I look forward to seeing your board...it could be a great product. These are the types of boards that should be developed by 3rd parties...not evaluation boards that Parallax can easily make:)
I hope to finish testing the first board tomorrow, and if there are no significant issues, I should have production boards shortly. I have two more Pi/Prop boards coming in the near future...
ZOG is quite happy sleeping in his iceburg, He gets a bit irritable if you wake him up. I might let him rest a while longer.
Seairth,
You are proposing two devices both radically different from the current P2 design. If made that would constitute three incompatible architectures. This does not seem like a good idea. Anyway we haven't got one out the door yet.
It seems we have to disagree about "general purpose computer". My definition is more about a general purpose computer, i,e, something you might use for developing code on, writing documents, accessing the net etc. etc, Your definition is seems to be more about "general purpose micro-controllers". I'm not sure what that might mean exactly but there are thousands of different MCU's out there, just look at all the ARM based MCU for a start. Many of these are applicable to a broad ranges of tasks and many tasks can be tackled with many different devices. In that way they are "general purpose MCUs".
As has been noted here many times, it would be a mistake for Parallax to pitch the Propellers as "general purpose MCUs". As soon as someone compares them to a 2 dollar ARM chip like the STM32 range they will look very pathetic.
Ken,
Ah yes, sorry I read too much into what you wrote. The SimpleIDE for the Pi and video sounds like a very good start.
Bill.
I was also sick as a dog with flu over Christmas, did we manage to exchange a flu virus over the net ?
Glad to here those borads are moving along.
The Props would be getting along al lot better with an open source board design that is supported by Parallax, documentation, videos, projects, tutorials, the works. Even if they don't manufacture it. I'm not sure if you are into that idea Bill. Point is I belive the world clamours for open source hardware now and that such a board design would become more of a standard. That would grow the market for everybody. A risky proposition from a business point of view I know but so is the fractured way we have been carrying on with the P1 over the years. People need something they can rely on to be around and rely on others also having it so they can become a "community". See Arduino for an example.
I hope to finish testing the first board tomorrow, and if there are no significant issues, I should have production boards shortly. I have two more Pi/Prop boards coming in the near future...
I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I want to emphasize the point that there are many embedded applications which do not require the Propeller to ape a general-purpose computing platform, nor to connect to one.
I am not talking about imitating an PRi. What I am saying is that the Propeller has absolutely been emphasized as general-purpose:
All-in-one video game platform (HYDRA)
All-in-one robotics platform (Scribbler)
Servo controller
Arduino pseudo-clone (ASC+)
Audio player (AP-16)
Web server/platform (Spinneret)
"Credit-Card-sized Computer" (C3)
Single Board Computer (TriBlade)
Various other uses not coming to mind at the moment...
As I see it, a list like this underscores the focus on the Propeller as a general purpose computing platform. But if the Propeller is meant to be an "every man" of embedded processors, then it should make sure it to do really well and accept that it's in for a big fight with every other incumbent platform out there that is making the same claim. (I suspect it's exactly this reasoning/intent that's responsible for the prolonged development cycle of the P2.)
Conversely, we have a pretty good idea where other platforms (including RPi and Arduino) start to come up short: I/O. A Propeller/Turbine that emphasized programmable I/O capabilities (and only those capabilities) would, I think, be a great fit for many applications. (I don't know what Bill's new Pi-related products are, but I suspect the Turbine concept would be a good fit for them.)
Could it still be used as a stand-alone processor? Sure, in many cases, it will still be a good fit. In other cases, it might not do as well as another stand-alone processor. But that's always a trade-off that's encountered with embedded processors/microcontrollers/etc.
Regarding OBC's comments, we were selling our QuickStart at less than our cost so it only made good business sense to us to try to cover our costs. I'd like to think that we were helpful in this regard for a long period of time.
and it has been very appeciated.. In retrospect, the Quickstart increase in price all the way around is a good thing, and probably should have happened much, much sooner. Perhaps even when it was initally put into Radio Shack at $39.95. (Now at $43.99). The problem with Quickstart for those who created Propeller boards was it's extremely low price. ($25) It didn't leave much meat on the bone for small companies looking to create Propeller hobby boards. It's current price will allow other options to compete again.
