated map entries, self-published to a personal web site without any claimed editorial checking or verifying. So it's is definitely not a reliable source for any statistics. Even if reliable secondary sources (i.e. not the Foundation) were to promote and write about the map, it will not make the map's statistics reliable. That's my $0.25. --Ds13 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Declaration by Trevj

With this edit, I'm adding a mention of the Raspberry Jams. I have a potential conflict of interest in this area, and declare that I have exchanged correspondence with O'Donohoe, and met him in person at a recent Raspberry Jam. I have been involved in the organisation of the Bristol Raspberry Jam. I always seek to ensure that my edits are neutral and non-promotional, and I trust that the community will remove/amend them in accordance with our policies if this is found not to be the case. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Raspbmc - Single-purpose light distributions

Raspbmc is based on Raspian and can be used as normal linux distribution. I have it installed on my Pi and also installed some additional packages (Samba PDC, Compilers, etc.) So I don't think it's a single-purpose distribution, just preconfigured for XBMC :) --Moritz94 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The RPi "supercomputer"

Hi. Several times now, I have removed content showcasing the "supercomputer" recently made from a cluster of Raspberry Pis. Let me explain my rationale.

1. its not a "supercomputer" by any common criteria
2. it's not notably powerful for either price or size
3. MPI & the tools used to create this can be run on anything that runs Linux; there is nothing particularly Raspberry Pi flavoured about this

And, as I stated previously, I think it's a neat project. But there are hundreds of neat RPi projects now. The external links section cannot support them all. New ones every day. Shall we report many of them? I suggest we can't and shouldn't because this is a general purpose Linux computer, so common Linux projects are expected. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it's WP:UNDUE to mention this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

External links

There seem to be a rather a lot of external links, many of which seem not to pass WP:EL. Including some unofficial links, the justification seems to be that the foundation recognises (or similar) them but surely that has no basis here? This page is not run or maintained by the foundation and is completely separate. Яehevkor ✉ 07:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite me agreeing with you, (for instance BCM2835 could redirect to VideoCore#VideoCore ICs where it is EXT linked, and distributors are already internally linked IMHO), this has previously been discussed Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 3#External links, where 1. the consensus was to keep 2. I failed badly! Widefox; talk 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes to CPU/GPU split

Within today, there are a various of splits possible, with those CPU/GPU splits: 128/384 - 192/320 - 224/288 - 240/272 - 256/256 - 384/128 - 448/64 - 496/16 -- source: https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/tree/master/boot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

half these splits are for the older 256 MB model, they would work on the new 512 MB model, but half of the memory would then simply be ignored! Which has a use (checking compatibility with older models), but not for normal use. Mahjongg (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The RPF has modified the bootcode so that it now no longer uses a fixed memory split, but reads a new entry in config.txt, and dynamically splits of an amount of RAM for the GPU, regardless of how much memory the PI has. Mahjongg (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of GPU driver controversy

I have deleted the paragraph covering the GPU driver open sourcing controversy because I find it to be misleading -- apparently written with a misunderstanding of the criticism from the open source side.

This move has been interpreted by the open source movement as "open sourcing the GPU firmware"

No. What they're saying is that this "driver" doesn't contain any useful bits -- the useful bits of what generally constitute a "driver" are not part of the release -- they are actually hidden deep in the firmware. This is addressed in the original Dave Airlie's blog post: http://airlied.livejournal.com/76383.html

The rest of the paragraph continues to bash said "open source movement" for being silly enough to demand firmware code.

Some other points:

• Don't attribute criticism to vague actors like "the open source movement", be more specific and say "X.org developers" or "Dave Airlie". See WP:WEASEL
• Don't cite Phoronix per WP:RS -- it's very frequently discredited for posting incomplete and misleading articles ([1] [2]) These kinds of stories have earned them a moniker of "Moronix". And heaven forbid, don't cite the Phoronix user forum as a reliable source.

