Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Raspberry Pi 3 B+ Released - 14th March 2018

https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-3-model-bplus-sale-now-35/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetMeme (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tablets: Pipad Service?

I was looking to build a pipad. I developed a grid of price and information. Absolute minimum is $99 based on pi 0 with a 5" screen. The best you can get is like $240-$270 based on pi 3 with wifi and Bluetooth, 32GB storage, and 12 hour battery. If they're this cheap, I mean in comparison to the Ipad or Galaxy Tab, why is there no build service for these things? Is this viable and could all the same hardware be used for the Banana Pi and Arduino? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2436:d489:b984:5553:ace4:d4aa (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pi versions

I used this page as a resource for obtaining a case for an old Raspberry Pi I picked up, only to discover that important information is missing from this page (or is poorly displayed) particularly regarding the B revision 1, which has no mounting holes and can only be edge-mount. Had I known there were significant physical differences between the B revisions, I would have made a better purchasing decision.

Here is an up-to-date resource that identifies 23 different Pis. I leave it to you to determine how best to integrate this information.65.94.249.3 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

New os

There is a new Raspbian os version released, called Raspbian Stretch. Can someone check that out?

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 00:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Declaring possible conflict of interest

Figured I'd mention that I'm the author of the open source blobs, I extended the section on it a bit though it's based on entirely factual information. I'm not affiliated with the Raspberry Pi foundation and have no interest in promoting the product paid or unpaid. I could also improve the article with better technical information about Raspberry Pi but unfortunately a lot of it is not possible to cite due to discussions taking place on IRC channels or in private. Anyway that's straying slightly off topic, bottom line is, I have no interest in promoting anything (especially my old and deserted projects that are no longer in active development), though I do feel the article could use more accurate technical information beyond what's supplied by Broadcom, for example VC4 fusing and secure boot capabilities of VC4 (bootsig.bin and co), I mean it's a fun little world on the other side of the ARM processor that most people are not very aware of.

That's not to say I lack subjective views on the matter, I definitely have a bunch, and I recognize that they have no place here (even regarding aspects of the article as a whole). However I would say I'm hardly unique in that aspect, everyone usually has a degree of subjective views on things they may write about, being able to remain neutral and stick to facts is usually more important than one's personal views, which, if desired one can express through other mediums.

[Kristina B.] / Kristina0 04:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! If you run into any frustrations with Wikipedia I will be happy to help. You can ask any question on my user talk page is at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon ] or you can email me at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Guy_Macon ].

Re: "a lot of it is not possible to cite due to discussions taking place on IRC channels or in private" You can repost any information you want to be citable on Wikipedia on https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/ and leave a note on this talk page that the information exists so we can decide whether to add it to the article. (We would consider you to be a reliable source regarding the Pi and would consider the fact that you are posting to www.raspberrypi.org to be good evidence that you are who you say you are and not an imposter.)

Finally, I highly recommend our page at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Pi 4

The Pi 4 was released... It seems like the info is needed throughout the article. In considered editing in a quick mention, but finding the right place is not obvious... A bit of clear generational info might be useful... MoHaG (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! At 6:32am on the day of release you are begging for more information here!! Having researched and read the official release notes from the Raspberry Pi Foundation and tech media news releases, I have added a few snippets myself and leave you to add more where relevant. I agree a lot of information is duplicated and the data has been tacked onto the end of existing information as new models have come along (I am guilty of doing this too in my edits). A thorough rewrite and prune of the article is overdue. I suggest making more use of tabular information to identify what is common and what has changed between models, but this is beyond my capabilities right now. 61.68.205.101 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the top end of the capabilities, but I didn't remove the old data, because I wasn't sure if the Pi 4 had changed processor (or bit size) enough to make the GHz (or even the RAM) not directly comparable. Someone with more knowledge could *probably* fix that with some deletes. JimJJewett (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pi 4 doesn't have an 8GB RAM option, as the new .SVG rendering suggests

I have warned the maker of his error. Mahjongg (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient description of the role of threadX

The ThreadX page describes[1] how threadX is functionally the true, GPU-bound OS of the raspberry pi, and every other OS (Rapsbian, Windows IOT, etc) runs in a subservient role to ThreadX (which manages undervolt and overheating issues, etc).