Perhaps it is a bad idea for anyone to create a Propeller hobby board outside of Parallax.
I know I probably won't make another. Any Propeller/Propeller2 based product I get involved with will be targetted at other "non hobby microcontroller" markets.
My biggest conern (with John) is the current time table of the P2. I really didn't want to seek alternatives for out current project, and thought we might be building interesting things based on Propeller 2 long before now. The Raspberry Pi will fill the required needs of our current project, but it's a linux computer, not a microcontroller. There is much distintion between the two.
As for Pi compatible boards, it's a very good idea. The single board version of the PMC we'll launch will have a Pi compatible connector. It's a no brainer to give the Propeller access to the horsepower. and internet releated tools avaible through that link. Heck, I'm currently working on a way to access the Propeller through Python. I'm pleased to see Bill joining the effort with a Pi Plate of his own.
$44 dollars for a Quick start. Sorry I don't check these things often, but that seems like a lot for a board with so little at a time when the world is used to Beagle bones and Pi's. I'm sure it's a good board and all that but it is up against stiff competition. I have an STM32 F4 board for example here for less than that which in many ways is a whole lot more capable. It's getting tough out there.
I have no idea what your product plan is OBC but surely if it can be done with the proposed P2 or with a Pi, which don't have much in common, then it could already have been done with many other boards and chips out there. It does not seem to require any special features of the Pi or P2.
I have no idea what your product plan is OBC but surely if it can be done with the proposed P2 or with a Pi, which don't have much in common, then it could already have been done with many other boards and chips out there. It does not seem to require any special features of the Pi or P2.
I'm curious about it.
It is a very unique target market.
We probably would have done more software development to use the P2, but we would have also have excusive control over how these programs operated.
I'll show more as we go to market with it. Unit 001 was completed three weeks ago and I'm waiting for some scheduled meetings with contacts in that market.
What if you were to break the P2 into two products.
Propeller:
Basically the same as the current Propeller 2, except:
4 COGs (which would also mean faster hub access)
More memory (possibly even revisit dedicated DDR2 bus)
Comprehensive serial hardware
Emphasis on multi-tasking general computing (with convenient I/O)
Turbine:
16 COGs
Much less hub RAM (possibly none?)
No multitasking
No hub execution mode
Wider inter-COG data path
Comprehensive serial hardware
Instruction set is (nearly) a subset of Propeller instruction set
Emphasis on single-minded I/O processing
Why go with two products? Because they meet two different needs. Propeller can be squarely targeted as a general-purpose computing platform ("do it all with one chip"), while the Turbine can be squarely targeted as an augmentation for all of the low-power computing platforms (RPi, Arduino, etc) that need significantly more I/O (and processing power to handle the I/O). And, of course, there's no reason that the Propeller (1 or 2) couldn't make use of the Turbine as well.
I realize that this would be a big undertaking (and cost), but I think it would give the Propeller product line a much clearer road map.
That's a lot of added cost, for unknown benefit.
[*] Comprehensive serial hardware this should be already in P2, before it hits silicon ?
It's smarter to think about pins, and Parallax will have devices at 44 and 128 pins.
I think there is space at 32 pins and 64 pins, and one die design could cover both.
This becomes area-driven, and it would start as removing P2 COGs and DACS / ADCS until it can fit in 32 pins.
I think the 64 pin choice does not need full Analog on all pins - P2 covers that niche.
Maybe that comes out at 4 COGS ? - Multi-tasking and Hub-exec, proven in P2, mean less COGs are viable.
32 pins also drives down the price, as it forces a smaller die.
The 32 pin LPC part, needs an on chip regulator, or at most an external transistor element for very low cost regulator.
Low applied cost is important.
I've seen some uC releases with Shunt regulator, which fits most embedded uses quite well. Lowest cost design is then a series resistor, and the regulator-sense can also give a PowerGood signal.
