Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:22, 9 June 2013

The article Raspbian was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 December 2012 with a consensus to merge the content into Raspberry Pi. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raspberry Pi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raspberry Pi at the Reference desk.

Computing C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Trevj (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Nomination of Raspbian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raspbian is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raspbian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Edit request on 10 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the memory on the Model A to 512MB as it now has the same memory as the Model B. 50.43.89.24 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The model A still has 256MB of RAM, not 512MB! Originally the model A was planned to have 128MB of RAM but by the time of the actual launch the RPF managed to increased it to 256MB.

So unless you have a source that proofs that the model A now has 512MB the current information is still correct. Mahjongg (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: per Mahjongg, (change the |answered= parameter to yes next time). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Raspberry Pi Camera has just been released. Please update! Nagol68 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mahjongg (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wayland (and Weston), X successor on Pi

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3NzI

Useable right now(?) from source or when: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM2MTM

Comp.arch (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong numbers?

The articles currently says:

In the highest ("turbo") preset the SDRAM clock was originally 500 MHz, but this was later changed from to 600 Mhz because 500 MHZ sometimes causes SD card corruption. Simultaneously in "High" mode the core clock speed was lowered from 450 to 250 MHz.

Higher clock speed because lower causes corruption? "changed from to"? A drop almost 50%? Could someone please check these numbers? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disputed info from 121.72.118.83 on USB power and Memory clock

I found this addition which seems to be disputed because the reference is a forum thread. But I still find it useful. So it's here it is should anyone need it:

1. Originally the on-board USB ports were designed for USB devices using one "unit load" (100 mA) of current. Devices using more than 100 mA were incompatible with the Raspberry Pi, and for them a self-powered USB hub was required. However, due to user feedback, the RPF, at the end of August 2012, decided to remove the USB polyfuses which largely caused this behaviour. However, the maximum current that can be delivered to a USB port on these modified boards is still limited by the capabilities of the power supply used, and the 1.1 A main polyfuse. Spontaneous rebooting and/or crashing caused by hot plugging certain USB devices was introduced as a result of this change, which further reduced the standards compliance of the Raspberry Pi's USB implementation.

/../

1. The five overclock ("turbo") presets were changed because overclocking the core causes SD card corruption, apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC. They originally were:

1. 1. "None"; 700 MHz ARM, 250 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt,
   2. "Modest"; 800 MHz ARM, 300 MHz core, 400 MHz SDRAM, 0 overvolt,
   3. "Medium" 900 MHz ARM, 333 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 2 overvolt,
   4. "High"; 950 MHz ARM, 450 MHz core, 450 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt,
   5. "Turbo"; 1000 MHz ARM, 500 MHz core, 500 MHz SDRAM, 6 overvolt

Electron9 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources for this? Яehevkor ✉ 08:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have included the source for the overclocking information with my latest edit: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/c5e1966418922862b2a84559c567c35e6a1c4c28 Surely this can't be disputed now? 121.72.118.83 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with GitHub, can someone make a call of whether or not it's reliable? And what about the text attached to a forum post? Яehevkor ✉ 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alex Bradbury (asb) is the author of raspi-config and as you can see from the link I gave the overclocking settings were different when they were first introduced than they are now. They were added on 17 September 2012 and changed on 28 October 2012. This link shows that the reason for the change is due to SD card corruption, which is exactly what I said: https://github.com/asb/raspi-config/commit/a7a7b12ad0c0bf7e7fe9e1eadc4b35887230f2fb Somebody should add that to the article. I will eventually do that if nobody else can be bothered and would rather delete useful and relevant information instead. 121.72.118.83 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

the sources used to support this edit say nothing about "apparently due to bugs in the BCM2835 SoC", so that is a non supported non NPOV remark. This is simply a case of tweaking overclocking settings after many more systems were tested since first release. Also the two tables are almost identical so what I did was contracting it to just the differences, but it seems that user 121.72.118.83 isn't content with that, he wants nothing less than maximum exposure. He seems to be the sock puppet of the poster that was responsible for a three month lockdown of the article, (user:121.74.158.215) because of similar behavior three months ago. Can't believe we are back to where we were three months ago! He is one stubborn guy! Mahjongg (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If polyfuses are removed from the circuit board any photo of the circuit board ought to show this easily. Perhaps some one could collect photos of a few cards and falsify this claim? Electron9 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warning noticeboard discussion

IP reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/121.72.121.67/Archive.

There is a reason why the IP cannot come up with a reliable source for his USB claims. Protecting USB posts with polyfuses is a common practice which doesn't even come close to being notable. One wonders why the IP has it in for the Raspberry Pi; competitor, perhaps? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the polyfuses were removed such that the power supply system is compromised it's not a good approach. At least 500 mA variants should be used to be within the USB2 specification. Electron9 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think about how the Raspberry Pi is designed. As an engineer, I have all sorts of opinions that don't belong in Misplaced Pages. All that matters is what is reported in reliable sources, and there are none supporting this edit other than posts on discussion boards. As I have pointed out before, anyone can edit those discussion boards and say anything they choose. That's why we don't accept them as sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "Design flaw? Polyfuses for USB current limiting". Raspberrypi.org. Retrieved 2012-06-22.

• C-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors