Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

GPU Maximum resolution

Under "Specification", at "GPU", after "high-profile decoder", please add a new line with the following text: 

   Maximum resolution: 1920x1080

to avoid disappointment for the 30" monitor crowd.  :-)

I can look it up myself, but do you have a source for this factoid? Mahjongg (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, its not mentioned in the FAQ (which is down at the moment, but a copy of it can be found here: [1]). So where is your source? I need a reliable source for this information to be able to add it. Mahjongg (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Bit of a dead end with the manufacturer: BCM2835. --Ds13 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
More on the BCM2835 here. But need datasheet for the VideoCore IV. --Ds13 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the facts about the details are a bit sketchy at the moment, for example we do not know (at least I could not find it) what the level of HDMI supported is, as HDMI 1.0..1.2a alone limits the resolution to 1920×1200. The default Video RAM size is (according to newly released information) 64MB, at 24 bits (3 bytes) per pixel (the lowest color depth supported by HDMI) this could then theoretically support a single frame buffer of 21 ⅓ megapixel. Comparatively a 1920 x 1200 resolution needs only 2,3 Megapixels. Even a framebuffer for the highest resolution supported by the latest version of HDMI (1.4) at 4096×2160 pixels uses no more than a fraction of the memory size available in the Raspberry PI. Obviously any modern video system will use multiple framebuffers (for double buffering etc,) and 3D displays will use massively more memory, but that wasn't the question. In lieu of a reliable source we should avoid mentioniing a "Maximum resolution". we will know the details soon enough when the first raspi's fall in the hands of the community. Mahjongg (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the Quick user guide here:[2], the Raspi supports HDMI 1.3 en 1.4. Unclear is whether that means that the maximum supported resulution is 4096 x 2160 pixels, but it might be. Ill add the HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 info to the article, as its reliable sourced. Mahjongg (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The element14.com Quick User Guide is a PDF created from this source: [ http://elinux.org/RPi_Hardware_Basic_Setup ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoCore makes that claim, but that's not authoritive of course. And just as well that you asked! Because [3] and [4] (currently down, read via Google cache) have RP project member "dom" apparently claiming that 1920x1200 is the maximum, not 1920x1080. (And he suggests that higher resolutions might be possible with advanced technical hackery, lower refresh rate, performance loss). The confusion perhaps stems from the fact that 1920x1080 is highest in the *TV* resolution list. Given those links, it think it's safe to write a text like "Maximum resolution: 1920 x 1200 (in the default configuration)". Although it's probably best to give it its own row in the table then, not in the GPU row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.0.86 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Great! The Raspberry PI main site seems to be up again! Mahjongg (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've deactivated the template since this seems to be getting taken care of. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a "config.txt" file on every bootable SD-Card that among other things decides boot resolution, output device, and for composite whether PAL or NTSC is output. It also lists supported resolutions: [5]
  HDMI_DMT_640x350_85      = 0x1,  /**<640x350 */
  HDMI_DMT_640x400_85      = 0x2,  /**<640x400 */
  HDMI_DMT_IBM_VGA_85      = 0x3,  /**<720x400 */
  HDMI_DMT_VGA_60          = 0x4,  /**<640x480 (60Hz is same as VGA above) */
  HDMI_DMT_VGA_72          = 0x5,
  HDMI_DMT_VGA_75          = 0x6,
  HDMI_DMT_VGA_85          = 0x7,
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_56         = 0x8,  /**<800x600 */
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_60         = 0x9,
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_72         = 0xA,
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_75         = 0xB,
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_85         = 0xC,
  HDMI_DMT_SVGA_120        = 0xD,
  HDMI_DMT_848x480_60      = 0xE,  /**<848x480 */
  HDMI_DMT_XGA_60          = 0x10, /**<1024x768 */
  HDMI_DMT_XGA_70          = 0x11,
  HDMI_DMT_XGA_75          = 0x12,
  HDMI_DMT_XGA_85          = 0x13,
  HDMI_DMT_XGA_120         = 0x14,
  HDMI_DMT_XGAP_75         = 0x15, /**<1152x864 */
  HDMI_DMT_WXGA_RB         = 0x16, /**<1280x768 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_WXGA_60         = 0x17,
  HDMI_DMT_WXGA_75         = 0x18,
  HDMI_DMT_WXGA_85         = 0x19,
  HDMI_DMT_WXGA_120        = 0x1A, /**<120Hz with reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_1280x800_RB     = 0x1B, /**<1280x800 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_1280x800_60     = 0x1C,
  HDMI_DMT_1280x960_60     = 0x20, /**<1280x960 */
  HDMI_DMT_1280x960_85     = 0x21,
  HDMI_DMT_SXGA_60         = 0x23, /**<1280x1024 */
  HDMI_DMT_SXGA_75         = 0x24,
  HDMI_DMT_SXGA_85         = 0x25,
  HDMI_DMT_1360x768_60     = 0x27, /**<1360x768 */
  HDMI_DMT_1360x768_120    = 0x28, /**<120 Hz with reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_SXGAP_RB        = 0x29, /**<1400x1050 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_SXGAP_60        = 0x2A,
  HDMI_DMT_SXGAP_75        = 0x2B,
  HDMI_DMT_1440x900_RB     = 0x2E, /**<1440x900 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_1440x900_60     = 0x2F,
  HDMI_DMT_1440x900_75     = 0x30,
  HDMI_DMT_1440x900_85     = 0x31,
  HDMI_DMT_UXGA_60         = 0x33, /**<1600x1200 60Hz */
  HDMI_DMT_SWXGAP_RB       = 0x39, /**<1680x1050 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_SWXGAP_60       = 0x3A, /**<1680x1050 60Hz */
  HDMI_DMT_WUXGA_RB        = 0x44, /**<1920x1200 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_1366x768_60     = 0x51, /**<1366x768 60Hz */
  HDMI_DMT_1080p_60        = 0x52, /**<Same as 1080p60 above */
  HDMI_DMT_1600x900_RB     = 0x53, /**<1600x900 reduced blanking */
  HDMI_DMT_720p_60         = 0x55, /**<Same as 720p60 above */
  HDMI_DMT_1366x768_RB     = 0x56, /**<1366x768 reduced blanking */