It may be possible to cover both direct shunt, and transistor element with one shunt block.
Quite a few parts are now 1.8~5.5v, and if you want to compete long term, that is a compelling feature.
$44 dollars for a Quick start. Sorry I don't check these things often, but that seems like a lot for a board with so little at a time when the world is used to Beagle bones and Pi's.
...
It turns out that after 100,000 units shipped, the $45 Beagle Bone Black board has merely "broke even" with no funds to pay for any new software developers to support fixing the bugs, making capes work 100%, and making patches and whatnot. The most visibly active person who is constantly releasing OS updates doesn't even work for TI or CircuitCo. It was sort of a "if we build it, they will come" software mentality when it came to building the open hardware.
Not a total loss, but not the software renaissance that was expected.
Personally, I can't for the life of me understand the intricacies of Linux drivers or side with the personalities involved...
Anyway, the point being is if *you* want something to work on this platform, you had better work on it yourself. Otherwise, if it does not work already you're going to be stuck getting no where. That and people like me will not care if something does not work for *you* especially considering you're not even willing to take the time to learn Linux, or even attempt to do something about it yourselves.
Now. That being said it's a great board hardware wise, with great hardware features, and excellent design, and a very professional website. But the software needed to run on it just needs a lot of TLC to be an effective "experimenter's" or "learner's" platform. It isn't even the fault of the people that did get the software working up to this point, it isn't their deficiency, it's just that getting bug free device drivers on an embedded Linux platform is such a huge, multi-person undertaking.
And the maintainers of Linux and its distributions sabotaged the effort at the worst possible time for the BBB, forcing the hardware device tree (before it was ready, as in understandable by a human), depreciating ntpdate in favor of the ntpd daemon and its... weirdness, creating the potential for an unbootable system if you were unfortunate enough to opkg update at the wrong time, and bumping up kernel revision numbers too quickly to cause a lot of community fracturing, among other things. Plus there's so much bloat that for a GUI you still can't even fit gnome-core on its 2 GB storage. All that talk of Windows bloat and whatnot...
And my RasPi that I got for free just runs XBMC... as suspected.
Figures the BBB people wouldn't make any money at $45 a unit, they were selling at cost. But it's not surprising they came in at this price point rather than at $75 - $85 a unit. The Raspberry PI had just came at $35.00 and had altered the ARM SBC market in terms of pricing. The BBB people probably wagered that at $45 they could lure enough people to make up for bleeding edge pricing. They were wrong.
Problem is parts of the software weren't ready for prime time including the real time I/O section. It's not even Beta level.
The more I look into the BBB, it looks like it was released 6 months too soon. As it is, it's just a device for serious Linux heads to play with, the rest should just avoid it.
What's the idea with programming a Pi from scratch? I would have thought that throws away all the goodness of Linux and leaves you with a lot of work to do.
What I love about the Propeller it is possibility to make a system with audio, video, filesystem, etc, and do what I want without any operating system.
It needs about 1GB of stuff on SD to only start a Pi, and minutes of waiting until it starts.
I needed 32 kB to make a wav/sid player with noise shaping, kbd and vga display with prop1.
And if only I want is some advanced processing... I don't need all of this stuff. I only need a lot of memory and raw processing power. So: a procedure->asm ->kernel.img-> sd card->Rpi is doing the stuff I want from it
Personally, I can't for the life of me understand the intricacies of Linux drivers or side with the personalities involved...
What were you doing that required understanding Linux drivers? Mostly stuff just works. When it doesn't there is usually help forthcoming on the net.
I'm curious about those "personalities". Are you saying that there is a particular personality type among all the thousands of developers of Linux, Linux based operating systems and all the Unix applications? What about the millions of users? Who upset you? Are we all bad?
You only get as much bloat with Linux as you want or need. Most ARM Linux systems I have never run X or any GUI interface. I have a Pi that is used to display a GUI app straight to the frame buffer, opengl accelerated and all. That's pretty minimal.
pik33,
I don't need all of this stuff. I only need a lot of memory and raw processing power. So: a procedure->asm ->kernel.img-> sd card->Rpi is doing the stuff I want from it
Sounds reasonable. Hardwork but doable. I'd rather just disable X and all services I don't need from Linux for a quick boot up. Write my app in C so that it's portable. Run it with elevated priority if need be. Then I have the entire machine to myself but I get to use all those ready made device drivers, files sytem, networking etc.