I think that some of the text from the threadX article should be included in the RaspberryPi article so that people can understand that it isn't a true linux/windows/whatever computer, but rather a GPU-centric mobile platform which allows you to run your OS of choice on *top* of a proprietary RTOS.

47.187.170.24 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it pronounced Rasberry pee-eye (/ˈpiːiː/) or pie (/paɪ/)? Note, I took a guess at the {{IPAc-en}} values and so these should be checked before updating the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pronounced like the mathmatical constant π – /paɪ/, just like raspberry pie. --Zac67 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifications Table Usability

Hello, If there is an option to do so using the Wikipedia tools, I propose changing the format of the "specifications" table. I have a 4k monitor and it is still hard to cross reference the table headers with the data in the table because of the size of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeneralBen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Exact release dates only on a few of the later models

The chart at the bottom only specifies the day of release of a few of the later models. The raspberrypi.org blog has exact release dates for all but the first (RasPi 1B), and many of those are already linked.

Would it be ok to add the dates to the rest which have exact dates in the references?

47.187.169.130 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Connectors picture for RPi 3 B+

RPi 3 B and B+ have different pin layout. RPi 3 B+ has new PoE pins as RPi 4 B at the place of 'RUN' holes in the picture of 'Location of connectors and main ICs on Raspberry Pi 3'. In consequence, RPi 3 B+ and RPi 4 B share the same PoE hat. 'RUN' holes have been moved to left-bottom area of the board in RPi 3 B+. Takashi-sasaki (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Linux is only the name of kernel, while many of the distributions use GNU utils and become a functioning operating system. For further information: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html — Preceding unsigned --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, as soon as you get the sources to fix their lazy error, we can reflect it here. Good luck. Guy (help!) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo Read MOS:LINUX. This has already been decided.

More importantly, if You think the Linux family of operating systems should be called GNU/Linux, you really need to insist on calling it Apache/GNU/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux. As Jim Gettys, the founder of the X windowing system, put it best: "There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."

It is disrespectful to attempt to put GNU's contributions to the Linux family of operating systems above the work of all of the other contributors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, please read How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?:

You underrestimate the fact that GNU project altered Linux kernel during its very early development, and Linux just would be one of the proprietary kernels that aren't widely used. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Figure 1 shows the total LOC in Ubuntu natty split by the major projects that produce it. By this metric GNU software is about 8%. I didn’t include GNOME in the GNU category because it seems to now be effectively run outside GNU but including that the total for GNU would be around 13%."

"I found two things to be really surprising in this chart. The first is that the kernel is actually comparable in size to all the GNU software1. The second is that small projects actually dominate the total amount. It seems that at least for what Ubuntu packages, the origin of the software is highly dispersed."

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GNU code at the GNU/Linux distros may not be much, but they are very critical utilities. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of how much GNU contributed to the Linux family of operating systems, on of the most popular versions of Linux is simply called "Android", and nobody insists on calling it "Linux/Android". Care to guess what percentage of Android is GNU? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Android can't even be considered as a distro tho. Its a system that uses a modified Linux kernel to an extend, and not a distribution. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not address any of the reasons I gave for not using GNU/Linux, and you did not address our existing guideline or the long discussion that the community had when making that decision. Should I assume that you are now fully on board with following our guideline on this? Would you like to challenge the guideline and see if there is a consensus to change it? If the guideline is wrong, it should be changed.

As for whether Android in a Linux distribution, calling it anything else would very much be a minority viewpoint. From our article on Linux distribution: "A Linux distribution (often abbreviated as distro) is an operating system made from a software collection that is based upon the Linux kernel".