-- intgr [talk] 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason I added the quote from the announcement is to avoid this sort of argument. Let's stick to easily verifiable, reliable material (i.e. what the Foundation actually said). For another quote: "As of right now, all of the VideoCore driver code which runs on the ARM is available under a FOSS license (3-Clause BSD to be precise)." In context of the complete announcement, this is pretty clear. Everything that runs on the ARM, including the GPU "driver" (however basic that happens to be), is open source. This isn't contradicted by the existence of non-free firmware that runs on the GPU. Almost all computers have some proprietary firmware running on some chip or other. It's not ideal from the community's perspective but it doesn't make the announcement a lie -- JRYon (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. The coverage of RasPi Foundation's announcement itself was OK. I didn't delete that.

I had issue with the following paragraph about the criticism from some OSS developers, which was initially added by 86.10.52.21 and updated by Mahjongg. (diff) -- intgr [talk] 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not misunderstanding you. I was expressing support for your decision as I smell a potential edit war brewing. Sorry I didn't make that clear. JRYon (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see now what you mean. Thanks :) -- intgr [talk] 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to wait until (and if) a real news source (secondary source) covers this that presents both viewpoints, so we have something solid to cite. -- intgr [talk] 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with intgr. This is a topic that is well worth covering in this article, but right now the topic is too much like late-breaking news and is not yet a stable topic suitable for an encyclopedia. See What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

((nod)) Criticism duly noted. I've removed the primary source and cited Ars Technica instead. That article also mentions the controversy. JRYon (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Programming languages

Further to this 10-month old thread, shouldn't we include #Programming languages or similar? This question has been prompted by learning that SpecBAS (a derivative of Sinclair BASIC) is available. There must be numerous RSes referring to various languages. Perhaps previous concerns regarding undue weight and listcruft could be reconsidered in light of subsequent reporting. The information could be included as prose. I consider which langauges people are reported as using as being valid encyclopedic information which should be given due weight. -- Trevj (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The list would be too long as there are varioous operating system avaliable each of which has multiple languages available. -Racklever (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the list becomes too long, then it can always be spun out. I think that if current momentum is maintained, then more and more RSes will be writing about programming on the RPi. It could be the case that Programming on the Raspberry Pi becomes a notable term in its own right in the future. This obviously wouldn't be a how-to, but perhaps more a summary of the reasons various people use different languages, environments, etc. That would be premature now but I still feel it's of encyclopedic value to include some such info on languages at this stage. -- Trevj (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of programming languages is specific to eaxh operating system (or Linix distribution) and has nothing to do with the Raspberry Pi itself.--Racklever (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. An alternative could be to include RPi stuff within an article such as programming language, but that would be undue unless the same were to be done for other hardware (not really appropriate and a maintenance headache). And, as you say, it depends (partly) on the OS used. The RPi is currently of a low-ish specification (GPU excepted) and so programming it (including interfacing via add-on boards etc.) can have some specific considerations. I still maintain that mentioning programming languages within Raspberry Pi would give it the due weight it deserves. Anyway, I'm not a programmer so perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick and so will shut up for now. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's also the issue that some languages (most obviously Processing & Python) are being emphasised by the Pi community. No doubt it would be possible to have a Pi running Fortran, but no-one is doing that credibly, nor does it belong in any such list. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion involving this page at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]]. The thread is User:121.72.121.67 reported by User:Guy Macon. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision history

I think it would be nice to start tracking the revision changes between boards. I came here hoping to find an easy reference to differences between revision 1 and revision 2 "B" boards but was only pointed to a post on raspberrypi.org.

Here's what I'm thinking... Instead of what it has now, the Specifications in the Hardware section could have subsections, "Model A" and "Model B". Each of those would have Pre-release, Revision 1, Revision 1 + ECN0001, Revision 2, etc as needed, and each would spell out the important differences. For example, mounting holes and USB backfeed powered on Rev 2.

In addition, I think it would be good to say how to discover which revision you have (cat /proc/cpuinfo) and "D5 (Green LED) graphic changed from OK to ACT (Activity)"

Does that sound like a good idea? --Jwater7 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that this would improve the article, but we need to keep the following in mind:

It needs to be concise.

