It seems the biggest success of the foundation is to whitewash Broadcom's image and further normalise closed proprietary systems that have the appearance of being open.
Take a closer look at the history of how they've been running things pretty much since the beginning. Even though they give away a lot of code under open source licenses (most of it they have to), to me it's always looked like they have run the project as if building a business out of it was the priority. I'm sure their recent IPO will result in much more openness... that's usually how things go, right? Nothing wrong with that, just don't be fooled into thinking they're something they're not.
To clarify, while Broadcom is a key partner for the Raspberry Pi Foundation, they don't own all the key silicon that makes it onto Raspberry Pis. For example, the "RP1" chip that is effectively a Southbridge on the Pi 5 was designed by and owned by the Raspberry Pi foundation/company, and the same is true of the chips used on Pi Pico boards. I wouldn't expect a new Pi to use all their own chips, but in theory it's possible.
The Lumafield scans images are pretty, but I did not see any complete copper runs showing, as were clearly visible in the release by TimeTube. So I doubt the Lumafield scan data would be anywhere near as useful as the TimeTube data drop.
Yeah, if by "all the Raspberry Pis" you mean "the Pi4 and Pi5 models".
There's nothing on the Pi1, Pi2 and Pi3 which I find a bit disappointing, as especially the different models of the Pi1 would have been interesting to compare
7 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 29.1 ms ] threadIt seems the biggest success of the foundation is to whitewash Broadcom's image and further normalise closed proprietary systems that have the appearance of being open.
...of Crack Dot Com fame?
There's nothing on the Pi1, Pi2 and Pi3 which I find a bit disappointing, as especially the different models of the Pi1 would have been interesting to compare