Mahjongg (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Trimming the above down to standard resolutions and Wikilinking each, I get: 

   640x350  EGA
   640x480  VGA 
   800x600  SVGA
  1024x768  XGA
  1280×720  720p HDTV
  1280x768  WXGA Variant
  1280x800  WXGA Variant
  1280x1024 SXGA
  1366x768  WXGA Variant
  1400x1050 SXGA+
  1600x1200 UXGA
  1680x1050 WXGA+
  1920x1080 1080p HDTV
  1920x1200 WUXGA

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are the resolutions for HDMI, (and probably DSI LCD's) but I must assume that on the composite (RCA connector) output at least 576i PAL interlaced 720x576 50 Hz, and 480i NTSC interlaced 720x480 60Hz. But I have no info that the progressive scan variations of these 576p and 480p are also supported. Mahjongg (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this: [6] the Raspberry-pi can do PAL-BGHID, PAL-M, PAL-N, NTSC and NTSC-J

American English?

Why has this article been tagged with American English? Being a British product it makes far more sense to be written in British English. If nobody challenges this I will change it to British English SaintDaveUK (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is a little odd - perhaps the article was originally started by an American editor? It shouldn't be too difficult a job to convert it, and if you're willing to do so, I would support you in that. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [EDIT] on reflection, and in view of the comments below, I think it is perhaps best left as it is. Lynbarn (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
American English, if it is consistently used, should probably continue. I think the Wikipedia Manual of Style is pretty clear about this: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." The Raspberry Pi is not a strongly British topic (unlike examples given in the guideline). It is clearly an international product, and the Raspberry Pi Foundation itself chooses to express its pricing in US Dollars. The guideline also clearly states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." Disclosure: I am Canadian and would probably favour British spellings, but I think it's worthwhile for editors to at least consider this guideline. --Ds13 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering the prduct's international visibility, I don't think WP:TIES is appropriate. WP:RETAIN states When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. This may have been the [ introduction of the term "charitable organization"]. Now, "organization" is not my personal preferred spelling, but it is the spelling used in the non-redirected charitable organization article. For the record, I'm not personally fussed either way. (However, an article on the Raspberry Pi Foundation itself would IMO have those strong ties per WP:TIES.) -- Trevj (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll throw in my vote for not messing with the article. The product is not specifically British and the wikipedia rules are perfectly clear about not changing spelling for no apparent reason. Bilrand (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record, the OED specifies -ize as correct english usage. -ise is frenchified form. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The above may be true for the majority of words, but the OED also specifies a list of 20 words that must always be spelled with -ise in British English. On the topic of the this section though, despite being British I am in favour (or favor!) of leaving the article as it is. There is no benefit to changing it to my mind. Ytic nam (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, some interesting points have been raised. However, it seems there are not any specific American or British spellings in the article as it is. There is a mention of "organization" but that alone is slightly dubious (it is correct British according to Oxford English Dictionary). Since the article not written in American English as opposed to British English, the article has more significance to Britain, and the company themselves write in British English on their website, I will remove the American English tag. Cheers. SaintDaveUK (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proprietary and Non-Free

Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, I am going to edit the page to say that the Raspberry Pi has proprietary / closed hardware with fully copyright-protected documentation. (Please don't try to tell me that the Broadcom chip requires this; The Arduino is Open Hardware even though it uses a proprietary Atmel chip.) I can find no schematics or Gerber files, and other than the elinux Wiki, I cannot find any evidence of a GNU or CC license for any documentation or hardware.