It needs to be backed up with citations to reliable sources.

I suggest that we start with a discussion here listing in detail what we know about each version and how we know it (board markings, cpuinfo, box markings, ram, clock speed, etc.) Then we will see if we can trim it down for the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good plan. Here's an idea to start..I don't know much about Model A, so hopefully someone can fill this in for me and there still needs to be a lot of citing done below. On a side note, I'm not sure target price belongs in this section, usually I see this in the right sidebar of pages like this.

Specifications

Common to all models

• SoC: Broadcom BCM2835 (CPU, GPU, DSP, SDRAM, and single USB port)
• CPU: 700 MHz ARM1176JZF-S core (ARM11 family)
• GPU: Broadcom VideoCore IV, OpenGL ES 2.0, MPEG-2 and VC-1 (with license), 1080p30 h.264/MPEG-4 AVC high-profile decoder and encoder
• Video outputs: Composite RCA (PAL and NTSC), HDMI (rev 1.3 & 1.4), raw LCD Panels via DSI with 14 HDMI resolutions from 640×350 to 1920×1200 plus various PAL and NTSC standards.
• Audio outputs: 3.5 mm jack, HDMI
• Onboard storage: SD / MMC / SDIO card slot
• Low-level peripherals: 8 × GPIO, UART, I²C bus, SPI bus with two chip selects, +3.3 V, +5 V, ground
  
• Power source: 5 volt via MicroUSB or GPIO header
• Operating systems: Debian GNU/Linux, Raspbian OS, Fedora, Arch Linux ARM, RISC OS, FreeBSD, Plan 9

Model A

• Memory (SDRAM): 256 MB (shared with GPU)
• USB 2.0 ports: 1
• Power ratings: 300 mA (1.5 W)

Note: This model does not have an onboard network controller.

Model B

All Model B boards have:

• USB 2.0 ports: 2 (via integrated USB hub)
• Onboard network: 10/100 Ethernet (RJ45) via USB hub
• Power ratings: 700 mA (3.5 W)

Many model revisions can be identified by the command: pi@raspberrypi ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo ... Revision : 0002 However, this is not reliable - it doesn't work on mine.

Beta board

Produced 100 PCBs

• Black RCA connector

Revision 1 - 2011

Silk screen label shows the raspberry with copyright "2011". This includes board versions (found behind ethernet connector): 1218

• Memory (SDRAM): 256 MB (shared with GPU)
• There are no mounting holes, boards are loose-fit into cases
• D9 (Yellow corner LED) graphic has incorrect 10M (should be 100) and D5 (Green LED) graphic is labeled OK.
• May utilized a HanRun 1220 Ethernet Connector

Revision 1 + ECN0001 (no fuses, D14 removed)

TODO - no info yet

Revision 2 - 2011.12 - Pre-October 15, 2012 boards (TODO - better identifier)

Silk screen label shows the raspberry with copyright "2011.12" and mounting holes near it. This includes board versions (found behind ethernet connector): 1245

• Memory (SDRAM): 256 MB (shared with GPU)
• Two 2.5mm (drilled 2.9mm for M2.5 screw) mounting holes
• D9 (Yellow corner LED) graphic is correctly marked 100 and D5 (Green LED) graphic is labeled ACT (Activity).
• May utilized a HanRun 1235 Ethernet Connector

Revision 2 - Post-October 15, 2012 boards (TODO - better identifier)

• Memory (SDRAM): 512 MB (shared with GPU)

Please feel free to modify the above and post to the main page when it feels right

--Jwater7 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2012

The paragraph beginning 'Launch' starts with a confusing 'The first batch of 10,000 boards was manufactured...'.

If the subject of the verb is 'first batch' then the 'of 1,000 boards' should be delimited either within brackets or commas otherwise, the subject becomes 'of 1,000 boards' which is clearly plural and therefore, 'was' should be replaced with 'were'.

