Able to upgrade not just the speed but manufacturer of CPU?


God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
Maybe he will. Still, this is his baby, so what gives a component manufacturer the right to dictate who will design it? I know that would leave a bad taste in my mouth, and it would be even worse if I was trying to design something to support freedom and openness.

Eh? nVidia merely dictated who they will sell to. That's no different than Samsung, who also refused to sell to EvilDragon. The difference is, nVidia gave a condition that EvilDragon could choose to meet in order for them to sell to him.

For those people who were touting the Allwinner SoCs as an alternative: Backdoor in all devices which run Allwinner Linux Kernel 3.4

There is support for the A80 in Linux mainline, so there should be no particular need to use the Allwinner Linux Kernel.

-God Ginrai
 

rygD

Nihilistic Mystic
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
7,526
Location
Everywhere
Eh? nVidia merely dictated who they will sell to. That's no different than Samsung, who also refused to sell to EvilDragon. The difference is, nVidia gave a condition that EvilDragon could choose to meet in order for them to sell to him.
Yes, which ultimately boils down to using one of their approved companies or engineers to do things their way. I wonder if nvidia gets a cut of that money.

Let's look at it another way. Would you find it acceptable if ED would only sella Pyra to you if you used his approved OS/software/games? Assume that ED is a big corporation.
 

Silent-Hunter

Hardcore Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,477
Yes, and we could get hold of AllWinner SoCs if we wanted.
But would you want an SoC in a device like the Pyra when it's publically known the AllWinner violates the GPL?
Are they still doing it, or have they stopped?

Because I think that matters.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
Yes, which ultimately boils down to using one of their approved companies or engineers to do things their way. I wonder if nvidia gets a cut of that money.

Let's look at it another way. Would you find it acceptable if ED would only sella Pyra to you if you used his approved OS/software/games? Assume that ED is a big corporation.

If you look at it from nVidia's perspective, they see it as performing a background check before selling a gun. Gun sellers and manufacturers care that this happens, so that some crazy bastard doesn't shoot people up and tarnish the names of their guns by reminding people of the <insert name here> Massacre. nVidia doesn't know if EvilDragon will produce a good product or not, so they want him to work through people they do trust to make good products so as to minimize the risk that a bad product comes out, hurting their reputation.

Yes, and we could get hold of AllWinner SoCs if we wanted.
But would you want an SoC in a device like the Pyra when it's publically known the AllWinner violates the GPL?

In a perfect, rosy world where we can acquire superior ARM SoCs with FOSS drivers, (even for the GPU) I would not. But the fact of the matter is, when looking for an SoC to upgrade to, no ARM SoCs other than AllWinner's and Rockchip's (and possibly nVidia's) are available to you. And as far as I'm aware, Rockchip doesn't have any Linux support. If you aren't going to go through one of nVidia's partners, I don't see how you have any option other than AllWinner.

-God Ginrai
 

Silent-Hunter

Hardcore Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,477
Could ED not have one of nVidia's partners design just the next CPU board? Or would they insist on redesigning the whole device? Although by the time it's time for a CPU upgrade they may not mind as much since the product is clearly successful at that point.
 

valhalla

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
305
Well that sucks. :(

Whose job is it to enforce the GPL? Can someone not sue them for this?

software licenses should be enforced by the copyright owners, or by somebody working for the copyright owners.

For the Linux Kernel (and other projects) there is the Software Freedom Conservancy, but they are seriously underfunded and right now they aren't doing any new enforcement work (they will in 2017 if they can get enough donations, however).
 

rygD

Nihilistic Mystic
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
7,526
Location
Everywhere
If you look at it from nVidia's perspective, they see it as performing a background check before selling a gun.
You aren't helping your argument. The comparison between firearms and SoCs must be so obvious that I am missing it. Honestly, I would rather buy a little computer from a crazy person. I think you have to be a bit crazy to do something like the Pandora and Pyra. I would rather have something made by someone who wants to do something a little out there. I don't care about nvidia's reputation, but they have severely harmed it in my eyes by doing things like that for reasons I have already mentioned.

You won't be able to convince me that going with them, even if only for a future CPU board, is a good idea. Jumping through hoops to appease them (and allowing them to dictate ANYTHING related to the design of a product that isn't theirs!) is unacceptable, I don't care what their useless excuse for why it must be done.

I am sure the Pyra can still be used for whatever the alternative is to causing death...

I guess it isn't a surprise that you are pushing for AllWinner, too. I agree with ED about them.

