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

The Untold History of Arduino

arduinohistory.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#61

Post by crb3 »

thawkins wrote: post #32
makomk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of the reason I just buy the cheapest Arduino-compatible clones possible and laugh at the idea that we should all buy genuine Arduino to support the people who put in the hard work - it's been fairly obvious for a long time that it was a Wiring rip-off through and through. Probably also why the official Arduino ports to non-AVR architectures are so incompetent compared to third-party ones; the AVR port w…

My favorite Peeve about the arduino boards, was the half pin center shift on one of the headers that makes it impossible to just plug in some perfboard with headers on it and make your own shields. Thus opening up the path to selling expensive shield hardware.

> makes it impossible to just plug in some perfboard with headers on it and make your own shields

Not so. You just have to drill ten holes, using another piece of tenth-inch perfboard as a drilling guide. I've done it; it works.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#62

Post by goldenkey »

ArduinoGuy wrote: post #52
stdbrouw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy. I would prefer a world in which Banzi worked together with Barragán, which Barragán would have clearly loved and which might have given Arduino an innovator at its helm and the ability to actually keep up with the times, rather than being steamrolled by the Raspberry Pi on one end and by better microcontroller designs like Particle (Spark), Tessel and the MicroPython boards on the other.

If you put two Steve Jobs in a room and ask them to work together, the result isn't always going to be mecha-Jobs, it will just as often be a fight over clashing visions. Open source is great because it lets people pursue those visions. Sometimes it isn't going to work out.

Still, super scummy not to be open about ehat arduino really was. And then to make oodles of profit and not even give a gift or some type of consolation? Highly against internet standards for openness.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#63

Post by ZenoArrow »

ArduinoGuy wrote: post #58
SeanDav wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you created this account 17 minutes ago (before this post) you are clearly trying to troll, but in this case I will make an exception and reply to a troll. The Wiring developer is not upset about someone forking the project, but the lack of acknowledgement and deliberate misinformation, even lying by the Arduino developers.

What I am arguing against is that people shouldn't be using the word "steal" in reference to forking an open source project and building a business on top of it. People do that every day. They aren't expected to walk around giving credit to the originators for everything they do afterwards. Steal is when I take something private, locked down, under patent and use it to profit. Show me what was stolen that wasn't give…

> "The other factual details where relatively minor"

The team behind Arduino hasn't made its lineage clear enough, that's why this article is newsworthy. I also think it's worth knowing about as it adds a new perspective to the recent legal issues surrounding the rights to Arduino.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#64

Post by analog31 »

neltnerb wrote: post #34
analog31 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But doesn't PIC use GCC too? Disclaimer: I'm a long time PIC user, going all the way back to the PIC16C84. Long before anything like Arduino came out, I always found Microchip's documentation to be much easier to crack. Of course, I admit to a certain amount of mental inertia and familiarity with the platform as well.

I had to get a proprietary crippled third-party compiler to do anything on a PIC12 in C. The PIC16 at the time at least definitely didn't have GCC support, I recall having to boot Windows to compile my code for it. Pretty sure that's still the case.

As I understand it, the architecture of the 8-bit PIC chips were not "C friendly," and still use a crippled proprietary compiler. I programmed those beasts in assembly. There were enough other advantages for me, such as EEPROM/Flash program memory and peripherals that I could wrap my head around.

The 16- and 32-bit chips are more mainstream, and after using their proprietary compiler for a while, they switched over to GCC. Now from my standpoint, it's still "their" GCC, in that I download and use their tools. And there are some features that you still have to pay for such as optimization. I'm certainly not in love with those aspects, but it's good enough for me to wait it out until something else comes along that's compelling enough for me to switch. Folks have demonstrated building their own GCC toolchain for PIC, but I haven't bothered.

Somebody without my mental inertia and legacy projects might make a different choice.

My uses aren't critical enough to require considering the smallest, cheapest parts, so I simply avoid the 8-bit chips.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#65

Post by goldenkey »

goldenkey wrote: post #62
ArduinoGuy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put two Steve Jobs in a room and ask them to work together, the result isn't always going to be mecha-Jobs, it will just as often be a fight over clashing visions. Open source is great because it lets people pursue those visions. Sometimes it isn't going to work out.

Still, super scummy not to be open about ehat arduino really was. And then to make oodles of profit and not even give a gift or some type of consolation? Highly against internet standards for openness.

