What is Digg?42 Comments
- r121, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26"This is totally unrealistic. I can feature a single free computer but to go into production with free computers is just unreal. People as good hearted as they can be require an income to survive and won't work long for free."
Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer. The specifications would be fully open. It would of course cost money to purchase. I'd certainly pay money for just such an open computer. - chieffy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"People as good hearted as they can be require an income to survive and won't work long for free."
Tell that to all the people who've been contributing to free software all these years! - themacmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I assume you mean free, as in open - not as in no charge. The idea of manufacturing perfectly working laptops for Gnu/Linux use is a sterling idea - it should not be (too) hard to arrive at correct specifications that grey box manufacturers could use. It would need to be as 'future-proofed' as possible, as technology is moving very quickly, and much hardware is being obsoleted (am I the only one who remembers AGP??)
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What is this "AGP" you speak of? Do tell.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're COMPLETELY missing the point of this article, which is why you're getting voted down. The point of this article is that Dell, HP and Gateway build those machines with CLOSED SOURCE specifications, with hardware that requires you sign an NDA to figure out the pin-outs and register specifications of the chips, with proprietary software that requires you agree to all kinds of ludacris terms of service, and with proprietary drivers that don't always work, and when they do work, don't offer you any insight into how they work.
The Open Computer would be the antithesis of this. From the designs of the motherboard to the device drivers for the OS to the user interface, every last component is open for inspection. You can offer your own insights into how the hardware should work ("Hey, this motherboard has a wire routing flaw that causes the ground plane to become noisy when the system fan comes on, try this instead"). You can take the designs to a manufacturer and have them built, independently of anyone else. You can assemble the machine yourself if you wanted to, instead of having it assembled by a big OEM (if you choose to, Open OEM would theoretically mass-manufacture these boxes as well). Nothing goes into the machine that leaves anyone out in the dark.
So no, this has nothing to do with Windows or Mac OS X, this has nothing to do at all with how much something costs. It has everything to do with the intellectual process of building a computer, in a transparent way, so that the user never has to succumb to a manufacturer's will for something to be done. Don't like Hardware DRM? This is the solution: build your own machine and fuggetabout the DRM. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"what's in it for the manufacturer?"
Money. Typically, manufacturing's goal is to make money by selling a product. Manufacturing is a dull, end-process task of putting together the idea once it's already assembled. Companies that build a lot of machines like ideas that are already assembled out of the box, that all they have to do is stamp their logo on it and call it their own. Think about Dell: the most design work Dell does is on the outside of their machines, giving them the standard "Dell" look in plastics. The motherboard is usually exactly the Intel Reference Platform board, only with the Dell image on the mask instead of the Intel logo. This way, Dell doesn't actually have to spend millions on debugging a board design, they just pick it up, pay a licensing fee, and build the thing.
In this case, there is no licensing fee. It's free to build using the spec. Any OEM willing to subject itself to the terms of the license (the GPL portion; modifying the board requires all modifications be committed back to the project) can build them and sell them for profit. And you don't need a specific manufacturer in mind with this project: there are hundreds of companies in America and China alike capable of manufacturing PCBs, plastics for bezels, assembling PCBs, and there are even companies to do final-assembly-to-order as long as you send the process to them (the latter company that I'm thinking of in particular doesn't specialize in volume, but once you started pumping out enough that you needed volume manufacturing you could afford to build a factory (basically a warehouse with conveyors) and hire labor to assemble them.
The best part of all of this is that you don't /need/ anyone to buy into it other than your investors, your investors being the community itself. Companies are already forming that are the perfect test-pilots, Chumby being the most well-known of them at this point; their entire product is Free except for the Flash player, which can be replaced at the user's will. - Shaggy63, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What they are talking about is creating hardware designs and letting other companies build/market/sell it.
Think of it this way:
The community designs entire systems, motherboards, wireless cards. The whole specs of the entire machine. Then lets IBM, DELL or any of the others build and sell the systems marketing it Dell OpenOEM system. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If it's an open standard, any manufacturer could put the components together and sell it, so their traditionally-marketed models would not be directly competing with it."
We're not talking about standardization, we're talking about building the machines with Open designs. Standards for PC design already exist, ATX, BTX, we don't need to define yet another one of these for our machines. We need to take the standard, then use our designs to build a machine with downloadable schematics.
Ironically, I think hardware is where the GPL would be suited best; the main problem with releasing the schematics of your hardware is that you're quite literally giving away your business to other businesses who've got more money and a much bigger mass-production engine. GPL the designs and anything they design based off it will be Free as well and not corrupted by corporations who want to add their own proprietary widget that's not supported by Linux or any other Free OS. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Contribution that brings recognition can surpass that which monetary compensation brings. It's a proven fact that's among the raison detre for the whole movement. Electronic distribution doesn't have production cost; even music (media) doesn't quite enjoy the same prospects of exposure.
- DonPMitchell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Part 3: The Free Pony
- kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd buy one. If I knew it was coming I'd start hoarding cash now for it. Just about every geek I know would buy one. In fact I'd be willing to bet that demand would surprise the heck out of the supply chain.
If it worked as planned. If it actually did work out of the box as advertised.
Unlike software, which people are willing to try out even if it's not ready for prime-time, no one is going to do that for hardware. Release early, release often just doesn't work for hardware. So I am/would be concerned that I wasn't purchasing a brick. On the other hand, most of the components are already available and just need to be put together. So it might not be as difficult as it seems.
It's a great idea, and it would definitely work. As far as money goes, it's all about branding. "OpenOEM Certified" would mean that the product was certified as complying to the concept. If the manufacturer decides to change something, that's fine, as long as they comply with the OpenOEM license, and release the specs. If they don't get re-certified with the new design, they can't label it OpenOEM, but would still be required to release the specs. The cost of certification would then go to compensate those who create the OpenOEM standard.
In reality, it's all about marketing. A few well-placed, well-made commercials explaining in the simplest terms why actually Owning your machine is desirable, why Free is Good, etc. would go far.
But the most important thing is that it can't not work right. It has to work correctly and with the first release. - raynevandunem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, that "so much hardware is poor" jab was uncalled for. But OEMs *are* conservative by nature, and, as they've been in the business longer than the FOSS movement, have more than enough good reasons to be tight about compatibility specs.
The hypothetical OpenOEM would have to work on an equivalent model like that of Red Hat: selling the better services to clientele.
If it were to focus/depend more upon selling the better hardware, it would be immediately undercut by competitors who would take their specs, improve upon them, and sell their version(s) at a lower price.
Hardware services constitute a market that isn't touched as much as it should be by the major OEMs. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"After seeing this retarded comment I stopped reading."
It's amazing that someone who obviously knows very little about hardware manufacturing would be so bold as to make sweeping judgments against those who do it for a living. Ignorance and arrogance combined. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Translation --- it probably won't be cost competitive with existing systems"
Nothing is cost competitive at first, scaling up is something that takes time and has to be done right. It's very likely the early machines would be either sold at a loss or at cost, along with a service contract where the company could recoup the costs of the machine over time (for example, your support contract would pay for your access to the Ubuntu repositories, so you could get the most up-to-date software faster, as well as pay towards the cost of your machine). It's likely more people would buy the support package than actually would use it (as these machines would be fairly low maintaince an very well supported as the schematics are open to review by anyone, just as open source software is), so the end result would be profitable.
The problem is marketing this solution to people. Making this look sexy is like trying to make a skeleton look sexy, it's a very dry idea that's more ideological than curb-appeal. Adding things to the platform such as support for exotic hardware (camera's built into the lid of the laptops, for example) might help, as would making the design attractive and not boring and beige like the current White Boxes (I probably should say "Black Boxes" now, as everyone thinks its hip to make their machines black). Trigger the "Killer Platform" vibe in the populus, and you can sell the idea. Otherwise you're looking at a very grass-roots marketing system, which would be a much harder sell to the consumer. - joseguia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks organon for the info on Power.org, I didn't even know they existed. From reading their website it sounds alot like an OpenOEM.
I got an idea I'd like to share with them. =) - organon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You are aware that there is something like that already in existance? power.org. It has industry backing and all the open specs for hardware and firmware. And there are companies putting out products for it, namely genesi with their pegasus line. They don't have a laptop though.
- Zephyrspecial, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If it's an open standard, any manufacturer could put the components together and sell it, so their traditionally-marketed models would not be directly competing with it. The difference in their open-standard product would likely come down to case design - or are we going to specify that, too? It seems like that would be the one thing to leave open to customization, as long as it fits all the components.
- Shaggy63, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OpenOEM would be the best way to have a Linux/BSD system that "just works".
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The biggest problem, again, is selling the machines once you've built them. A tiny start up could design and even possibly contract to build a few thousand of them, but selling them to people is a whole other matter. While I know for certain I would buy one, how are you going to convince the general public to? People are going to start asking the same questions they're asking of the Mac now: can it run Windows, what about some application I need in order to do my job, everyone's marketing is telling me that GNUBoxes suck, etc. Word of mouth marketing and corporate hand holding helped Firefox to where it is, a new computer company building completely Open machines would have only the former (as all of the traditional manufacturers would quickly take action in their countermarketing departments).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds great, didnt a company do this with the "linespire" walmart laptop? but its an excellent idea, would be nice to use linux on a fully functional machine, wireless, bluetooth, etc.. without having to configure it all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Clearly this article was posted by an American.
Anytime something needs to be done a "call to arms" is involved. - lengau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If someone did this, it would be a great stride forward for Free (speech) OS's. This doesn't mean that the company could only sell computers with Linux/BSD/etc. One could sell a computer with LinuxBIOS, open drivers, etc. If it's still running an x86 platform, then they could even sell Windows on those same computers. Perhaps selling the with Windows preinstalled for a $50-$100 charge in addition to the cost of the computer with Linux. Many people who have never used a computer before (and believe me, there are a lot even just in the U.S.) would have no problem running a Linux/BSD-based OS.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@r121
"I'd certainly pay money for just such an open computer."
Translation --- it probably won't be cost competitive with existing systems. In the electronics business, cost is inversely related to volume --- more volume = lower cost. Good luck reaching the critical volume needed to ever become competitive without somone to subsidize the product, at least initially. Unlike software where production and distribution costs can approach zero, hardware demands more good old-fashioned business skills. Ideology alone isn't enough. - numba1xclusive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lindows anyone? lol
- PantherX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't anyone remember Penguin Computing?
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The motherboard is usually exactly the Intel Reference Platform board, only with the Dell image on the mask instead of the Intel logo."
Ok, so how much extra money do you figure Dell could earn by using a GPL'ed reference design instead of Intel's? And as they say, time is money. Six months from now when Intel releases a new processor, how long do you figure Dell would have to wait for a "free" GPL reference design to become available? - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And where do you think this Open Company will be able to get specs and drivers (or at least proper docs) for say a modern 3D graphics card? It's not going to be AMD/ATI or Nvidia. If the machines are used for gaming then Intel's integrated stuff won't cut it.
- einfeldt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have created a site that is free as in beer for people to exchange hardware locally. We encourage people to put Linux (GNU/Linux) on older hardware and exchange them locally. The problem with old hardware is that it costs more to ship than to buy new locally. Hence there is a growing mountain of heavy metals from computers showing up in landfills. Not a good situation.
http://www.DIYparts.org - Maczimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so this would be like Free geek. where you work 24 hours and get a free computer made from donations, preloaded with Linux?
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AGP? I still have a couple PCI graphics cards around. Great for a deal head setup when you only have one AGP slot. (can you guess I'm not a gamer?! ;-)
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Ok, so how much extra money do you figure Dell could earn by using a GPL'ed reference design instead of Intel's? And as they say, time is money. Six months from now when Intel releases a new processor, how long do you figure Dell would have to wait for a "free" GPL reference design to become available?"
Well, the license for the boards is a license per-machine, not in bulk, so a lot of money could be theoretically saved. But even IF Dell didn't pick it up, it's perfectly fine, Open OEM would still be manufacturing them.
