Skip to main content


And here’s another casualty of the conglomeration and sellout of #opensource and #hacker / #maker communities. After the actions of #RaspberryPi and their foundation and the long history of Qualcomm this isn’t exactly a surprise, but it still hurts to see.

The new documents introduce an irrevocable, perpetual license over anything users upload, broad surveillance-style monitoring of AI features, a clause preventing users from identifying potential patent infringement, years-long retention of usernames even after account deletion, and the integration of all user data (including minors) into Qualcomm’s global data ecosystem.

users are now explicitly forbidden from reverse-engineering or even attempting to understand how the platform works unless Arduino gives permission. That’s a profound shift for a brand long embraced by educators, makers, researchers, and open-source advocates.


archive.ph/05KK2

in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵

The foundation didn’t explicitly do anything quite this evil, but essentially RaspPi is now a for-profit entity that has consistently chosen corporate contracts over education and maker spaces. It was especially apparent coming out of the chip shortages in 2020/2021 when they held back supply from schools and individuals in order to fill industrial orders using Pi’s as components. Nominally the foundation still does educational and teaching “stuff,” but at the price points of new boards, the “just use a cheap SBC” mentality is shifting.
in reply to Nick (Alatar the Blue)

Yeah, I saw that.

I will be choosing x86_64-based stuff in the future.

Not only is the culture at RasPi deeply suspect to me, the ARM architecture just seems to be a dead end for FOSS, except for the few truly open hardware projects that use it.

in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵

Yes and no - I like ARM as an architecture, but it’s simply not seeing enough adoption outside Pi to be a viable primary target. It’s unfortunate, because the power:performance ratio is much better than x86_64.
in reply to Nick (Alatar the Blue)

Yeah x86 is definitely the old-and-busted ISA, but the hardware support on ARM for FOSS is simply abysmal.
in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵

turned into a vent, sorry

Sensitive content

in reply to Alex Seibz

turned into a vent, sorry

Sensitive content

in reply to Alex Seibz

turned into a vent, sorry
What if you could compile code to the actual ISA of x86_64 CPUs instead of compiling code to x86_64 which is then internally translated to whatever the secret sauce microcode is, because all your software is FOSS and you don't have to support binary-only software riiiight? ;)
in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵

turned into a vent, sorry

Sensitive content

in reply to OpenComputeDesign

turned into a vent, sorry

Sensitive content

in reply to R.L. Dane 🍵

turned into a vent, sorry

Then it only supports one competitor's products from one generation.

Imo the translation layer is a good thing.

@s31bz @OpenComputeDesign @alatartheblue

in reply to OpenComputeDesign

turned into a vent, sorry

In fairness that's kernels, not userspace.

Matters for runs-as-firmware applications. Absolutely a valid point. And yet...

@rl_dane @alatartheblue

in reply to pixx

turned into a vent, sorry

Sensitive content

in reply to OpenComputeDesign

turned into a vent, sorry

*glances at plan9-rk3399 fork lying around*

Oh, i *know* how bad it is.

@rl_dane @alatartheblue

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.