If anyone at the Raspberry Pi Foundation wants to fix this, simply put the following statement somewhere on your website: "unless otherwise specified, all content on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA 3.0)", then mark anything you want to keep proprietary and closed as "Copyright 2012 Raspberry Pi Foundation". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to do the same to iPad? I don't understand your point here. Who is claiming that the Raspberry Pi is open sourced? Or why is there any reason to either expect or require this? This sounds like yet another of those straw man arguments (why?) constructed by the anti-Pi editors (why?) complaining that a computer the size of a fag packet can't compile a large orrery app like Stellarium. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am hardly an "anti-pi editor" as you can see from my previous contributions to this page. At least two other editors seems to think it is open; when I asked what the consensus is for inclusion in the similar products section, one response from Mahjongg was "Not a closed design (i.e. anybody may in principle make a copy of it, or use it as a basis for another product)" (previously he described the Raspberry Pi as "with the power of an older Xbox, but completely open") and Ytic nam repliied "Open source is a must. So is 'Cheap', so $100 is an absolute maximum."
On October 18, 2012 Eben Upton, Founder of the Raspberry Pi Foundation gave a speech titled "Inspiring future generations with open hardware - the Raspberry Pi". The description of the speech starts with "In a world full of expensive, 'closed' consumer devices emerges the Raspberry Pi..." (Source: http://events.linkedin.com/young-professionals-event-inspiring-942088 ) Also see http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/169 and search the FAQ at http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs for "open hardware".
BTW, The specific change to the page I am proposing is to put something like "hardware license: proprietary" and "documentation license: copyrighted" in the specifications. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
None of those (nor anything I've read from the Raspberry Pi crowd) claims that the Pi is open. The FAQ is quite specific that the chipset constraints rule this out. Yet the anti-Pi crowd still keep putting up ridiculous claims that it's open (clearly false, but mud sticks), that it "ought" to be open (why? it's a software platform, not a shared hardware design) and even that it can't host open source software because the hardware isn't open. This week I even heard a fairly senior bod in UK education say that the Pi wasn't appropriate for UK schools because it wasn't open source and so we should use Unix instead (make of that one what you will).
Now we have a rule for comparable boards to only be added to this article if they're "comparable", by which it means that they're specifically different - open, something that not even the Pi meets. Is this turning into the Gnu project of the '90s, where only the ideologically pure is worthy of consideration? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Never saw any member of the RPi foundation claim that they have created an "open hardware platform". Then on the other hand, if you can buy exactly the same SoC from Broadcom, then the rest of the design is more or less simply some connectors around it, and for the model B a known, and freely available, chip that combines an USB hub and Ethernet interface (plus PHY), really nothing you could patent. Pictures of the PCB layers are also available. On the software side simply everything except the "blob" is open source, and AFAIK the blob may be freely used by anybody, and has documented interfaces. Searching the forum on the RPi site gives lots of answers to all kinds of questions on this topic. When I said the RPi was "open compared to the Xbox", I obviously meant that anybody can run any software he likes on the RPi, while the Xbox contains extensive precautions (protection mechanisms in hardware) to make running your own software on it practically impossible, without breaking (hacking) these hardware protection mechanisms. Mahjongg (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"the blob may be freely used by anybody"
It can't. Learning enough "blob API" to use it requires the designer to get into a fairly close, and NDA'ed, agreement with the chip maker. Potentially anyone can do this, but only if they first agree to keep secret those parts of the chip API that its maker sees as giving away details to potential copiers of the chip. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC) By "used" I mean copied onto any SD-Card you will want to use for whatever purpose. Mahjongg (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Would either of you please explain what you think
"Inspiring future generations with open hardware - the Raspberry Pi"
and
"In a world full of expensive, 'closed' consumer devices emerges the Raspberry Pi..."
means? Seriously; when you read that, what do you think it is saying?
Also, the claim that "the chipset constraints rule this out" is demonstrably false. , and yet somehow manages to release schematics and documentation for the portion that they designed under open licenses. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The Arduino has the same constraints from Atmel, huh???? The Arduino uses a simple ATmega micro-controller which datasheet you can get "at every streetcorner". The RasPI uses a SoC with a built in 3D engine which innards is a trade secret, and to get any info about such Broadcom chips you need to byt at least 50K and sign an NDA. You can hardly compare the constraints of these two, they might be linear opposites. Still the foundation is about as open about their design as is possible, even releasing a partial datasheet of the SoC against everybody's expectation. Mahjongg (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the Pi's pronouncements when they use headlines like this. But I also know enough about copywriters, and about journos re-using press releases, to not pay them much heed. I've seen no substantive statement from them that claims open source. "Open" is also regularly used to mean documented and extensible (in an educational hackspace sense of encouraging tinkering), as well as the fully accessible openness of open source, as we might usually use the term.
