61–70 of 109 posts
I think I'm on Team Pine here. I don't really understand the problem Martijn has. It seems to boil down to that they agreed to everything he wanted, just not fast enough?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I don't get why the focus was on yet another mobile OS variant instead of creating a reasonably open hardware with an AOSP userland first. Users won't buy devices where they can't even be sure that basic functionality works. And for what it's worth, I know Android isn't without its issues - but why not build something on top of at least its Linux kernel and HAL and save so much effort in getting a system…
If Pine had targeted Android AOSP, I would have had zero interest in their product. I suspect I'm not the only one. Instead, I bought their pinephone because it could run Debian. I went from Maemo (Debian based) to AOSP Android when my n900 no longer worked. I've never experienced such a user-hostile platform as Android-- you even have to expend effort just to gain and retain root on a device you nominally own. And,…
I think I'm on Team Pine here. I don't really understand the problem Martijn has. It seems to boil down to that they agreed to everything he wanted, just not fast enough?
I don't think many in the community agreed with making Manjaro the distribution of choice.
Seems like a bad idea to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Pine had targeted Android AOSP, I would have had zero interest in their product. I suspect I'm not the only one. Instead, I bought their pinephone because it could run Debian. I went from Maemo (Debian based) to AOSP Android when my n900 no longer worked. I've never experienced such a user-hostile platform as Android-- you even have to expend effort just to gain and retain root on a device you nominally own. And,…
A completely open source version of AOSP with no proprietary bits would have been fine for me, but I'm happier with mobile GNU/Linux being developed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the current state of bootloaders for ARM?
Abysmal. If these devices were UEFI, this discussion wouldn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cameras are far from "the simple stuff", it's one of the more complicated systems in mobile devices with multiple high speed components from different vendors that have to work together and not very much documentation for the hardware existing.
Admittedly, that's doubly concerning. Pine chooses the BoM; we don't. And if they're choosing unsupported/unsupportable chips without doing the barest of legwork to get them functional (or hell, get docs public), then that's a huge problem. Pine should be showing on their pages a hardware matrix showing what works and what doesn't. The Pinephone Pro doesn't qualify for the definition "phone". If they were serious, th…
Actually camera sensor was changed on request from Martijn. (or so I was told, when I was asked to add support for the cameras in the kernel)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cameras are far from "the simple stuff", it's one of the more complicated systems in mobile devices with multiple high speed components from different vendors that have to work together and not very much documentation for the hardware existing.
My $5 bargain bin webcam can take pictures and video at 24hz. My $200 pinephone can, on a good day, do 0.5hz. I dunno, but I expected more.
That's not a $200 proposition, though. :)
And I guess there's no huge motivation, given the expected quality of the resulting image. Maybe someone will write it for some other similar AW SoC that uses the same HW block.
Such is the power of FOSS.
I am a big fan, but I also find this situation and the response to be a bit disappointing. I highly respect Martijn and the effort he has poured into pmOS and Pine64 and surrounding projects. Without wanting to make other important people feel left out, I consider him an absolute legend and the fact that he has felt compelled to write this blog post (and, unfortunately, to leave) is massively concerning. I think it's…
Pine64 was looking for somebody to commit to maintain PineBook Pro support in Tow-Boot (a relatively new project)
I don't know if the point-of-contact was made aware that PineBook Pro was not going to be shipped with Tow-Boot.
I think I'm on Team Pine here. I don't really understand the problem Martijn has. It seems to boil down to that they agreed to everything he wanted, just not fast enough?
Pine64 has listened to feedback, and made attempts to get Tow-Boot flashed on the PineBook Pro. It just didn't fit Pine64's manufacturing timeline.
Does any other manufacturer do better in this regard?