Kind regards, Paul Marillionuk (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good catch! Marillionuk, if you put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed with a reason "to correct spelling and grammar errors on pages such as Raspberry Pi", I will add a comment saying that I suggested it and support it. We need more editors like you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this correction is actually erroneous; in the phrase, "The first batch of 10,000 boards was manufactured [...]", the subject is arguably "first batch of 10,000 boards" as a whole (which is singular since it's a single batch of 10,000 items rather than multiple batches each containing 10,000 items), not "first batch" or "10,000 boards" individually (in this context, the inclusion of "10,000 boards" describes the subject; it doesn't change it). A BBC World Service page discussing this point of grammar offers the following example: "A team of inspectors from Scotland Yard is visiting the island this week." This is analogous to "The first batch of 10,000 boards was manufactured [...]". Of course, as originally suggested, the latter could be rephrased to "The first batch (consisting of 10,000 boards) was manufactured [...]" or something along those lines to avoid the issue entirely. 142.20.133.118 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, so have changed this back to the singular. Rather than avoiding the issue, I think we should get it right: places like Wikipedia should take every opportunity to counteract incorrect messages about grammar portrayed by illiterate signwriters, advertising agencies and journalists/editors! -- Trevj (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Open Source Hardware

Every so often, someone attempts to insert a claim into this article that the Raspberry Pi is Open Source Hardware. It is not. See the copyright notice on page 5 of http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Raspberry-Pi-R2.0-Schematics-Issue2.2_027.pdf -- "Design (c) 2011-2012 Raspberry Pi Foundation All Rights Reserved"

Many (but not all) of the software components are Open Source, but the hardware is not, even if you are only talking about that subset of the hardware that was designed by and is manufactured by the Raspberry Pi Foundation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The raspberry PI foundation has never claimed that their design was "open source hardware". Mahjongg (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said they did. Why would they tell lies about their own product? The problem is well-meaning Wikipedia editors who for whatever reason mistakenly think it is. I just reverted another one here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to say you did, I'm just agreeing with you that the RPF doesn't say their design is Open Source. Mahjongg (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with Raspbian

It has been over a month since it was decided to merge Raspbian with Raspberry Pi. Someone has to create a short section here that contains the key points from that page. I can do it, but it usually goes smoother if the editors who have been actively editing the page do the merging. I can handle the nuts and bolts of making the merge happen if you don't want to be bothered with that. Is anybody willing to step in and help? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit?

"...with the intention of stimulating the teaching of..." Should that be simulating rather than stimulating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamdrist (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. "Stimulating" is correct. However, I think "promoting" is better than either. Anyone disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support promoting, per Use modern language. -- Trevj (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the change. Special thanks to Zamdrist for bringing this up. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"..lower cost model A on February 4, 2012". I think the year should be 2013. The citation confirms it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.174.115 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"There is in reality no difference between a model A with an external Ethernet adapter and a model B with one built in, because the Ethernet port of the model B is actually a built-in USB Ethernet adapter." This is misleading as written. the model B also has twice the memory and an additional USB port. --24.131.96.11 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Operating systems

The section titled Operating Systems currently begins with: "This is a list of operating systems running, ported or in the process of being ported to Raspberry Pi." and the list follows. In my opinion, the list is not very helpful to the reader. An operating system in the process of being ported could mean that someone simply decided to begin to tinker with a port, but realistically it may never come close to being completed. The list would be a slightly useful if each item had a reference, so the progress could be investigated by an interested reader. Ideally, there would be two lists: one with operating systems which have been ported, and another with ports in progress. All should have references. In the meantime, someone with knowledge about this could delete the OSs in progress and make it a more useful list. Eb.eric (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits and WP:NPOV

I would like to discuss the following series of edits: Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4

The relevant citation is here, and the relevant Wikipedia policy is at WP:NPOV. Other useful pages: WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

I would like to invite User:121.74.137.8 and User:Mahjongg to discuss the merits of their preferred versions here. We may also wish to discuss the merits of the above citation. Please note that it appears that one or more of the users editing this page appear to have contributed to the citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