As to the relative aspects of the two platforms, then I can learn pretty much all I need to about the AVR from its published data. However chipsets like Broadcoms on the Pi need more detail than is openly available. Getting more, and getting enough, takes you into the world of NDAs. I've never worked with Broadcom, but I have worked with one of their competitors: even telling them things was hedged around with NDAs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be satisfied if the Raspberry Pi Foundation simply said "we signed an NDA which requires us to not release any schematics and to assert copyright over everything on our website." If that was what they had to agree to, so be it. Instead they said "we have not decided whether to make it open."
The amount of detail in the two copyrighted datasheets is irrelevant to the question of whether Arduino Foundation or the Raspberry Pi Foundation can or can not release schematics, manuals, images, etc under a Creative Commons license. Nobody is asking them to reveal anything about the internals of the chip, just the details of the boards they designed, the pictures they took and put on their website, and the user manuals that they wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Look at it this way: Linux (the OS) is obviously an "open source OS", hardly anybody would contend that. But you are bound to happen to run Linux on a PC that has a (3D supporting) video card. Such a manufacturer normally does not release extended information on exactly how the internals of his rendering hardware work. In fact for almost all 3D supporting video cards these days, with very few exceptions, this will be the case. If the manufacturer is "open source minded", then he will have released detailed information about its chipset to the linux community, so that they can write their own (for linux optimized) drivers for the chipset on the video card, to be incorporated into the kernel. If they are less inclined to give away detailed information, but still want their chipset to work on Linux they might have written their own Linux driver. But if they do not care about Linux (or open source) at all they won't do anything, and only release a driver so it can work with Windows. In that case the Linux community sometimes manages to "reverse engineer" that (windows) driver, but in extreme cases that is impossible, so the card simply won't work with Linux. Not linux's fault, its still an Open source OS. Now compare this with the RasPI, here it is comparable with the very first (most open) case, the manufacturer of the "3D video logic chipset" (which is built into the SoC) has been gracious enough to release technical details about the chipset so the community (in the form of the raspberry PI foundation) has been able to write an optimal video driver and incorporated it in the kernel. That kernel is part of Linux so it (should be) open sourced. Obviously the chipset maker still won't release details about the inner working of this rendering hardware, just like 99% of all other manufacturers of 3D video chipsets do. IMHO this does not mean that the RasPI is a "proprietary product".
The schematics will be released in time, (when they come around to it, as its unimportant to do so, see below) but even without it there is enough information to clone the raspberry PI board, which is not, nor can it be, protected by any patents. That this is different from an AVR is simply because no AVR microcontroller has a modern 3D rendering engine inside, if it had, no doubt the details of its inner workings would also be a close guarded secret.
My take on the RasPI's pronouncement is simply that they say, look here is a piece of hardware, it comes with supporting software which enables you to do anything with it you want, and you can put any program on it that you like, and we do not put any restrictions on what you do with it after you buy it. This compared to the closed (software and hardware) of for example the iPAD, (nobody knows anything about its hardware that isn't discovered by reverse engineering, and all software must go through a "controlling third party". Practically all modern game consoles like the xbox360, have completely secret hardware with secret mechanism to make sure only "allowed" content can run on it.
Further regarding schematics, and board layouts. Board layouts (showing the different layer of the board, and the traces) were already released for the curious crowd out there board layout showing traces and highres pictures showing both sides of the unpopulated board. And schematics? What is there to release? The "schematics" would only show the SoC with some connectors attached to the different (well defined) pins of the SoC, only the chip connected to the USB port on the SoC of the model B contains some extra logic, but that extra logic is completely documented, as its a known standard chip for which you can download the datasheet. The rest is simply the Soc with its standard external components (crystal, resetter, several drop down voltage regulators, to create needed voltages such as 3,3V and probably 1,8V from the 5V supply, decoupling capacitors etc). In other words, the schematic would tell you nothing you would not already know if you had sourced a SoC to put on your own board, sourcing the chips (upwards from 50.000 pieces) would come with a dataheet showing all the schematic details. Not having the schematics if you do not have the chips is a red herring. Mahjongg (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"Linux (the OS) is obviously an "open source OS", hardly anybody would contend that."
The only truism one can state about UNIX/Unix is that whatever you state, there will be plenty of people to argue about it. There are certainly those who will argue whether Linux is an OS, whether it has to be called "Gnu Linux" instead, and as to how far its "open source" nature goes there's a whole religious jihad of the nutters out there. There's an apparently serious comment in some article talk: on here that because the PC I'm typing this on has an Nvidia graphic board (and its closed drivers) I'm no longer running "Linux" on it.
None of this is helpful, and certainly not for the Raspberry Pi. Let's ignore it and move on. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Mahjongg (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing hiccup

