6 comments

  • samtrack20191 hour ago
    I replaced my custom nightmare of nixos on rpi5 (too much disk space used, too much IO used for raspberry) to a raspbian+arm+homebrew and i could not be happier
  • stefan_12 hours ago
    Good reminder that the Raspberry Pis only have good software support if you stick to whatever the foundation is releasing. Because that same foundation has stayed obsessed with their weird custom ways of doing things, instead of furthering efforts like UEFI on ARM. Some of it is insultingly stupid - like for revD of the 5, you better now update the magic boot partition of your RPi with the <i>device tree overlay</i> for revD, because it will use the old device tree, but also expect the overlay to be there so it can actually work. To say the least, that is never what overlays were supposed to be for.
    • morpheuskafka11 hours ago
      &gt; custom ways of doing things, instead of furthering efforts like UEFI on ARM.<p>I thought uBoot was more or less the standard way of booting embedded Linux? Is it really worth bringing the entire UEFI environment, which is basically a mini OS, to such devices? Embedded devices are often designed to handle power loss or even be unplugged by users, so the boot up process is generally as lean as possible.
      • my12310 hours ago
        U-Boot nowadays speaks UEFI :) (and so does LK)<p>New Android devices all use a UEFI bootloader: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;source.android.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;core&#x2F;architecture&#x2F;bootloader&#x2F;generic-bootloader&#x2F;gbl-dev" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;source.android.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;core&#x2F;architecture&#x2F;bootloader...</a>
      • westurner11 hours ago
        SecureBoot might be more useful than UEFI on SBC like Pi.<p>The grub EFI shim is signed, but does or doesn&#x27;t verify kernel image and initrd and module (and IDK optionally drive and CPU and RAM hw) signatures?<p>mokutil does module signature key enrollment. Kernel modules must be signed with a key enrolled in the BIOS otherwise they won&#x27;t be loaded.<p>To implement SecureBoot without UEFI would be to develop an alternate bootloader verification system.<p>But what does grub or uboot or p-boot do after the signed grub shim is verified?
        • westurner10 hours ago
          mokutil and these commands don&#x27;t work without UEFI:<p><pre><code> mokutil --sb-state mokutil --help mokutil --import key.der mokutil --list-new reboot efibootmgr efivar fwupd fwupdtool fwupdmgr get-updates &amp;&amp; \ fwupdmgr update tree &#x2F;sys&#x2F;firmware&#x2F;efi systemctl reboot --firmware-setup</code></pre>
    • praseodym3 hours ago
      This is exactly why I’ve to replaced my home server by a low-power x86 NUC instead. No custom build needed to run NixOS and idle power consumption turns out to be slightly lower than the Raspberry Pi 5.
      • elnatro2 hours ago
        Allow me to ask you what’s the NUC computer you are using?
        • tomaskafka1 hour ago
          I am not the OP, but I got an $150 (at a time) fanless quad core Celeron box at Aliexpress about 5 years ago, and it just runs with zero problems with openmediavault and dockers. Attached is external HDD over USB 3, it’s still fast enough (and the HDD is the bottleneck, not the USB interface).
          • prox1 hour ago
            I wonder if I can run this on a 2 year old celeron laptop
            • gapan0 minutes ago
              You can run this on a 10 year old celeron laptop.
    • actionfromafar11 hours ago
      Could these choices have anything to with the alleged focus on Compute Module and less focus on the &quot;normal&quot; Raspberry? Does anyone know?
      • zokier11 hours ago
        not really, it has been like that since day1. it has more to do with the weird architecture of the bcm chips they use.
        • geerlingguy10 hours ago
          When your SoC is a GPU with CPU cores tacked on, it&#x27;s a bit weird to boot things up.
    • jacquesm11 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • stefan_11 hours ago
        It is acutely on point. The only reason people have to put in work again and again to fix distributions like Fedora for Raspberry Pi models is because the foundation pulls stunts like that revD. Right now, you can take Buildroot at git master, build an RPi image and have it randomly not work on one of two what looks like identical RPi 5 boards. That&#x27;s bad, and there is no reason for it.
        • jacquesm11 hours ago
          And you would solve this how?<p>Your comment only serves to illustrate exactly why big companies like BRCM are not seeing the case the way you do. Apple, if you want to start naming names puts out hardware that is <i>far</i> more closed than the Raspberry Pi foundation and yet you don&#x27;t see the same level of aggression against Apple. What you do see is a couple of very talented hackers that won&#x27;t take &#x27;you can&#x27;t&#x27; for an answer and that will RE stuff until they know enough to scratch their itch.<p>That&#x27;s the way you solve these problems, not by writing take-downs.<p>Not having UEFI on ARM has never held me back. I <i>do</i> have a nice Apple laptop lying around here that is unusable because the network drivers need a functioning copy of Apple&#x27;s OS on that machine to get bootstrapped. Rather than bitching at Apple about it I just stopped using and buying their products.