...And another sockpuppet revert without discussion. Let's see...what was this page semiprotected for? Oh. Right. Persistent sockpuppetry. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Its quite clear that this anonymous editor simply feels a need, for whatever reason, to try to put things in the article that defame the raspberry PI. Seen his latest baseless claim " The five overclock ("turbo") presets were changed because overclocking the core causes SD card corruption, apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC" these five presets were in fact NOT changed, I don't know where he has got that information from, its simply bullshit. What the OP seems to do is to search for some negative truths about the PI and then represent them in the most damaging way, making things up along the way. Mahjongg (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit? No, it is absolutely true: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2008#comment-33058 and http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=32743 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.158.215 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Message boards are not reliable sources. Do have any other evidence that what you are saying is true ? Racklever (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:121.74.158.215 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only are message boards not reliable sources, but the two links given do not in any way support the conclusions as worded in the edit user:121.74.158.215 tried to make. To be specific, the first link simply points to the original introduction of the turbo mode, and has had no relevant edits since, (actually nothing relevant was posted in it in this year). The second link points to an ongoing discussion in a forum about possible causes of SD-card corruption's, but no real conclusion can be drawn at this moment, certainly not that its caused "by a hardware bug in the broadcom SoC" or that "the behavior of turbo mode has been changed because of it", all that is pure speculation. In any case over-clocking is always something you increasingly do until something breaks, This might be CPU crashes, but might also be something like SD-card communication. That isn't anything newsworthy, and Its just as possible that the SD-card cannot cope with increased write speeds as any other explanation, the jury about it is simply not out yet. If you have -any- kind of problems with over-clocking it simply means that your particular hardware doesn't support over clocking, so you shouldn't over-clock so much! So yes, the claim that its cause by "a hardware fault in the SoC" is unfounded and made up, in other words "bullshit". Mahjongg (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:121.74.158.215 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked), Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Raspberry Pi --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013

Add NetBSD link to the summary box links of the top right of the page Silverskrll (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done[3] That doesn't seem to be controversial, and is sourced within the article. -- Trevj (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add LadyAda's Occidental linus distro to OS list

Adafruit.com: occidentalis-v0-dot-2 Jakehawkes42 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request : Section 3.1 Operating Systems

Could you please update the details of one operating system listed here.

§ Single-purpose light distributions — Instant WebKiosk

The Instant WebKiosk developer states:

"Please note that Instant WebKiosk/EDS for Raspberry Pi project is suspended, please don't ask."

I argue to remove this distribution from the list rather than modify it's current listing as the developer is clear that further inquiries are not welcome.

Fazrenar (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Fazrenar

 Done. Good catch! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

I think an important operating system is missing from the list of Linux distributions in section 3.1. This is the armfh version of Bodhi Linux and it is mentioned here: Bodhi_Linux#R_Pi_Bodhi_Linux Johnniepop (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Nice! Bodhi linux reminds me of the (now defunct) original gOS Linux of which I was quite fond, and which also was based on Ubuntu and used the E17 desktop system. Nice looking, quick and slim on resources. And Bodhi linux is probably the closest thing now to Ubuntu for the PI.

Applications section

Should we really want to have one?

There are potentially thousands of applications possible, and you need just one fan of an application, and you will get another entry in what will become a never ending list. Mahjongg (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommended Linux Distribution

According to the article, Raspberry Pi Fedora Remix is listed as its [RPi's] recommended Linux distribution. I'm not sure the reference attached to this assertion carries the Foundation's full weight (despite being posted I believe by Liz Upton). In the FAQs it states "We recommend Debian as our default distribution." The archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20120624073034/http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs (2012-06-24) reports the same statement. I suppose the way to have this verified would be to ask Liz. Nimpo (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