Sounds reasonable. Hardwork but doable. I'd rather just disable X and all services I don't need from Linux for a quick boot up. Write my app in C so that it's portable. Run it with elevated priority if need be. Then I have the entire machine to myself but I get to use all those ready made device drivers, files sytem, networking etc.
Don't discourage him! I'm sure this is exactly the thought process Linus Torvalds went through when he decided to create the Linux kernel. Maybe we'll get yet another great operating system out of pik33's efforts!
Don't discourage him! I'm sure this is exactly the thought process Linus Torvalds went through when he decided to create the Linux kernel. Maybe we'll get yet another great operating system out of pik33's efforts!
David Betz has just preached the good word. Like Chip who, a few threads ago commented that he'd like to build his own workstation hardware and OS in his own image after P2 is done... we must all at some time build our own birdfeeder.
I'm not going to wax philosophical but instead point our dear readers to the third edition (Number 0x02) of POC||GTFO wherein Pastor Laphroaig in his epistle to CCC preaches on this subject.
Not only is there ample preaching on hardware hacking and the art of software hackery... but the pdf itself is also a .zip file AND a bootable x86 image with its only mini OS - all through abuse of open standards ;-)
Quite a few parts are now 1.8~5.5v, and if you want to compete long term, that is a compelling feature.
This is one of the little, practical things that make a chip easier to design in. (Sometimes just having the option to run at higher voltage with a trade-off in clock speed can seal the deal.)
I'm often not quite as bothered with needing to add a regulator (though 1.8V @ 1A (?) might be pushing it) as I am with possibly having to add many external components or jump through hoops to interface with logic in the rest of the system. In this instance, 1.8V is a big leap down for my purposes. I'll need plenty of glue if I want lots of I/O with 3.3V/5V devices, correct? Will pins be 2.5V tolerant?
Can we stop all this lamenting business now and just get on with stuff?
Chip has got a chip to build. We all want to see it happen.
All hands to the pumps!
Yeah, lament this and lament that, and then find you have to lament the loss of all the time you wasted lamenting this and that, and then you have to lament that as well. It all piles up.
It's a good thing I'm not a drinker, because all this lamenting might have put me under, already.
I've taken a break from the hub execution to get the schematic changes worked out for Beau. The new OnSemi process doesn't let you use their NMOS/PMOS models directly. You have to go through their Xcircuits to access the models. It's very messy and disruptive.
That's a function of the distribution you're choosing. You can build a bootable system for the Pi in a few meg.
Definitely true. If you take a look at NOOBS or the Marshmellow Entertainment System you'll linux booting on the RPi in seconds. As stated on the Raspberry Pi forums 'The NOOBS "Recovery Menu" is actually a QT application running on top of a buildroot Linux OS, launched from an initrd' And the author of MES states "I'm using my own fork of buildroot for the Raspberry Pi, it's extremely light and fast (as you can see)."
Don't discourage him! I'm sure this is exactly the thought process Linus Torvalds went through when he decided to create the Linux kernel. Maybe we'll get yet another great operating system out of pik33's efforts!
A dream. Not now, I have to do my PhD first. Maybe there will be a P2 available then.
FPGA is the best thing to implement a neural network, and genetic stuff managed by these nanoprocessors,and then use it to process these signals, but there is some stuff which needs some more memory and processing. It can be done in FPGA too, but it will eat resources (I have only 128 MB in DE2-115) and needs a lot of work (like fitting one of these CPUs available on Opencores) or money (buying Nios license) So I want to connect something cheap and simple to use (now it is a Pi) to DE2-115 and have all of its 512 MB of RAM free to use. This is the main reason why I don't want an OS in it.