Remember when I said that manufacturing often has unexpected delays even if they do everything right? Look here: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/781 --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Stuff happens. Better to have it discovered before shipping to cutomers though... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The way they handled it is quite impressive. A couple of days to study the problem (some companies fire off an announcement with bad information and then end up backtracking) followed by a detailed description of the issue (some companies just do some handwaving about unspecified problems) and information about what the effect will be to the customer (some companies take your money and then go silent for months). That announement was a texbook example of the right way to do things. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. As someone pointed out on the forum, you can't have better 'transparency' than an X-ray showing the problem. I wonder if we could persuade the Foundation to release the image as public domain? It would be a nice addition to the article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Price information

I added "plus delivery cost and sales tax" to the price information, but this was reverted by a US editor as "obvious".

For UK readers I do not believe this is obvious, as it it illegal for adverts to consumers to exclude VAT from the price, so it is normal for prices to at least include VAT.[7] I for one was confused by the £22 price; when I looked to buy one it was £29.46. However US readers will probably expect sales tax to be added.

WP policy is not to normally give prices (WP:NOPRICES), but this article could be an exception as low price is central to the concept. Is there a consensis to reinstate my edit[8] adding "plus delivery cost and sales tax" and/or "excluding delivery and sales tax" to avoid misleading UK readers? Rwendland (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree - it is not obvious in UK (or most of Europe) that "sales tax" (what we call VAT) is included. Given that it runs at 20% it is not insignificant either. As Rwendland points out it is illegal in the UK to advertise products to end consumers that do not already include the VAT. "plus delivery cost and sales tax" provides useful information to large numbers of people even if it is "obvious" to users in the US. Ytic nam (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have defined the prices as headline prices, and wikilinked VAT and sales tax (they are not quite the same thing). Hope that makes it clearer for all. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Taxes and shipping prices depend completely on where in the world you buy your RPi. In some countries much lower or even no taxes will be asked. RS-online US just mentions $35,- on their website. Shipping also depends on where you buy and live. I do not think that wording should be used that expresses that some form of taxes must be added, as that might not be true. Also "headline price"? This is an uncommon term, maybe "baseline price" will be a more recognized term.
I would change the sentence to something like "This the baseline price, depending on where you live taxes and, shipping costs, might be incurred." Mahjongg (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The price of the Raspberry Pi should be treated like OTHER Wikipedia articles. How do they describe the price for the Apple products, various cell phones, and other electronic gadgets that are sold worldwide? Even if I wasn't going to read the other articles, my first assumptions would be that Wikipedia doesn't sell anything, thus the price of the product is all that should be reported and we don't have to say anything about taxes or shippings, because obviously they vary from place to place. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the only reason the $35 (and $25) are mentioned at all in the first place, is because its newsworthiness has made many reliable sources mention it. Mahjongg (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with the current situation. Removing the UK price has removed the possibility of confusing UK readers used to VAT being include in the price. NB I looked at the iPad article for comparison, where no attempt is made to show current pricing - some historic prices are given eg launch price. Rwendland (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Prices are listed in BeagleBoard and Aakash (tablet) articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi Foundation

This article is suppose to be about the "Raspberry Pi" product, instead of the Foundation and what it is trying to accomplish. There was an existing redirect for Raspberry Pi Foundation to the Raspberry Pi article, so I moved some of the foundation text over to it. Just like Apple Inc. is ONLY about the company, but iPhone and iPad are about the products, thus should be the same direction of the Raspberry Pi. It is past time to split them apart. More text should be moved over to that article. Please discuss and throw rocks at me <grin>. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about rocks, but have a free custard pie in the face for creating an article on the Foundation that makes no mention at all of the Raspberry Pi. :p AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(Hey, The R Pi has its own smiley - :pπ )AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I moved some text over to it but you replied before I had a chance to add anything about the Raspberry Pi. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I guessed as much. I wasn't being serious. Sorry if it came over that way :( AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the separate article is desirable. But it should be borne in mind that if it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH the contents will need merging back in here. Therefore, more articles specifically about the charity are sought. -- Trevj (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I did a GOOGLE phrase search for "Raspberry Pi Foundation" (with the double quotes) and it shows 506,000 results. I'm sure this is a lot more than some other ones in Wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The news results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) show several orders of magnitude less. However, I think that plenty of press coverage of the board also mentions the charity so it may be OK. -- Trevj (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New Prices

If you haven't heard about it, the Raspberry Pi price officially changed on March 12. http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/826 Please discuss how to address this change in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why we've discussed the WP:NOPRICE policy a few times. It exists for good reason. There's little value in chasing after changing and regionally varying prices. It's just not the role of an encyclopedia, IMHO. The project's goal price of $25/$35 stands and is verifiable as a project goal. THOSE prices are notable because it really did distinguish this project from others. As I see it, now that prices will continue to be all over the place, there's not much more to say about Raspberry Pi pricing in an encyclopedia... leave that to the distributors and we have sufficient links in the article to those folks. --Ds13 (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Third video output option DSI

according to this: [9] there is a third video output option after composite and HDMI, namely Display Serial Interface (DSI) via the unpopulated 15 way flex cable connector. This might open extra possibilities, in particular the option to connect LCD panels. It seems it's using the same connector to which they planned to attach the smartphone style camera module which the RasPI foundation) plans to release next year. Mahjongg (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, MIPI Camera interface. The DSI and CSI are on separate connectors, although similar. [10] 91.154.87.201 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clear-up, I did indeed completely overlook the identical connector above the SD-Card connector. I have read that both connectors are indeed placed on the board (not left empty like the pinheader connector). I also read that the foundation plans to release a camera module next year. Do we have reliable sources for both these connectors, so we can add them to the specification table? Mahjongg (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked but could not find anything. Once units start hitting reviewers we should have multiple reliable sources describing all the connectors. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The DSI connector is real, here [11] is a discussion on how to use it to make a LVDS signal, it also mentions that the SoC is capable of creating a second independent video signal (yes, you can connect two monitors this way after all). There was some initial doubt on whether these connectors would actually be mounted on the board, but this [12] discussion confirms they were mounted. I mentioned on the forum [13] that using the DSI signal -might- be a way to fix the missing VGA output problem. Mahjongg (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Regulatory compliance?