@Section 2.1: The SMSC LAN9512 is not an "3-Port USB HUB" but just an two port hub (in combination with an Ethernet PHY) Look at her: http://www.smsc.com/LAN9512 --ReneDens (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? Look at the block diagram. The internal USB PHY is connected to one of the ports of the internal hub! I don't know how to interpret that other than that the USB Ethernet PHY is hanging off one more port of the internal hub. I am aware that a single USB device can contain multiple logical end-points, like a sound end-point and multiple human button interface end-points , but I don't think its possible to have a complete hub, and a logical end point.in a device. If you have other, conflicting, information, can you give a source? Mahjongg (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please add a link to Ethernet over USB

The article does not explain how the Broadcom BCM2835 SoC controls Ethernet through the LAN9512 USB hub. To overcome this a link to Ethernet over USB should be added to the sentence "... the Ethernet port of the model B is actually a built-in USB Ethernet adapter." --Dinarsad (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "Ethernet over USB" is misleading in this context – IMHO it indicates sending Ethernet signalling/frames over physical USB connections. The Raspie uses a simble USB-to-Ethernet adapter integrated into the LAN9512 component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac67 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly how it works. Google for the "LAN9512 datasheet" and look at the Internal Block Diagram at page 6. You'll find the 10/100 Ethernet Controller connected to the BCM2835 via the LAN9512's "Upstream USB PHY". Note, there is no such thing like a system bus on the RPi board. BCM2835 can be connted to LAN9512 only through it's USB. Thus ethernet frames go over a physical USB ("USB PHY") connection to the ethernet controller. That means Ethernet over USB describes precisely how it works. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read that datasheet when the question was first posted. The question is, why does it belong in the article? How does it benefit our readers? I have two Intel PCs sitting in front of me. One has an Ethernet port connected internally to the southbridge. The other has an Ethernet port on a PCI card. Unless I am designing PC hardware or writing device drivers, why do I care about which is which? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why it belongs in the article? From a pure end user point of view nobody needs to know the kind of CPU or anything else. End users merely need to know what kind of applications can be run on RPi. Nothing else! The link to Ethernet over USB (from "built-in USB Ethernet adapter") simply makes additional information on RPi internals accessible without enhancing this article. --Dinarsad (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Connecting an USB-to-Ethernet adapter doesn't necessarily mean it's using Ethernet over USB. The latter means encapsulating Ethernet frames somehow so they're passed unchanged over the USB connection (compare PPPoE, Ethernet over VDSL, ...). The former could accomplísh its task by any way its designer sees fit, e.g. just passing the data over USB and assembling the frame inside the adapter (i.e. what is passed over USB is not Ethernet). While it doesn't make any difference to a user, it does make a difference from the technical POV. A user doesn't care about these details anyway as has been pointed out. We don't know in detail how the LAN9512 works (or do you?), that's why I called a reference to Ethernet over USB misleading. Zac67 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

Please change the memory on the Model A to 512MB as it now has the same memory as the Model B. 50.43.89.24 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The model A still has 256MB of RAM, not 512MB! Originally the model A was planned to have 128MB of RAM but by the time of the actual launch the RPF managed to increased it to 256MB.

So unless you have a source that proofs that the model A now has 512MB the current information is still correct. Mahjongg (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per Mahjongg, (change the |answered= parameter to yes next time). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wayland (and Weston), X successor on Pi

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzI

Useable right now(?) from source or when: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM2MTM

Comp.arch (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

The Raspberry Pi Camera has just been released. Please update! Nagol68 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mahjongg (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Article is now under pending changes protection