The Pi was created to encourage young people to program and it is good for it with ready available and configured stuff like Python but there is still nothing like this famous Basic's "Ready" and simple - SIMPLE - OS which don't need all these MMUs, virtual memories and overweighted libraries. A good example of such OS is 8-bit Atari.
And the Propeller is the best to teach and learn parallel processing. A board like "P2 Pi" with proper OS and programming language may be used for this.
Comments
Looking forward to what you can tell us about them.
That would be a great reason for me to get a Pi.
I look forward to seeing your board...it could be a great product. These are the types of boards that should be developed by 3rd parties...not evaluation boards that Parallax can easily make:)
Thanks guys!
I hope to finish testing the first board tomorrow, and if there are no significant issues, I should have production boards shortly. I have two more Pi/Prop boards coming in the near future...
ZOG is quite happy sleeping in his iceburg, He gets a bit irritable if you wake him up. I might let him rest a while longer.
Seairth,
You are proposing two devices both radically different from the current P2 design. If made that would constitute three incompatible architectures. This does not seem like a good idea. Anyway we haven't got one out the door yet.
It seems we have to disagree about "general purpose computer". My definition is more about a general purpose computer, i,e, something you might use for developing code on, writing documents, accessing the net etc. etc, Your definition is seems to be more about "general purpose micro-controllers". I'm not sure what that might mean exactly but there are thousands of different MCU's out there, just look at all the ARM based MCU for a start. Many of these are applicable to a broad ranges of tasks and many tasks can be tackled with many different devices. In that way they are "general purpose MCUs".
As has been noted here many times, it would be a mistake for Parallax to pitch the Propellers as "general purpose MCUs". As soon as someone compares them to a 2 dollar ARM chip like the STM32 range they will look very pathetic.
Ken,
Ah yes, sorry I read too much into what you wrote. The SimpleIDE for the Pi and video sounds like a very good start.
Bill.
I was also sick as a dog with flu over Christmas, did we manage to exchange a flu virus over the net ?
Glad to here those borads are moving along.
The Props would be getting along al lot better with an open source board design that is supported by Parallax, documentation, videos, projects, tutorials, the works. Even if they don't manufacture it. I'm not sure if you are into that idea Bill. Point is I belive the world clamours for open source hardware now and that such a board design would become more of a standard. That would grow the market for everybody. A risky proposition from a business point of view I know but so is the fractured way we have been carrying on with the P1 over the years. People need something they can rely on to be around and rely on others also having it so they can become a "community". See Arduino for an example.
Great, I won't have to make one now
New thread Bill.
I am not talking about imitating an PRi. What I am saying is that the Propeller has absolutely been emphasized as general-purpose:
As I see it, a list like this underscores the focus on the Propeller as a general purpose computing platform. But if the Propeller is meant to be an "every man" of embedded processors, then it should make sure it to do really well and accept that it's in for a big fight with every other incumbent platform out there that is making the same claim. (I suspect it's exactly this reasoning/intent that's responsible for the prolonged development cycle of the P2.)
Conversely, we have a pretty good idea where other platforms (including RPi and Arduino) start to come up short: I/O. A Propeller/Turbine that emphasized programmable I/O capabilities (and only those capabilities) would, I think, be a great fit for many applications. (I don't know what Bill's new Pi-related products are, but I suspect the Turbine concept would be a good fit for them.)
Could it still be used as a stand-alone processor? Sure, in many cases, it will still be a good fit. In other cases, it might not do as well as another stand-alone processor. But that's always a trade-off that's encountered with embedded processors/microcontrollers/etc.
and it has been very appeciated.. In retrospect, the Quickstart increase in price all the way around is a good thing, and probably should have happened much, much sooner. Perhaps even when it was initally put into Radio Shack at $39.95. (Now at $43.99). The problem with Quickstart for those who created Propeller boards was it's extremely low price. ($25) It didn't leave much meat on the bone for small companies looking to create Propeller hobby boards. It's current price will allow other options to compete again.
Perhaps it is a bad idea for anyone to create a Propeller hobby board outside of Parallax.
