Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

sparkfun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 591 posts

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#161

Post by ptorrone »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #141
ptorrone wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hi, great question. we have to start with something and while the RP2350 is not going to beat a 600mhz m7 it is much less expensive, fast to get, has lots of nifty support libraries available, and will definitely do better than the teensy 3.2 which many folks loved so much (and was discontinued during the chip shortage). this is also a great time to add things that we always wanted in the teensy: SWD debug, built in…

Right, but you're not really competing on processor speed. You're competing on maturity of peripherals where the RP doesn't really match up PIO or not. Edit: I see you're comparing it to the 3.2 but I suspect most folks are going to be comparing your offering to the 4.x.

it will have benefits over the 4.x - we can always spin up a version with the iMX chipset (we have a metro board with the little sister chip, iMX RT1011 already in stock) - tbh if we did something with the iMX RT106x we'd probably start with a Metro (Arduino-shield compatible) or Feather board since that's a super-popular pinout.

either way, more hardware is better and we don't want to just give people the same-old-same-old... as we mentioned there's lots of things that we can add to make the board useful to people: SWD, USB C, Lipoly batt, onboard storage, neopixel LED, etc). what peripheral/library are you specifically concerned about?

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#163

Post by buildbot »

RobotToaster wrote: post #159
vegadw wrote: post #130

I'm still trying to put all the pieces together, but https://digipres.club/@discatte/115588660312186707 sure paints Adafruit as the bad party here, though I'm open to information which shows otherwise to understand better.

This adds some more context I guess https://chaos.social/@North/115605819126197877 Honestly the whole thing seems like everyone overreacting on both sides. Accusing someone is "doxing" because they used your first name?

I believe they are claiming doxing based on connecting an email to a social media account.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#164

Post by oytis »

sergiotapia wrote: post #149
Dangeranger wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See additional context for the accusation(s) here[0]. [0] https://forum.pjrc.com/index.php?threads/open-source-teensy-...

still vague as hell lol

I need to see the photoshops!

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#165

Post by aobdev »

ptorrone wrote: post #21

hi, phil here — post on adafruit here: https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/01/12/discontinuing-the-teens... i’ll stop back and answer anything (sparkfun will not?). sparkfun is the exclusive maker and distributor of the closed-source teensy and informed us we will not be able to purchase the teensy. this happened after i sent an email reporting the founder, nate, for multiple harassing actions directed at limor, including…

I understand selling the Teensy line is out of your control, but what does “support” mean exactly in this context? Will related materials stay on your site?

I really hope this doesn’t lead to “boycott” of Teensy per se. I completely sympathize with tensions running high but please reconsider for the good of the community.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#166

Post by seanhunter »

MaKey wrote: post #83
swed420 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't be the first time CoC was used as a lame attempt to harm open source. Thanks for speaking up.

Overall I think Code of Conducts are a net negative. Alleged violations of them seem to be used to lend credibility to actions that otherwise would be hard(er) to justify.

Overall I wish we lived in a world where they are not needed. But in every community, some people are assholes so they are often needed.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#167

Post by mort96 »

csande17 wrote: post #69
ptorrone wrote: post #21

hi, phil here — post on adafruit here: https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/01/12/discontinuing-the-teens... i’ll stop back and answer anything (sparkfun will not?). sparkfun is the exclusive maker and distributor of the closed-source teensy and informed us we will not be able to purchase the teensy. this happened after i sent an email reporting the founder, nate, for multiple harassing actions directed at limor, including…

Appreciate the transparency! The one thing that doesn't quite add up for me is SparkFun accusing you of "involving a SparkFun customer" in the dispute. Can you comment on what that might be referring to?

This needs a response, and my opinion will certainly be up in the air until I hear an explanation (or lack thereof) from AdaFruit.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#168

Post by no-dr-onboard »

csande17 wrote: post #85
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a response/explanation for the two specific accusations about forwarding inappropriate emails to sparkfun employees, and involving a customer with something? Those seem extremely vague, but I didn't see them mentioned in the blog post.

It would be deeply funny if SparkFun was referring to Adafruit forwarding inappropriate emails written by SparkFun employees to SparkFun, in an attempt to report their harassment.

Yeah this is how I read it as well.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#169

Post by jacquesm »

ptorrone wrote: post #161
inferiorhuman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but you're not really competing on processor speed. You're competing on maturity of peripherals where the RP doesn't really match up PIO or not. Edit: I see you're comparing it to the 3.2 but I suspect most folks are going to be comparing your offering to the 4.x.

it will have benefits over the 4.x - we can always spin up a version with the iMX chipset (we have a metro board with the little sister chip, iMX RT1011 already in stock) - tbh if we did something with the iMX RT106x we'd probably start with a Metro (Arduino-shield compatible) or Feather board since that's a super-popular pinout. either way, more hardware is better and we don't want to just give people the same-old-s…

If you replace the Teensy 4.x it would have to be something very close to the same pinout, foot print, cost and features otherwise it would just be a new product. Ideally you would find a way to source the Teensy directly bypassing Sparkfun.

Re: SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation

#170

Post by alibarber »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #141
ptorrone wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hi, great question. we have to start with something and while the RP2350 is not going to beat a 600mhz m7 it is much less expensive, fast to get, has lots of nifty support libraries available, and will definitely do better than the teensy 3.2 which many folks loved so much (and was discontinued during the chip shortage). this is also a great time to add things that we always wanted in the teensy: SWD debug, built in…

Right, but you're not really competing on processor speed. You're competing on maturity of peripherals where the RP doesn't really match up PIO or not. Edit: I see you're comparing it to the 3.2 but I suspect most folks are going to be comparing your offering to the 4.x.

Yeah - I don't really consider this comparable for my uses which rely heavily on the DSP and processing power of the Teensy itself either.

Drama and whatnot aside I'm not really sure why anyone would buy the (considerably more expensive) Teensy over something RP based if RP was suitable for their needs already.

Interestingly despite being a Teensy fan I have found myself reaching more towards the RP when I can because I can't stand the Arduino API and much prefer the RP SDK. I do use Teensy without Teensyduino (Makefile based) and also a bit of the CMSIS-DSP stuff directly - but it's kinda clunky IMO.

Post reply on HN