          • ciupicri10 hours ago
            Apple doesn&#x27;t pretend to be open.
            • jacquesm10 hours ago
              Apple can afford to spend as much as they want on this and they are in control, they&#x27;re as vertically integrated as it gets. Heck, they could divert some of their developer toll to this.<p>The Raspberry Pi foundation is emphatically <i>not</i> in control of Broadcom, and in spite of their success still has limited resources and needs to work with what they&#x27;ve got and to prioritize.
          • mschuster919 hours ago
            &gt; Apple, if you want to start naming names puts out hardware that is far more closed than the Raspberry Pi foundation and yet you don&#x27;t see the same level of aggression against Apple.<p>Ooooh of course, I &#x27;member the days right here when they announced they&#x27;d drop Intel. And I am fairly certain the echo across the tech blogosphere was what led them to, while not <i>openly</i> announcing they&#x27;d support a competing OS like they did with Bootcamp, they&#x27;d at least not lock down the bootloader like on iOS devices.<p>&gt; What you do see is a couple of very talented hackers that won&#x27;t take &#x27;you can&#x27;t&#x27; for an answer and that will RE stuff until they know enough to scratch their itch.<p>Apple, to my knowledge, never explicitly said &quot;you can&#x27;t&quot; - at least not on Mac devices, for iOS the situation is different. All they&#x27;re saying is &quot;we won&#x27;t help you, but you may try your best&quot;.<p>&gt; Not having UEFI on ARM has never held me back.<p>The thing is the lack of UEFI adoption in the ARM sphere is holding <i>everyone</i> back! An OS &#x2F; distribution shouldn&#x27;t have to manage devicetree overlays on its own, they should be provided by the BIOS&#x2F;UEFI management layer as a finished component.<p>RPi is the biggest toppest dog in the embedded world, at least when it comes to an ecosystem. They would have all the muscle needed to force everyone else&#x27;s hand.<p>&gt; I do have a nice Apple laptop lying around here that is unusable because the network drivers need a functioning copy of Apple&#x27;s OS on that machine to get bootstrapped.<p>What did you do to that thing? On any pre-ARM machine, the bare bootloader should <i>always</i>, even if the primary storage is gone, be able to bring up enough hardware to support a UI, an USB and networking stack to allow restoring it from the Internet. ARM machines I&#x27;m not sure, haven&#x27;t had the misfortune of having to dig down that deep, but I think even they should be able to do that in case you somehow manage to fry your partition table. And even if you managed to fry <i>that</i>, any other Apple device should be able to do a DFU restore on its lowest level bootloader.
            • jacquesm9 hours ago
              Agreed that the EUFI thing could be better, but I don&#x27;t see how you could compel Raspberry Pi to fix it without knowing the exact details of the license agreement that the foundation signed with Broadcom and I suspect that that more than anything is what is holding this back. It&#x27;s not as if they&#x27;re deaf or can&#x27;t read at the Raspberry Pi foundation.<p>As for that machine: it&#x27;s got a bunch of stuff on it and I have dongle with ethernet so I can live without it. It&#x27;s one of the last line of Intel portables they made and there just aren&#x27;t enough people that want this fixed and I&#x27;m not smart enough to fix it.<p>Meanwhile, and probably ironically, that too is a Broadcom chip...
      • 000ooo0009 hours ago
        Very sorry, but people are allowed to have opinions and to express them. If the opinions upset you, then don&#x27;t read them - by your logic anyway.
      • mlvljr11 hours ago
        [dead]
  • poppafuze11 hours ago
    The first rule of bringup is thermal support.
  • moffkalast12 hours ago
    Just another Raspberry Pi HAT ;)
  • Western02 hours ago
    great
  • anesxvito10 hours ago
    Running full Fedora on the Pi 5 is impressive. I wonder how WebKitGTK performs on ARM — that&#x27;s the webview Tauri uses on Linux, and Pi would be an interesting edge case for lightweight desktop apps.
    • LeFantome9 hours ago
      You have been able to run full Linux distros on Raspberry Pi for ages. Ubuntu since 23.10 and Debian most notably.
    • sho_hn9 hours ago
      Honestly, a Pi 5 is powerful enough to run a full desktop very comfortably. It&#x27;s not a low-powered computer anymore by any means.