Sold in the EU without a CE mark? Sold in the US without FCC part 15 compliance or UL listing? Marketed to children without any safety compliance testing whatsoever? Kids will be able to lick the lead solder on the board, sleep with it plugged in under their pillow and die in a tragic fire, plug it into a live network while touching the board with their wet hands and get electrocuted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.234.254.24 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is speculation. We simply do not know what regulatory marks will be on the boards until someone actually receives one. Unless the boards turn out to be a lot different than what has been announced, they will be incapable of shocking anyone (five volts maximum) or setting a pillow on fire ("3.5 watts", but is that peak or average?) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
They haven't been marketed to children. They won't be marketed to children until they have cases. Rubiscous (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Reading the wording of this anonymous poster, and his unrealistic "dangers", it seems he is being satirical/sarcastic. However regarding compliances he does have a point, I see no mentioning anywhere of any complicance to EMC regulations. Saftety regulations are a moot point, as no dangerous voltages are used, and the whole thing will be powered with only a few watts, but I'm not sure in how far EMC regulations apply to the raspberry PI (which isn't a consumer device). If any EMC testing has been done it should probably have been done by Broadcom as the SOC seems the sole major source for any EMF, (except for the ethernet & USB bridge chip) so its quite possible that the raspberry PI has an automatic complyance, based on being build from a compliant SOC. Mahjongg (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, as it happens, there is now an answer on whether the Raspberry PI has EMC compliance! It seems that originally the first batch were planned to be sold as "development board", and thus (in the UK at least) exempt from compliance. However the extreme demand for the device has given RS components second thought, and they have decided to do formal compliance testing now rather than later. See [14]. Mahjongg (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
On friday April 6, 2012 (good friday) the raspberry PI foundation announced that the raspberry PI passed all worldwide compliance tests (without needing hardware changes). [15] The first batch of raspberry PI's will receive a CE sticker. New Raspberry's will have the CE mark (and the other relevant marks) silkscreened on their PCB's. Mahjongg (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The certification is for Class A. The certification for Class B (residential use) will probably come later this year with the "educational version", as it requires a minor board change. [16]

See also

Following on from Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 2#Similar products, the following are listed in Missed out on Raspberry Pi? Here're five alternatives:

  1. PandaBoard ES
  2. Cotton Candy (single-board computer)
  3. BeagleBoard-xM
  4. CuBox
  5. Gumstix Overo

The price differences are considerable, but they're cited as alternatives in a reliable source so could be included. (They're all included within the list of single-board computers.)

My question is, should they go under 'See also' or 'Reception' (the latter as a response to difficulty in ordering, cited at the beginning of that piece)? -- Trevj (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In neither, at least the list should go in neither. There could be a short sentence included in the reception, in the sense that "in the waiting period for the reception of the PI some sites mentioned alternatives for the PI". But really IMO its non news. Mahjongg (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right. Anything more may be WP:UNDUE. Done. -- Trevj (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pricing

Surely the price should be in GBP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.76 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_2#Currency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_3#Price_information
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Pricing

Surely the price should be in GBP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.76 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_2#Currency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_3#Price_information
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with delays

Please see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9180435/Raspberry-Pi-delayed-again.html

Updating the article with this new info it is probably worth doing, but I am beginning to question whether we should have the statement "The Foundation started accepting orders for the higher priced model on 29 February 2012" in the lead paragraph. That gives it more weight than the other milestones. I propose that move it down and put it in chronological order with all the other milestones and delays and merge the history and launch sections. Thoughts? Related question: have any of the vendors who accepted orders actually charged customer's credit cards? I would guess no, and if we can find a source for it this should be mentioned. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the link provides no real news, (except perhaps the "official verdict" about the need for the device to carry CE certification) as the two vendors already decided, independent from this verdict, and long before it, that they would not attempt to market the device without CE clearance. In fact they sited as "news" something that happened weeks ago. I also see no reason to "weigh down" the official launch, or "starting to accept orders" as you put it. None of the vendors has started charging clients, one of the two didn't even accept "orders", just gave clients the possibility to "express interest", this is all documented on the two vendors sites, and elsewhere. I can understand that people who expected to get their brand new "toy" soon are frustrated that it takes (much) longer than expected, (and want their frustration known) but note that originally the RPF thought they could "launch" somewhere 4th quarter of 2011, so its nothing new that there are delays. The latest delays probably wouldn't have occurred if there had not been the massive interest in the device, from outside the intended purpose, which is to re-start computer education in the UK. Mahjongg (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following three events:
[1] First 10 boards sell on eBay for £16,000.
[2] 10,000 boards arrive in the UK.
[3] One or possibly two vendors accept orders for a few minutes, but are not able to fulfill the orders.
Event #1 is mentioned in the second paragraph of the history section.
Event #2 is not mentioned at all
Event #3 is mentioned in the lead paragraph.
So, exactly how is event #3 so much more notable than events #1 and #2 that it deserves a prominent mention in the lead paragraph? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that these events are all somewhat trivial. However, the date that a product first goes on sale, even if it's only 10,000 units and even if those units take months to arrive... that date is notable. It's an objective milestone for any mass-marketed product. --Ds13 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, and today the first customers received their raspberry PI's which to me seems to be an important milestone. Mahjongg (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External links