I know I probably won't make another. Any Propeller/Propeller2 based product I get involved with will be targetted at other "non hobby microcontroller" markets.
My biggest conern (with John) is the current time table of the P2. I really didn't want to seek alternatives for out current project, and thought we might be building interesting things based on Propeller 2 long before now. The Raspberry Pi will fill the required needs of our current project, but it's a linux computer, not a microcontroller. There is much distintion between the two.
As for Pi compatible boards, it's a very good idea. The single board version of the PMC we'll launch will have a Pi compatible connector. It's a no brainer to give the Propeller access to the horsepower. and internet releated tools avaible through that link. Heck, I'm currently working on a way to access the Propeller through Python. I'm pleased to see Bill joining the effort with a Pi Plate of his own.
Jeff
$44 dollars for a Quick start. Sorry I don't check these things often, but that seems like a lot for a board with so little at a time when the world is used to Beagle bones and Pi's. I'm sure it's a good board and all that but it is up against stiff competition. I have an STM32 F4 board for example here for less than that which in many ways is a whole lot more capable. It's getting tough out there.
I have no idea what your product plan is OBC but surely if it can be done with the proposed P2 or with a Pi, which don't have much in common, then it could already have been done with many other boards and chips out there. It does not seem to require any special features of the Pi or P2.
I'm curious about it.
It is a very unique target market.
We probably would have done more software development to use the P2, but we would have also have excusive control over how these programs operated.
I'll show more as we go to market with it. Unit 001 was completed three weeks ago and I'm waiting for some scheduled meetings with contacts in that market.
Jeff
That's a lot of added cost, for unknown benefit.
[*] Comprehensive serial hardware this should be already in P2, before it hits silicon ?
It's smarter to think about pins, and Parallax will have devices at 44 and 128 pins.
I think there is space at 32 pins and 64 pins, and one die design could cover both.
This becomes area-driven, and it would start as removing P2 COGs and DACS / ADCS until it can fit in 32 pins.
I think the 64 pin choice does not need full Analog on all pins - P2 covers that niche.
Maybe that comes out at 4 COGS ? - Multi-tasking and Hub-exec, proven in P2, mean less COGs are viable.
32 pins also drives down the price, as it forces a smaller die.
The 32 pin LPC part, needs an on chip regulator, or at most an external transistor element for very low cost regulator.
Low applied cost is important.
I've seen some uC releases with Shunt regulator, which fits most embedded uses quite well. Lowest cost design is then a series resistor, and the regulator-sense can also give a PowerGood signal.
It may be possible to cover both direct shunt, and transistor element with one shunt block.
Quite a few parts are now 1.8~5.5v, and if you want to compete long term, that is a compelling feature.
It turns out that after 100,000 units shipped, the $45 Beagle Bone Black board has merely "broke even" with no funds to pay for any new software developers to support fixing the bugs, making capes work 100%, and making patches and whatnot. The most visibly active person who is constantly releasing OS updates doesn't even work for TI or CircuitCo. It was sort of a "if we build it, they will come" software mentality when it came to building the open hardware.
Not a total loss, but not the software renaissance that was expected.
Personally, I can't for the life of me understand the intricacies of Linux drivers or side with the personalities involved...
Now. That being said it's a great board hardware wise, with great hardware features, and excellent design, and a very professional website. But the software needed to run on it just needs a lot of TLC to be an effective "experimenter's" or "learner's" platform. It isn't even the fault of the people that did get the software working up to this point, it isn't their deficiency, it's just that getting bug free device drivers on an embedded Linux platform is such a huge, multi-person undertaking.
And the maintainers of Linux and its distributions sabotaged the effort at the worst possible time for the BBB, forcing the hardware device tree (before it was ready, as in understandable by a human), depreciating ntpdate in favor of the ntpd daemon and its... weirdness, creating the potential for an unbootable system if you were unfortunate enough to opkg update at the wrong time, and bumping up kernel revision numbers too quickly to cause a lot of community fracturing, among other things. Plus there's so much bloat that for a GUI you still can't even fit gnome-core on its 2 GB storage. All that talk of Windows bloat and whatnot...