Secondly, six months from now when Intel releases its next chip, it'll still be using the same bus design as the old chip. If they're going to change bus designs, then Intel pre-warns its OEM partners months in advance with copies of their new chipsets pin-outs and power requirements, many times even before the chips themselves are available (and if they are available, they're only available in sampling quantities). This way when the chips are ready to ship, you've got the board ready to go. Do you honestly think Intel would just make its OEM partners fend for themselves? Having boards available is necessary in order for Intel to sell its chips; without the boards there, they can't sell their next gen chips.
Lastly, we wouldn't be using Intel's chips in all likelihood. The whole idea of an Open Computer is no influence from companies who are going to get in our way. This would mean going to either AMD which is very open with their chip specifications and HyperTransport, or Sun with their new SPARC chips, or one of the hundreds of companies building ARM SOICs, or Freescale/IBM with their PowerPC chips, or even using one of OpenCore's own designs such as the single-core SPARC, or OpenRISC. We'd go to wireless companies who were willing to work with us on writing Wireless firmware for their chips (Freescale or Atmel). We'd want to go with either a SOIC or a simple chipset that's well understood (again, not Intel), and we'd write our own firmware for it to boot Linux or one of the other Free operating systems from Flash. - matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i suppose it could be real if you take the case and put alot of ads on the case it self to pay for the hardware...........
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why bother doing this, when companies like Dell and Gateway just implement the Intel standard designs for _everything_? For example, Intel provides schematics for OEM motherboard manufacturers with certain feature sets, and it rarely requires Dell or any other company touching them except to add their own logo to the mask.
Standards aren't what we need, we need products. We need a company who's going to contract, build, install the OS on, and support these machines, the Open Company. We need to look at Apple as a direct 1:1 parity of what we need to do with our Open IP. We're close enough to it now that it's a reality, just pooling the money and the people together is the last necessary step. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"GPL the designs and anything they design based off it will be Free as well and not corrupted by corporations..."
Only one little problem --- corporations are the ones who have to produce and make money from the hardware.
Basically, you're saying to the hardware manufacturer, we don't really like you but please use our design anyway so we can exercise some control over your product and business decisions. Do you really expect them to go for this? Why? - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@ chieffy
I'm sure that writing free software is how they pay the bills... - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0(deleted)
- Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Unfortunately these companies are very conservative and not very courageous by nature. Their businesses are built on cost reduction not innovation. This is probably one of the reasons that so much computer hardware is so poor."
After seeing this retarded comment I stopped reading. Poor hardware? The advances that have happened in the PC arena in terms of capability and performance are flat out amazing, but because they all don't completely 100% support these guy precious "everything must be free and open" ideology then they get dumped on. I like the world of Linux and Open source in general but I really can't stand these purist preacher types. - LetsGoHawks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"However, the biggest need right now is, as Tony says, the $950 (or less) Laptop that just works."
I guess these don't count:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/inspn?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/store_access.do?template_type=series_detail&category=notebooks&series_name=V6000Z_series
http://www.gateway.com/products/gconfig/prodhmseries.asp?seg=hm&gcseries=nx570&clv=Img
*****************************
Oh wait, that's right, these have Windows, in the eyes of the LinuxHeads, they don't count. Even though Windows "just works" anymore. Not that it is flawless, but it is extremely stable and runs error free over 99% of the time. There is also a lot of free software available for it.
If Linux ever gains mass market appeal, which IMHO will take a small miracle, there will be shelves stocked with software for $60 a pop just like there is for Windows. The whole "free thing" is great but there aren't enough idealists out there to make it work for more than a core set of apps. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"It has everything to do with the intellectual process of building a computer, in a transparent way, so that the user never has to succumb to a manufacturer's will for something to be done."
Dumb question --- what's in it for the manufacturer?
Without a manufacturer, you don't have a product. It looks like what you're seeking is a manufacturer who's willing to drink the kool-aid and place restraints on himself for no obvious reason other than your ideology. - FewClues, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7This is totally unrealistic. I can feature a single free computer but to go into production with free computers is just unreal. People as good hearted as they can be require an income to survive and won't work long for free. And if by some miracle a production could be staffed Microsoft would sue every employee and everyone who donates parts as undermining their Evil Empire.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is