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wrong numbers? The articles currently says: In the highest ("turbo") preset the SDRAM clock was originally 500 MHz, but this was later changed from to 600 Mhz because 500 MHZ sometimes causes SD card corruption. Simultaneously in "High" mode the core clock speed was lowered from 450 to 250 MHz. Higher clock speed because lower causes corruption? "changed from to"? A drop almost 50%? Could someone please check these numbers? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Disputed info from 121.72.118.83 on USB power and Memory clock I found this addition which seems to be disputed because the reference is a forum thread. But I still find it useful. So it's here it is should anyone need it: Originally the on-board USB ports were designed for USB devices using one "unit load" (100 mA) of current. Devices using more than 100 mA were incompatible with the Raspberry Pi, and for them a self-powered USB hub was required. However, due to user feedback, the RPF, at the end of August 2012, decided to remove the USB polyfuses which largely caused this behaviour. However, the maximum current that can be delivered to a USB port on these modified boards is still limited by the capabilities of the power supply used, and the 1.1 A main polyfuse. Spontaneous rebooting and/or crashing caused by hot plugging certain USB devices was introduced as a result of this change, which further reduced the standards compliance of the Raspberry Pi's USB implementation. /../ The five overclock ("turbo") presets were changed because overclocking the core causes SD card corruption, apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC. They originally were: "None"; 700 MHz ARM, 250 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt, "Modest"; 800 MHz ARM, 300 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt, "Medium" 900 MHz ARM, 333 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 2 overvolt, "High"; 950 MHz ARM, 450 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt, "Turbo"; 1000 MHz ARM, 500 MHz core, 500 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt Electron9 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Do we have any reliable sources for this? Яehevkor ✉ 08:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I have included the source for the overclocking information with my latest edit: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/c5e1966418922862b2a84559c567c35e6a1c4c28 Surely this can't be disputed now? 121.72.118.83 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not familiar with GitHub, can someone make a call of whether or not it's reliable? And what about the text attached to a forum post? Яehevkor ✉ 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Alex Bradbury (asb) is the author of raspi-config and as you can see from the link I gave the overclocking settings were different when they were first introduced than they are now. They were added on 17 September 2012 and changed on 28 October 2012. This link shows that the reason for the change is due to SD card corruption, which is exactly what I said: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/a7a7b12ad0c0bf7e7fe9e1eadc4b35887230f2fb Somebody should add that to the article. I will eventually do that if nobody else can be bothered and would rather delete useful and relevant information instead. 121.72.118.83 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC) the sources used to support this edit say nothing about "apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC", so that is a non supported non NPOV remark. This is simply a case of tweaking overclocking settings after many more systems were tested since first release. Also the two tables are almost identical so what I did was contracting it to just the differences, but it seems that user 121.72.118.83 isn't content with that, he wants nothing less than maximum exposure. He seems to be the sock puppet of the poster that was responsible for a three month lockdown of the article, (user:121.74.158.215) because of similar behavior three months ago. Can't believe we are back to where we were three months ago! He is one stubborn guy! Mahjongg (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC) If polyfuses are removed from the circuit board any photo of the circuit board ought to show this easily. Perhaps some one could collect photos of a few cards and falsify this claim? Electron9 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) That would be original research, which we do not allow. I feel your frustration; Many times I see something that I could add or delete from Wikipedia based upon my expertise as an engineer, but I, like you, can't do that. An encyclopedia only reports what is reported in reliable secondary sources. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Suppose I had the physical evidence to prove it with. How would I go on to reference that on wikipedia? Electron9 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Edit warning noticeboard discussion IP reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Level 1 pending changes protection ). Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.72.121.67/Archive. There is a reason why the IP cannot come up with a reliable source for his USB claims. Protecting USB posts with polyfuses is a common practice which doesn't even come close to being notable. One wonders why the IP has it in for the Raspberry Pi; competitor, perhaps? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC) If the polyfuses were removed such that the power supply system is compromised it's not a good approach. At least 500 mA variants should be used to be within the USB2 specification. Electron9 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you or I think about how the Raspberry Pi is designed. As an engineer, I have all sorts of opinions that don't belong in Wikipedia. All that matters is what is reported in reliable sources, and there are none supporting this edit other than posts on discussion boards. As I have pointed out before, anyone can edit those discussion boards and say anything they choose. That's why we don't accept them as sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Notice to the Raspberry Pi zealots Like everything the Raspberry Pi has its flaws. You need to deal with that instead of deleting useful and relevant information you apparently can't cope with. Your mindless zealotry will be counteracted. You can't possibly block every IP address I can use. 121.72.118.83 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC) It's not what you try to add to the article, it's how you try. If an item gets disputed it's prudent to provide an RS and you have yet to provide one. Zac67 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC) If the flaws are significant enough for reliable sources to have taken note of, then there should be sources out there. Perhaps such flaws are yet to be reported in such places, in which case you should please wait patiently until they are. Unsubstantiated claims relating to forum posts are unlikely to be acceptable as sources for use in the article. I think that most reasonable editors do understand that everything has flaws; as can be seen in other articles here, if/when such flaws are so notable that their inclusion within the main article becomes undue, they sometimes warrant their own Criticism of ... articles, with a summary style section within the main article. Please keep the discussion going. -- Trevj (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC) It isn't just prudent. It's required. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is now under lever 1 Wikipedia:Pending changes protection, thus making the above discussion moot. Please review Wikipedia:Protection policy#pc1, Wikipedia:User access levels#Reviewer and Wikipedia:Reviewing, and consider requesting reviewer permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. I advise not responding to any further trolling by an IP editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE and who now cannot edit this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you put this talk page under similar protection, please, Guy? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am on it. While we are waiting to get it approved (not sure what the rules are for talk pages - I have to look it up, then put in the proper request), just keep reverting the vandalism on sight. WP:3RR does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Put "Reverting obvious vandalism" in the edit summary so that article patrollers will know to look here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this page is now temporarily protected so the IP vandal cannot edit it. Still working on a range block, which will stop him from editing any Wikipedia page even if he changes IP addresses. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Level 1 pending changes protection )

