"open" Pandora?

[timofonic]

I still think it's alright to call the Pandora 'Open' because you have freedom to do what you want with the hardware. Think of a PC, it's 'Open' in the fact that you don't have to put any particular OS on it, you're free to put whatever you want on it. The hardware of the PC itself might not be 'Open' but it allows you freedom to do what you want with it.

It's not open in the sense that you can copy the hardware yourself but very little hardware is. Even 'open' hardware projects pair with proprietary components so hardware wise you can't have a 100% open hardware project unless we accomplish some sort of utopia where money has no value and every advancement of technology is for the betterment of man kind.

EDIT: Saw your last comment on page one so I think to answer your question think of this handheld as an open handheld in the fact that how many are there really? You can't install what you want at the OS level on your iphone, or any phone, not on your PSP or DS. Archos just released code to put Ångström on their older hardware. So, in comparing it to other handhelds it is open.

Also very little could be gained by releasing full cad files after so many are sold because nearly everything if not everything on it is proprietary. Arduino on the other hand uses off the shelf parts that aren't proprietary, I think, don't quote me on that. Anyway, you building one would cost more than it's worth, you can't just go to a good electronic store and pick up the parts and solder them together, you would have to go through a manufactures like the OP team is doing.

About the bold part: whoah! Both Richard Stallman (and followers of his philosophy) and die hard Star Trek would have an insane erection (or the female equivalent for the few female ones out there) thinking about that. Does that mean that die hard Star Trek nerds, infoanarchists, anticapitalists and Free Software people are all the same shit? I'm scared of it! ;-)

Pandora is along with Arduino, the open mobile phone and few other projects, the most OPEN project available as both a powerful game console and handheld device.

I'm sure if all succeeds, sowftware wise it will be even more open like replacing PowerVR SGX driver by an Open Source one using Gallium3D and reverse engineering like in Nouveau but being a lot more possible due to cleaner design and a lot less different PowerVR hardware families since Kyro, Kyro II, Dreamcast, Naomi, Naomi II... and now Imagination Technologies ones) sequels.

I'm sure if Pandora project is a real success, "Hope project" or "Babel project" (just a suggestion as project name) aka Pandora II: The revenge will born. I think it happenl it will be a very aesthetically similar case but a lot more OPEN software wise (as in available code), have all the latest cool technologies and others like gyroscopes/accelerometers and multitouch or better (hollograms?), latest economicallyaffordable cool advancements in batteries and screens (PIxelQi evolution? e-ink becoming as good as a TFT or better in all? PHOLED?) and total connectivity with currently used wireless protocols plus probably some evolution of expresscard for smaller devices, the latest SD standard or the one that succeeds, digital video...

Pandora cannot be opened totally or the world ends. Hope must remain inside or everything will disappear

 

[second exodous]

Pandora cannot be opened totally or the world ends.

I might put that as my sig, I like that quote, but it makes me a little sad. However, like I said in my last comment making the Pandora 100% 'open' the way that these threads imply it should be is rather pointless.

Honestly, about the Utopia thing, the human race will nuke and suicide bomb each other to extinction before that will ever come to pass. So, sorry to say, no 'Open' Pandora.

 

[Yoyobuae]

*snip*
... all the latest cool technologies and others like gyroscopes/accelerometers and multitouch or better (hollograms?), latest economically affordable cool advancements in batteries and screens (PIxelQi evolution? e-ink becoming as good as a TFT or better in all? PHOLED?) and total connectivity with currently used wireless protocols plus probably some evolution of expresscard for smaller devices, the latest SD standard or the one that succeeds, digital video...
*snip*

What's the fascination with the "latest cool technologies"? Those usually serve the purpose of gimmick rather than provide a necesary benefit.

Sure, eventually even all devices will progress into superior technologies than we have today, but it's not necesary to jump into the hype of the latest unproven/unrefined technologies. Let the other companies, that have the budget for it, test those for us. Better wait for some or another technology to emerge as the superior one, so it gets widely adopted and it's price drops.

In the end, its about balancing useful performance (ignoring gimmicks) VS price. That's one of the things I like about Pandora, it's not full of gimmicks that only end up making the product overpriced (lol, Iphone), while other very important aspects (screen resolution, user input, battery life, IO/USB/etc ports) suffer instead.