After watching the entire documentary I have reconsidered. It appears there is inconsistebt behavior or an exaggeration on the part of OP. Banzi is quite transparent and the origins seem pretty innocuous.

https://vimeo.com/18539129

I would say, as open source developers, we have no right against commercial forks of our code lest we choose a more restrictive license. I believe OP is tormented by the lack of valor in the quite prickly situation but as hackers and devs we need to defend fair use of what code is licensed by. Fair licensing, fair commercial endeavor. It sucks when someone forks without even making contact but part of me feels like open source should be a little bit wild west. The rules are sharp square and leave little for interpretation, thats how we want our freedom

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#66

Post by yaongi »

ArduinoGuy wrote: post #60
SeanDav wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you created this account 17 minutes ago (before this post) you are clearly trying to troll, but in this case I will make an exception and reply to a troll. The Wiring developer is not upset about someone forking the project, but the lack of acknowledgement and deliberate misinformation, even lying by the Arduino developers.

Also: Don't DOWNVOTE people because you disagree with them. DISCUSS with them. Downvote me if I am being an asshole. To downvote because you disagree is not the right use of downvote. I actually did read the entire article. Most people seem to be reacting to the title, Arduino clearly attributed Wiring, they didn't just steal it and not say anything: 34. Banzi is the creator of the Programma2003 Development Platform,…

I read the article - your points are covered by it, maybe that's why people are downvoting instead of discussing.

That quote attributes more credit to programma2003 than wiring (precursor vs. inspired by). Is that an accurate portrayal of the history?

And there's a middle ground between stating inspiration and getting a tattoo. Inspiration implies idea not substance. Since it was a fork, 'based on' may be more appropriate.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#67

Post by justaaron »

camillomiller wrote: post #42
reimertz wrote: post #4

How-to become a douchbag in 10 steps: 1. Be the supervisor for a thesis that will become a open-sourced project 2. Use this open sourced project in one of the classes you teach at University 3. work together with and ask for help from the creator of the open-sourced project 4. see the value of the open-sourced project 5. fork it 6. claim it as yours 7. get rich by selling it 8. write super douchy email to a previous…

Banzi might come out as a douche, like Steve Jobs was. At a very very very different level they achieved the same. Would you prefer a world where wiring would still be a pretty niche project badly marketed only available for those in the field or a world where someone much more marketing oriented made Arduino explode and ignite a small but meaningful revolution in the approach to electronics?

it doesn't really matter what one prefers. Rights are rights. One cannot just appropriate others work because some website community feels it's in their interest to do so...

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#68

Post by regularfry »

ArduinoGuy wrote: post #57
uxp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The guy should 100% get more credit, and if this happened to me I would always be a little hurt about it, but at the same time, would it be a big deal if it had never extended past a thesis somewhere? That's not the argument. He's not upset Arduino was a huge success, nor is he all that upset that he is not involved with Arduino (as far as I can tell from this article, as it's written very professionally). The argu…

It wasn't ripped off, it was directly forked from the underlying open source project, which is what you are supposed to do in open source if you want to take the project in a new direction and build a business on it. If you don't want people using your open source project drum roll don't open source it or change the license terms to prevent uses like this. I think many people in this thread have a very tenuous grasp…

Correct attribution is traditionally required when forking.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#69

Post by fapjacks »

goldenkey wrote: post #65
goldenkey wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, super scummy not to be open about ehat arduino really was. And then to make oodles of profit and not even give a gift or some type of consolation? Highly against internet standards for openness.

After watching the entire documentary I have reconsidered. It appears there is inconsistebt behavior or an exaggeration on the part of OP. Banzi is quite transparent and the origins seem pretty innocuous. https://vimeo.com/18539129 I would say, as open source developers, we have no right against commercial forks of our code lest we choose a more restrictive license. I believe OP is tormented by the lack of valor in t…

I wish it were possible to bottle up your last paragraph and force new developers to drink it before they could learn to program. I mean, insofar as anybody should be able to force anybody to do anything.

Re: The Untold History of Arduino

#70

Post by goldenkey »

fapjacks wrote: post #69
goldenkey wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After watching the entire documentary I have reconsidered. It appears there is inconsistebt behavior or an exaggeration on the part of OP. Banzi is quite transparent and the origins seem pretty innocuous. https://vimeo.com/18539129 I would say, as open source developers, we have no right against commercial forks of our code lest we choose a more restrictive license. I believe OP is tormented by the lack of valor in t…

I wish it were possible to bottle up your last paragraph and force new developers to drink it before they could learn to program. I mean, insofar as anybody should be able to force anybody to do anything.

Well, thanks, I think I speak for all of us in that last paragraph. :-)
Post reply on HN