Could ED not have one of nVidia's partners design just the next CPU board?
That is what @God Ginrai is suggesting since it shouldn't require a redesign of the whole device. If that is what was required (and for some reason it was chosen to play their little game) I don't see any reason why that couldn't be done, as long as backwads compatibility is to be retained, and just skip manufacturing the full device (unless they require an agreement to do that).
 

Ocean112

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Somewhere
There's no way I would allow that if I was doing it. You'd have to pay the partner a prohibitive amount to design the board. I understand some their reasoning though. It keeps their silicon out of products that don't meet a certain standard of quality. It's all about brand image and control. There are no doubt other reasons I'll not name, but they're easy enough to speculate on. Tech companies are getting pretty arrogant these days. Twenty years ago, I had no problems sourcing any chip I needed to make a repair, but now? Forget it. The DMCA has killed the open nature of tech in the US. It seems this has happened in other countries as well.
 

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
11,122
Whose job is it to enforce the GPL? Can someone not sue them for this?
software licenses should be enforced by the copyright owners, or by somebody working for the copyright owners.
Chinese companies have shown no respect for copyright rules, intellectual properties and such. They know it's hard for any wrong doing to be persecuted and the benefits to them to just take things is worth any minor risks they may have.
 

Ocean112

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Somewhere
Could ED not have one of nVidia's partners design just the next CPU board?
Is there anything stopping someone else releasing a cpu board for the Pyra? They could just up and design one themselves if they wanted to AFAIK.
[doublepost=1462968824,1462968696][/doublepost]
Chinese companies have shown no respect for copyright rules, intellectual properties and such.
Why should they? They're a different country with different laws. Don't like it? Stop trading with China. Easy.
 

valhalla

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
305
Why should they? They're a different country with different laws. Don't like it? Stop trading with China. Easy.

China also has copyright laws and they implement the Berne convention, so they are similar enough that they should respect the GPL even if they only ever sold inside China.

Of course, the fact that GPL enforcers are underfunded, international cases are expensive and that violations are already widespread means that most companies are probably safe from any consequence when doing so, expecially if (as in the case of Allwinner) the violations are only on part of the code (they do release most of their kernels, they are "just" missing a few components)
 

Caine

Hardcore Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
4,138
Location
Netherlands
Why should they? They're a different country with different laws. Don't like it? Stop trading with China. Easy.
This is exactly why EvilDragon should not utilize the AllWinner SoCs. They don't show respect for the GPL?
Then loss of customers must follow as a consequence. To ignore this is to destroy the value of the GPL.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
You aren't helping your argument. The comparison between firearms and SoCs must be so obvious that I am missing it. Honestly, I would rather buy a little computer from a crazy person. I think you have to be a bit crazy to do something like the Pandora and Pyra. I would rather have something made by someone who wants to do something a little out there. I don't care about nvidia's reputation, but they have severely harmed it in my eyes by doing things like that for reasons I have already mentioned.

You won't be able to convince me that going with them, even if only for a future CPU board, is a good idea. Jumping through hoops to appease them (and allowing them to dictate ANYTHING related to the design of a product that isn't theirs!) is unacceptable, I don't care what their useless excuse for why it must be done.

I am sure the Pyra can still be used for whatever the alternative is to causing death...

I guess it isn't a surprise that you are pushing for AllWinner, too. I agree with ED about them.

And what would you suggest, then? TI has given up on mobile SoCs, Intel is discontinuing the Atom, Freescale is basically gone, Rockchip has no Linux drivers, and Samsung and Qualcomm won't sell to us. You can act all high and mighty about who you should pick to use in your product, but if you let such an entitled attitude eliminate the few options you have left, then you won't be releasing a product.

How about you talk about the facts instead of trying to make suppositions about me?

-God Ginrai
 

Exophase

Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
10,308
Age
38
Location
Cleveland OH
Yes, and we could get hold of AllWinner SoCs if we wanted.
But would you want an SoC in a device like the Pyra when it's publically known the AllWinner violates the GPL?

If Pyra itself doesn't violate the GPL I don't care. Pyra would probably not need to care about including binary blobs for the image signal processor, camera, or video encode. While it sucks, I assume that we'd be willing to concede to a lack of easy access to video decode hardware. How much is this even shaping up on OMAP5?

But I have my doubts about how competitive Allwinner will be over the long term. The last SoC they've released that I'm aware of is a super cheap quad Cortex-A53 made on 40nm (so probably terrible efficiency like Raspberry Pi 3...) A80 is the highest end SoC they've released or announced thus far, and it came out about two years ago. Rockchip is more promising, although they haven't announced anything for processes beyond 28nm yet.
 
Top