 

[darkblu]

I'm sure if all succeeds, sowftware wise it will be even more open like replacing PowerVR SGX driver by an Open Source one using Gallium3D and reverse engineering like in Nouveau but being a lot more possible due to cleaner design and a lot less different PowerVR hardware families since Kyro, Kyro II, Dreamcast, Naomi, Naomi II... and now Imagination Technologies ones) sequels.

i'm not quite sure if i'm reading your right here, but if you imply that the lineage you listed would tangibly help with a potential OSS support of the sgx530 in the pandora, you're in for a surprise - aside from the tile-based scene-capturing nature shared among all, the SGX is a real generational leap (actually, multitude of those) above anything you quoted. it'd be akin to hoping that since the voodoo2 was so well understood and documented, OSS drivers for the G80 would be easier to develop, since they're both IMR architectures. bottomline: TBDR per se would not be the hard part in any attempt for OSS SGX support.

 

[timofonic]

*snip*
... all the latest cool technologies and others like gyroscopes/accelerometers and multitouch or better (hollograms?), latest economically affordable cool advancements in batteries and screens (PIxelQi evolution? e-ink becoming as good as a TFT or better in all? PHOLED?) and total connectivity with currently used wireless protocols plus probably some evolution of expresscard for smaller devices, the latest SD standard or the one that succeeds, digital video...
*snip*

What's the fascination with the "latest cool technologies"? Those usually serve the purpose of gimmick rather than provide a necesary benefit.

Sure, eventually even all devices will progress into superior technologies than we have today, but it's not necesary to jump into the hype of the latest unproven/unrefined technologies. Let the other companies, that have the budget for it, test those for us. Better wait for some or another technology to emerge as the superior one, so it gets widely adopted and it's price drops.

In the end, its about balancing useful performance (ignoring gimmicks) VS price. That's one of the things I like about Pandora, it's not full of gimmicks that only end up making the product overpriced (lol, Iphone), while other very important aspects (screen resolution, user input, battery life, IO/USB/etc ports) suffer instead.

Yes, I agree. Anyway... gimmicks could be funny useful in certain situations... Pandora is mainly a gaming and so fun is an important part of the expecience.

But I agree about funcionality vs Hype and just a first impression like a magician or advert trick. Anyway, if those gimmicks serve a purpose even if minimal, cheap and can make things funnier... I would say to go for it.

I'm one of those wanting to have CIR and Irda on my Pandora builtin, plus trying other stuff as 3G/4G connectivity avoiding tethering or usb dongles (wimax internal adapter for example, but maybe Pandora II will born by that time because wimax has a slow adoption rate outside South Corea with the WiBro fork-but-now-compatible due to Intel agreement...).

Anyway is just speculating. I'm very happy OpenPandora Team avoid binary blobs to be included if possible. I would be very happy if they support a reverse engineering initiative of SGX530 (or whatever the model name of the GPU included in the OMAP used in Pandora is named) and then implement it as great KMS, DRM/DRI and Gallium3D drivers. I HATE closed source drivers, I think it's even worser than a closed operating system or non-gaming software.

 

[dflemstr]

Anyway is just speculating. I'm very happy OpenPandora Team avoid binary blobs to be included if possible. I would be very happy if they support a reverse engineering initiative of SGX530 (or whatever the model name of the GPU included in the OMAP used in Pandora is named) and then implement it as great KMS, DRM/DRI and Gallium3D drivers. I HATE closed source drivers, I think it's even worser than a closed operating system or non-gaming software.

An open-source SGX driver would be absolutely awesome.

Advantages:
- We would have access to the full OpenGL 2.0 API through Gallium (And even OpenGL 3.2, but maybe not that fast).
- We would have access to all of the big KMS products like Plymouth (not that important).
- Porting games would be extremely easy, basically just a recompile, since you wouldn't need an OpenGL wrapper.
- We would have e.g. Compiz Fusion, KWin etc.

Disadvantages:
- It would be complicated to actually create.

It would just blow my mind if such a driver was made available. The possibilities would be endless...

 

[craigix]

How about we just open a few bottles of wine and daffy fucks off?

It's open because we are alcoholics.

 

[wermy]

- Porting games would be extremely easy, basically just a recompile, since you wouldn't need an OpenGL wrapper.