And my RasPi that I got for free just runs XBMC... as suspected.
Problem is parts of the software weren't ready for prime time including the real time I/O section. It's not even Beta level.
The more I look into the BBB, it looks like it was released 6 months too soon. As it is, it's just a device for serious Linux heads to play with, the rest should just avoid it.
The Commode 64 was better thought out.
What I love about the Propeller it is possibility to make a system with audio, video, filesystem, etc, and do what I want without any operating system.
It needs about 1GB of stuff on SD to only start a Pi, and minutes of waiting until it starts.
I needed 32 kB to make a wav/sid player with noise shaping, kbd and vga display with prop1.
And if only I want is some advanced processing... I don't need all of this stuff. I only need a lot of memory and raw processing power. So: a procedure->asm ->kernel.img-> sd card->Rpi is doing the stuff I want from it
That's a function of the distribution you're choosing. You can build a bootable system for the Pi in a few meg.
David Betz has just preached the good word. Like Chip who, a few threads ago commented that he'd like to build his own workstation hardware and OS in his own image after P2 is done... we must all at some time build our own birdfeeder.
I'm not going to wax philosophical but instead point our dear readers to the third edition (Number 0x02) of POC||GTFO wherein Pastor Laphroaig in his epistle to CCC preaches on this subject.
Not only is there ample preaching on hardware hacking and the art of software hackery... but the pdf itself is also a .zip file AND a bootable x86 image with its only mini OS - all through abuse of open standards ;-)
http://pocorgtfo.freshdefense.net/
__red__
"International Journal of PoC || GTFO "
I love it! I don't know about "abuse" if you are just doing what they say.
Files is just bits, right? Interpret them how you will.
I'm often not quite as bothered with needing to add a regulator (though 1.8V @ 1A (?) might be pushing it) as I am with possibly having to add many external components or jump through hoops to interface with logic in the rest of the system. In this instance, 1.8V is a big leap down for my purposes. I'll need plenty of glue if I want lots of I/O with 3.3V/5V devices, correct? Will pins be 2.5V tolerant?
Chip has got a chip to build. We all want to see it happen.
All hands to the pumps!
Meanwhile the rest of us in Propeller world keep trying to add value with what already exists.
There is something lame about lamenting.
All this recursive lamenting is too much.
I've taken a break from the hub execution to get the schematic changes worked out for Beau. The new OnSemi process doesn't let you use their NMOS/PMOS models directly. You have to go through their Xcircuits to access the models. It's very messy and disruptive.
Definitely true. If you take a look at NOOBS or the Marshmellow Entertainment System you'll linux booting on the RPi in seconds. As stated on the Raspberry Pi forums 'The NOOBS "Recovery Menu" is actually a QT application running on top of a buildroot Linux OS, launched from an initrd' And the author of MES states "I'm using my own fork of buildroot for the Raspberry Pi, it's extremely light and fast (as you can see)."
Thanks for the update. Alcohol won't help I tried it. Actually it's been a while, so maybe I should try it again.
I'll let you know.
Rich
A dream. Not now, I have to do my PhD first. Maybe there will be a P2 available then.
FPGA is the best thing to implement a neural network, and genetic stuff managed by these nanoprocessors,and then use it to process these signals, but there is some stuff which needs some more memory and processing. It can be done in FPGA too, but it will eat resources (I have only 128 MB in DE2-115) and needs a lot of work (like fitting one of these CPUs available on Opencores) or money (buying Nios license) So I want to connect something cheap and simple to use (now it is a Pi) to DE2-115 and have all of its 512 MB of RAM free to use. This is the main reason why I don't want an OS in it.
The Pi was created to encourage young people to program and it is good for it with ready available and configured stuff like Python but there is still nothing like this famous Basic's "Ready" and simple - SIMPLE - OS which don't need all these MMUs, virtual memories and overweighted libraries. A good example of such OS is 8-bit Atari.
And the Propeller is the best to teach and learn parallel processing. A board like "P2 Pi" with proper OS and programming language may be used for this.