schmide wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:35 pm
W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:22 pm
schmide wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:13 pm
Is everything a cost/use analysis? Are you asking these questions to get answers or to quiet the rhetoric?
Yes. Everything is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Doing anything else is an invitation to bankruptcy. Need I remind you that Eben Upton has an MBA in addition to his Comp. Sci. PhD?
I came here to express my want/need for something. I own 9 pies. I'm not the only one here.
Only 9? I have at least 9 each of some different models. (Granted, I've only got 5 Model A Pis, but those are--in Dr. Upton's words--the only Pi that was a "failure", in that only 100K were sold. Kind of ironic, actually, since the Model A was intended to be the original, basic Pi.)
Seriously... Yes. Everyone gets that you really, really want Raspbian to be a 64-bit OS. The explanation of *why* that isn't happening in the short run seem not to be getting through.
Way to take things out of context. (practically a strawman) I was never arguing the cost/use analysis. fruitoftheloom came in and made that. My reply to that was a few questions that showed how the cost/use of GPIO made that relative. I also find it disheartening that fruitoftheloom jumps into this with a Hallelujah ! as if your reply didn't stand on its own.
I'll go further. IMO PoE ports were a huge failure. I don't fault the foundation for trying. It is the right path but as with the Model A, it is just a step in the right direction.
There are so many steps in the ecosystem that don't follow a linear path. Pinouts for example. No one expects future hats to be compatible with past boards, nor should you expect flagship software to always work on entry level boards.
BTW I get why it isn't happening. What I don't get is all the opposition to the advantages of it. If you read back in this thread there were many arguments that fell flat. Code size, addressing, etc. This is what I have talked about.
As for the boards. I was just expressing that I do invest in the ecosystem. You have more. I'm sure there are those who have even more. Maybe if we all buy more they will get enough money to maybe have 2 levels of software to go with their myriad of hardware.
I'm going to respond a little differently because there are too many closely related points to make separate comments to each without the whole thing turning into a terminally ugly post...
I'm not exactly sure how to interpret hawaiianpi's remark. I surmise that he liked what I said and approves of it being relatively terse.
So far as I can surmise, the inclusion of GPIO pins is part of the original education mission--that of allowing the Pi to be used not just as a platform to learn to program, but to permit "physical computing" (and the associated code) to be done as well. The overall cost of installing the header is (a) a matter of deciding the cost is worth it in general, and (b) has not adversely affected the target price point. Note that the second point *does* occur on the Pi0 and Pi0W...hence the more expensive Pi0WH that does include the header pins.
Funny you should mention pinouts... The Pi has been so successful in the SBC space, that after the initial shock of its arrival on the scene causing other board makers in the same space to have to reduce prices...drastically (note that prior to the launch of the Model B Pi, the then most popular board--the Beaglebone--cost $90; the next board in that line sold for $45), but the Pi pinout has become something of an industry standard. Look at nearly any hobbyist SBC and one of the claims that is made is that the GPIO header is "Pi compatible". The Pi has *established* this pinout as the standard, so there is every reason to keep it the same going forward. I don't think the RPT/RPF wants to go down the rabbit hole that IBM did when they switched from ISA connectors to Microchannel, despite the technical superiority of the latter.
I don't think anyone is arguing that 64-bit OS is a "bad" idea. Rather, what I've read indicates that people think that any advantages are outweighed by backwards compatibility and avoiding the costs of maintaining two versions of the OS. Software may be free (as in beer), but that doesn't mean that writing and maintaining software has no cost. Beyond that, the whole point of the RPF is to funnel money into educational purposes (charity...not for profit...) rather than becoming a software house with a myriad of offerings depending on what a given processor an support.
Taking the example of CockroachDB, one could turn the question around....why don't the developers and maintainers support a 32-bit version as well as the 64-bit version. There are a lot of systems out there that are running 32-bit OSes that might want to use CockroachDB. So shouldn't there be a 32-bit version as well?
And--at the end--I'm sure there are individuals with many more boards than I have, not to mention companies that buy them by the tens of thousands. Ultimately, the point is that maintaining two versions of Raspbian would strain the RPF/RPT finances and is--at present--an avoidable expense.
Also consider that I have agreed that Raspbian will go 64-bit....some day. I just don't think that day will be soon (for the reasons I've stated). Indeed, I may not live to see it.