Some thoughts on 's approach to community-developed hardware products. Could have been shorter, but a bit of background was necessary

@tuxdevices absolutely this. I'm so tired of pine putting out practically unusable hardware at nothing but a proof of concept level and then relying on the community to essentially reverse engineer their "open" device.

@nihilazo @tuxdevices Idk, they keep branding themselves as a "community" and doing fuck all regarding support is probably what enables them to sell stuff so cheaply.
But I'd also like *some* more stuff.
And of course, some of the products they've released have been completely pointless.

@nihilazo @tuxdevices Like the PineBook where they couldn't be bothered to compile any of the software for the actual GPU the thing has.

@nihilazo @tuxdevices Pine64 is basically Just Another Chinese Electronics Manufacturer that happens to be better at marketing to western nerds than most others.

@tuxdevices really makes me want to play around with BLE Audio, but damn I don't have the money yet

@tuxdevices As someone who uses a Pinephone primarily as a music player with a very high quality audio interface, I don't understand the purpose of the PinePod. The Pinephone can already do what it does better.

@tuxdevices I'm not worried about this foss hardware ecosystem status cause I'm convinced that at some point manufacturers will have to stop delegating this ingrate work. When we will have enough correctly supported devices, new device will be easy to include in the ecosystem or will be ignored by the community

thanks for this...
sustainability is a very important point and it is indeed a bit shocking that they always release new hardware instead of working on what they have to make it usable in the first way... better documentation would be a starting point. very nice. much more eloquent writeup than i could manage. the audio stuff is a special interest of mine and really bothers me in particular

@tuxdevices I don't really agree with the takes on Allwinner and Rockchip. Their chip designs are at least well documented, which is better than having an obfuscated poorly written vendor driver under the GPL, because it makes clean implementations possible. It's an unfortunate rarity for good public documentation to exist for western-designed chips

There's a side to this that I'm not necessarily going to see eye to eye to as a BSD user (where drivers for Pine hardware are written from scratch out of necessity), but IMO distributing hardware and docs to OS developers so that community support can happen is a better approach than relying on the vendor to due their duty with source code releases

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.