> not typically been used to implement malicious functionality
so raspberry pi, in an effort to be more open than say Dell/HP, where you had/have to pay to download drivers, bios and other updates, is _more_ malicious than say apple/google who are competing to create a closed garden with a remote lockout, where nothing is owned, only rented?
ya.
I really don't understand this viewpoint.
Look, I've used embedded 386s. I've seen the evolution of ARM SBC first hand. I've used gumstix, sheevas and custom rolled jobbies. You know what united them all? they were bloody expensive and difficult to use. Pis are a joy to use. Plus if you accidentally blow the board, you're not down £500
Adding a DRM so that people can't make knock off cameras, in exchange for a £10 full linux SBC that is _easy_ is a worthy exchange. Even if they weren't a charity. The fact that they are single-handedly dragging the pathetic excuse for IT education in the UK ("here is how to use Microsoft office") into something approaching usefulness is a massive massive bonus.
The ecosystem that raspberry pi supports, the OS, magazines, training, teaching, class room outreach and research can only be done with cold hard cash. That cash comes from Pi sales.
Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living.
Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view.
Yes open source is good. Yes you should give back and contribute. But, to move forward, money has to be invested, and it has to come from something.
Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.