I cleaned up the external links - listing just the correct official site using the "official" template, as per WP:EXT. This has been removed and other links re-added reverting to the mess before [17]. As per the sentiment "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:" . I consider the following external links excessive as per WP:EXT for the following reasons, so please can you justify each one, and also why the template is not now used?:

  • http://elinux.org/RaspberryPiBoard "... community work - the Raspberry Pi Foundation is not responsible for content on these pages." Wikipedia:EXT#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" & "12. Links to open wikis, ..." - please provide reference for this being an official site (RPF)
    • It is factually incorrect to list as an official link WP:ELOFFICIAL "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." (and further... "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. )
  • http://www.broadcom.com/products/BCM2835 - "13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." "14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers."
  • http://www.element14.com/community/groups/raspberry-pi?view=documents "14 Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." Widefox (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:EXT should not be read as "only 1 official site", according to WP:EXT the above links are perfectly acceptable. Note that I did remove links that were spurious, but these links link to important information that is not directly available from the main site, but are sites of partners of the Raspberry PI foundation. These are not "blogs, personal web pages or fansites". Broadcom is an official partner of the RPF without its support the project could not exist, its more than just a component supplier, and element14 is a site from Farnell, also a partner of the RPF. Wiki's may normally not be acceptable, (as a reliable source) but http://elinux.org/RaspberryPiBoard is the wiki specially endorsed by the RPF, see [18]. a "fan site" would for example be "frambozenbier", [19] that is why it isn't listed. Directly having external links to more than one site is common in Wikipedia, in fact having just one external link is rare. for examples see BeagleBoard or the Aakash (tablet). Mahjongg (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle advises bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert, discuss. I reverted it to the last stable version before the 2RR, then I re-inserted the added {{official}} template (this time without nuking the name of the RPF) and reformatted the other external links to be consistent with {{official}} template.
We have had extensive discussions as to what is and is not an appropriate external link, and the present set of links reflects our consensus as to what meets the requirements in WP:EXT. In particular, all of the current set of external links are covered by WP:ELYES ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues") This is a highly complex product that is designed for use by hardware and software engineers who require a deep and detailed technical knowledge of the internal workings of the board. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mahjongg, I only know one official site (for both RPi and RPF). If you know a second please add (to the respective article), I detailed individual violations of WP:EXT for each link above. I added more to refute your assertion that the elinux site is official - this is expressly not official as per reasoning above, and so is factually incorrect. As per the burden being on the including editor - I would appreciate if you would justify each concern above, Comparisons with other articles are not valid, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Guy, I only found one discussion [20] on this page about ext links, where similarly to me another editor objected to excessive links. If you are referring to that, please indicate the consensus (and the consensus to the current links) as I see none and only a weak reply based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTHOWTO. As you have reverted, the burden is on you to justify the "official" misrepresentation above, and the other two links. Widefox (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Having three or for external links is hardly excessive linking. Mahjongg (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The burden is on you to justify these disputed links. Further, as per WP:ELBURDEN "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them", these 3 links should be removed until there is consensus here. None of my explicit concerns have been directly addressed above, so there is no consensus. Widefox (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you also going to tag all the other articles that have similar (or much more) external links, like the two examples I gave? There must be hundreds. WP:EXT is a guideline, nothing more. 

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,
though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Mahjongg (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Widefox, re: your assertion that "per WP:ELBURDEN 'Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them', these 3 links should be removed until there is consensus here.," The external reference to Broadcom has been in the article since they were put there by Sbmeirow[21] on 1 December 2011. Since then there have been 533 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users[22], none of whom felt a need to remove them[23][24]. Wikipedia:Consensus says that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Those 4+ months of the Broadcom external links being in the article while other links were, by consensus, removed clearly establishes a consensus to include them.

The external reference to Broadcom sat in the article undisturbed for over four months. Instead of calmly discussing your concerns (discussion includes waiting for an answer, not just posting your argument) on the article talk page, in rapid succession you deleted the links twice (ignoring WP:BRD), went forum shopping at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Raspberry Pi and added a dubious {{external links}} tag. So great was your hurry that you placed a "You have new messages at Talk:Raspberry_Pi" notice on my talk page (Free clue: you don't have to do that for talk pages that you already know I regularly read). So, why the rush? On what basis did you decide that all of a sudden that this is an emergency that cannot wait until we finish seeking consensus on the article talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Guy, if I take your point about speed, will you discuss the issue above? (a "free clue" is WP:Dispute resolution "Responding to tone") Consensus does change WP:TALKEDABOUTIT (and right next to that "In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.") I patiently wait for a reply to the issues I raised above - including asking you to point to "extensive discussions" and your inclusion of a second site as official when it explicitly is not official. Widefox (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm much newer to this than you guys - only been around a few months, but am I fundamentally misunderstanding consensus here? So far i see one editor suggesting that the 3 links be removed and every other editor who has touched the article not having a problem with them. Isn't that consensus? For what it's worth I think all 3 of them fit the basic criteria given in WP:EXT i.e.

"What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

  • Is the site content accessible to the reader?
  • Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  • Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?"


They are useful, informative and factual. I can't comment on whether they're tasteful or not but I can't find any reason to suggest they are not! I'm trying to understand what the motivation is here for removing useful, informative and factual information. Ytic nam (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I am not the only editor to have objected, and attempted to remove one of these external links (the Broadcom one) [25] and [26], even raising the issue on the talk page Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_1#Links_to_datasheets_etc. and similarly been given weak/incorrect justification. I think there may be WP:OWN issues on this article? Widefox (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The arguments were strong and correct. The problem is WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on your part concerning an overwhelming consensus. Please don't confuse ownership problems with what we have here. which is a strong consensus among multiple editors that you are badly misinterpreting several of Wikipedia's core policies and that you are trying very hard (not purposely, of course) to make this a far worse article. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
there is a big difference between removing a single link, and removing all of them except one. Ill leave it at that. Mahjongg (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In summary - 1 incorrect official link, 1 non-consensus link, 1 disputed link. No answers to why?! Widefox (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I already told you why. Let me say it again: all of the links you deleted are links to sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and which cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:EXT is only a guideline. There are no hard rules about the maximum number of good links for any article. I always prefer far more links than the link pruners want to axe from articles, especially for technical articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Broadcom link provides useful information that I as a reader want to see. Now, if you're volunteering to write an article on the BCM2835 that's a different matter - I'd be quite happy for the link to go then. (The link would be in the article on the BCM2835 instead)Ytic nam (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that Sbmeirow and Ytic nam both made an excellent point. This is a highly complex product that is designed for use by hardware and software hackers / engineers who require a deep and detailed technical knowledge of the internal workings of the board. In this respect it is a lot like an Arduino and very much unlike, say, a PC or smartphone. An encyclopedic understanding of the subject absolutely requires the information on the other end of those links. Elinux knows this, which is why they donated a space on their Wiki for the Raspberry Pi Foundation to use and control. Broadcom knows this, which is why they took the action (very surprising to an engineer) of publishing a version of their datasheet with the information most useful to someone who owns a Raspberry Pi. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It is quite common to link to the best community sourced information - eg Memory-alpha, Wookiepedia, TARDIS Index File. This is covered by the WP:EL guidelines - particularly ELYES 3 and ELMAYBE 4. There's no good reason to remove these links but is there any reason for the split between 'official' and 'technical'. In most parts of the project, links aren't split like this. The piping for the link should be adequate to convey its status. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I just removed the split. No point being different when it does not benefit the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Elen of the Roads's suggestion. This is what I was asking for - by removing the official title on the wiki link, the problem goes away (as it does not contravene WP:ELOFFICIAL). I would suggest that next time someone outside the usual editors comes here, instead of calling them "wrong", incorrectly reverting them etc, that there are less ownership issues to allow progress. In comparison, the RPF article was easy for me to edit. Widefox (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Boards starting to arrive

I am seeing a lot of reports from folks who just got their product. Nothing from a reliable source yet, so please don't put this information in the article, but we can be on the lookout for coverage from reliable sources. Right now the article is a bit heavy on information from the Raspberry Pi Foundation, as one would expect prior to reviewers getting their hand on the actual product. It looks like that is going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put this information in the article already, yesterday, when board starting to appear (as was announced that it would happen last Friday), AND produced two references, one of which should be indisputable [27] The other to the official forum. Meanwhile there should be hundreds of other reliable sources with the same news. Mahjongg (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Good job! OK, we now have reliable sources for them arriving at the customers. In my opinion, this is a good time to trim down the history section to just cover the main milestones - no need to cover things like the wiring error on the beta board or the wrong ethernet part at this point. Those sort of things are not unusual for new products. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Delays are part of the encyclopedic information and should not be stripped, particularly not the accompanying references. Our editing policy states [...] exercise particular caution when considering removing information. If the inclusion of such content is deemed to give undue weight within the context of the entire article, then it could be concisely summarised rather than being removed. -- Trevj (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raspberry_Pi/Archive_3&oldid=497959699"