Yeah, I've been drooling at the prospect of full OpenGL support for that very reason. Surely SOMEbody with the needed skills will want to do this eventually... right? :huh:

Edit: Especially with the relatively large BeagleBoard user base already, you'd think there would be interest in this.

 

[mali]

LOL

Reopening the thread wouldn't have been necessary as it seems. We are back where we left off. Would be easier if daffy would actually participate in this discussion.

 

[mali]

Yeah, I've been drooling at the prospect of full OpenGL support for that very reason. Surely SOMEbody with the needed skills will want to do this eventually... right? :huh:

Edit: Especially with the relatively large BeagleBoard user base already, you'd think there would be interest in this.

It wasn't important enough to the Dev team so they didn't send Maciek Urbansky a devboard

 

[dflemstr]

Can't we set up a development pot for this (aka the one who first creates a driver that complies to the full OpenGL 2.0 spec gets all of the money)? I would easily pay 20-30 bucks (USD) to that pot, hands down, no kidding.

 

[mali]

In order to write a driver the SGX internals would have to be reverse engineered first. You have to have a crazy knowledge and passion to do that kind of stuff. Maciek wanted to do this and he even started.

 

[dflemstr]

In order to write a driver the SGX internals would have to be reverse engineered first. You have to have a crazy knowledge and passion to do that kind of stuff. Maciek wanted to do this and he even started.

Yeah I heard about it, what happened to the project?

 

[mali]

He needed the hardware and didn't get it.

 

[dflemstr]

He needed the hardware and didn't get it.

I thought he had said that he had a BB

 

[mali]

I have to check. I left mid february so I don't know what happened afterwards.

 

[wermy]

Can't we set up a development pot for this (aka the one who first creates a driver that complies to the full OpenGL 2.0 spec gets all of the money)? I would easily pay 20-30 bucks (USD) to that pot, hands down, no kidding.

I am all for this, but I fear the amount put in such a pot wouldn't begin to compensate whatever developer took upon them this decidedly long and laborious task. :\

Maybe a better option would be to start a fund to buy the guy who WAS interested in doing it the necessary hardware (maybe a beagle board rather than a pandora, since they could get it asap?)....?

Edit: If he doesn't already have one, that is...

 

[mali]

I've read some older posts. He talked about testing something on SGX, so I suppose that he has access to the hardware.

 

[may88]

Pandora cannot be opened totally or the world ends. Hope must remain inside or everything will disappear

No! The Pandora cannot be opened totally coz the hinge would snap.

It's open because we are alcoholics.

I'll drink to that!

 

[vputz]

Given that this poster does not seem to understand the concept of open hardware at all (which has been done on, yes, much smaller-scale projects), calling the OP an idiot and saying they should "learn to read or something" is certainly uncalled for.

I think you missed who they were referring to. Unless of course you made up the quote yourself, in that case you refering to yourself which means that you do not "understand the concept of open hardware at all"

One cannot miss the opportunity for trolling, so this should be reconstructed:

Original poster:

But the development process is not significantly "open", or I'd be able to download specs for the case, board, etc.

Rude responder:

oooh! look! an idiot, can I keep him?, can I? can I?

open does not mean OP give away the design so some Chinese firm can physically copy it for next to nothing with an inferior set of electronics and undermine the project, open means you can code for it with no restrictions, maybe you should learn to read or something.

My correction lay in the fact that the OP was referring to "open" as "open hardware"; the rude responder called him an idiot, but had no concept of an open hardware design as per the Arduino, etc, where the schematics are indeed open-source documents and thus the hardware is truly open.

"Open hardware" in that since means exactly that--indeed, the Arduino people have "given away" the design, and other firms have in fact "physically copied it for next to nothing", and it works brilliantly well. And since I have developed and sold hardware along the same lines, I believe I do actually understand the concept of open hardware rather well, but thanks for mistakenly accusing me of not.

So, once again: the Pandora is not in any way "open hardware" in the sens of an open-source hardware design; it is a proprietary product which is accessible by hobbyist coders, and that's a good place for it to be, and we could use a lot more products that are as friendly to the users while providing profit to the designers.

In the future, after it's done with its peak sales, it would be lovely to have its designs completely opened to hobbyists (I'm hoping that's what comes of the poor beleaguered CrunchPad, which didn't quite make it), making it completely open for electronics hobbyists as well as software development hobbyists.