For those who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of blocking vandals on Wikipedia, here are the options open to us:

• We can temporarily semiprotect the article and talk page (done). Advantage: Instant relief. Disadvantage one: He can start editing with a username (but not right away, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM.) As soon as he vandalizes with the new username once, we block it, run a checkuser, and block all accounts that he has created. Disadvantage two: interferes with other IP users, which is why we usually do it temporarily while we set up other countermeasures.

• We can block a range of IP addresses from the New Zealand ISP he is using (working on it), and repeat if he switches ISPs, vandalizes from a mobile phone, etc. Advantage: blocks him from all Wikipedia pages, blocks him from creating accounts. Disadvantage; interferes with any other IP editors using that range. Which may be zero if we are lucky.

• We can block a range of IP addresses from the New Zealand ISP he is using, then initiate an official Wikipedia contact to the ISP and say "did you know that 65,536 of your IP addresses are now blocked from editing Wikipedia because one of your users is a Wikipedia vandal?" Advantage: This often results in the vandal losing internet access with no refund. Disadvantage: a bit more work, and the ISP may turn out to be clueless.

• We can set up a special filter. Our filtering capability is quite sophisticated. Made up example (not revealing our actual capabilities): If the users is anywhere in New Zealand, doesn't have a username, and mentions USB on the Raspberry Pi page or Raspberry Pi on the USB page, or reverts on the Raspberry Pi talk page, block the edit. Advantage: We have never ran into a vandal that we cannot filter. Disadvantage: more work than any of the alternatives, increases the load on our servers slightly.

• If I told you about our last countermeasure I would have to kill you. Let's just say that it involves a Duck, a Water Hose, and a Ion Cannon in low earth orbit. <smile>

[VANDAL DETECTED]  [SEEKING  TARGET]  [TARGET ACQUIRED]  [    FIRE!!!    ]
.---------------.  .---------------.  .---------------.  .---------------.
|       o       |  |       |       |  |     \ o /     |  |   \`. | .'/   |
|     /( )\     |  |    -- + --    |  |    --(+)--    |  | -- *BLOCK* -- |
|______/_\______|  |       |       |  |______/|\______|  | __/_'_|_'_\__ |
'---------------'  '---------------'  '---------------'  '---------------'
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion is not to bother with rangeblocks. If this editor is fascinated with the topic of Raspberry Pi then the semiprotection of the article and the talk page will shut down his activities. Since he is editing from different /16 ranges any rangeblock that was effective would probably be large. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The special filter option could be set up to block the associated IP and remove any user created with that IP in addition to hinder the edit. Electron9 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)