Is Android an operating system? Yes. Is it based upon the Linux Kernel? Yes. Does it have any GNU in it? No. Apple has a strong anti-GPLv3 policy that lead them to replace every GNU component with non-GPLv3 alternatives.

Tizen (and its predecessor MeeGo) is another operating system that is based upon the Linux kernel but has no GNU, and the Yocto Project has an option to exclude all GPLv3 licensed software. Far from GNU being the indispensable component that the GNU/Linux advocates insist it is, it turns out that making a Linux OS without GNU is possible, and has been done multiple times.

I highly recommend reading all three chapters of Labyrinth of Software Freedom: (BSD vs GPL and social aspects of free licensing debate) by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

...Sound of Crickets...

Memory of first generation B and A+ boards

In the specification table, the memory entry for the first generation A+ and B boards is lumped together as "512 MiB (shared with GPU) as of 4 May 2016". It not clear what the qualification "as of 4 May 2016" is supposed to mean. The B boards had 512 MiB memory at least as early Jan 2013. I tagged the entry for clarification. Kbrose (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Memory for Pi 2

Also memory for Pi 2 is specified inconsistently within the page.

Section Generations says 1GiB (without a citation).

Section RAM says 1GiB with a citation that supports the claim, but it is not clear to me which revision the citation is referring to.

Section Specifications (the big table) says 512MiB (without a citation).

I am not authoritative on this - hence I am not simply correcting the table. The table is unclear because there is a later revision of the Pi 2 (v1.2) in the table but the earlier revision of the Pi 2 in the table does not specify a revision. Sometimes that's the way it works out i.e. manufacturer doesn't plan in advance for revisions, and so maybe there was a Pi 2 without a revision, or that was called v1.0, potentially retrospectively.

There is a Pi 2 (v1.1) and it has 1GiB. I own one.

I suspect the table is incorrect or, at best, incomplete.

--2001:44B8:31E5:7F00:1DF7:E895:19FA:E738 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

From [ https://www.digikey.com/en/maker/blogs/2018/how-to-pick-the-right-raspberry-pi ]:

• Raspberry Pi A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi B+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 2B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3B+ = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi Zero = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero Wireless = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3 = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi Compute Module 3 Lite = 1GB

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

From [ https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/faqs/ ]:

• Raspberry Pi Model A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Model B+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 2 Model B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model B = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model A+ = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ = 1GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 2GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 4GB
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B = 8GB
• Raspberry Pi Zero = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero W = 512MB
• Raspberry Pi Zero WH = 512MB

Any place the current page does not agree with the above should be corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And ...9FA:E738 found an corrected an error.[2] Good job! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pricing

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." --WP:NOTCATALOG

Previously discussed: Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 3#Price information

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Introductory price" is notable as this was a very cheap offering intended to revolutionise learning. But the content presently shows the current price, which is the wrong thing to do and not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.8.47 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the RPi 400

I've seen a couple edits made to add the RPi 400 into the article, reverted with the reason that it is basically a raspberry pi 4 but in a different case. I think it is worthy to mention briefly, as it is a different form factor (The internal PCB is different), as well as the use of a higher clocked BCM2711C0 SoC instead of the BCM2711B0 SoC seen on the Pi 4. OD1 ByHL (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No – the RPi 400 has its own board type, see https://www.heise.de/imgs/71/2/9/9/3/3/7/5/RPi-400-Gehaeuse-offen-1-04a819b01ca28f74.jpg If you rule those out you'd need to remove quite a few variants. --Zac67 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It was also reasonable to revert several IPs who kept edit warring and completely ignoring my (I now see to be incorrect) "the Raspberry Pi 400 is just a Raspberry Pi 4 in a different case" responses. Now that someone has actually given a reason for the previously unexplained change I am fine with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yea that makes sense, Ima put in a breif paragraph about the RPi400 OD1 ByHL (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"HAT" is not explained in time

The abbreviation(?) "HAT" is not explained before late in the article (in sub section Accessories). It is used six times before that.

I have added a forward reference, but is that the right way to do it?

--Mortense (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)