Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) from Talk:Raspberry Pi. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Raspberry Pi. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 256:
::::::Yup, agree. And I'm always in favour of qualifying *everything*, such as "proposed USB port", "proposed price", "scheduled date", etc. It's heavy, but this lets verifiable plans get through while still emphasizing that *anything* can still go sideways before release. --[[User:Ds13|Ds13]] ([[User talk:Ds13|talk]]) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
== deleted material and protected article ==
User Lynbarn has twice and user Macon once deleted notable and well sourced material that I wrote and that user Sbmeirow restored the first time. Tom Morris in protecting the page refers to "unsourced/badly sourced" material, but every sentence has a precise citation to 4 independent sources, all of whom corroborate the others. Lynbarn claims that the material may be unreliable because one of the 4 sources uses a pseudonym on the R-Pi forum, and that R-Pi forum members are not neutral third parties. But this is the pot calling the kettle black. Lynbarn is an unabashed cheerleader for the R-Pi foundation. His user page says: "I discovered a fantastic British computing initiative with massive potential - the Raspberry Pi Foundation." He himself is one of the R-Pi forum's top posters, with 159 posts as of today. He acts as a self-appointed R-Pi forum administrator, dispatching suspected trolls. <ref>[http://www.raspberrypi.org/forum/general-discussion/charming/#p40400]</ref> User Lynbarn apparently feels it is his role to keep the wikipedia article the way the R-Pi publicist would want it. He raised the issue on the R-Pi forum, and the R-Pi publicist Liz, wife of the R-Pi ceo, responded: "Very pleased to see that Lynbarn has taken out some of the references to this forum, which were being used as source material; I'm a Wikipedia editor myself, and I'd have stomped all over it if it was on an entry I was allowed to edit!"<ref>[http://www.raspberrypi.org/forum/off-topic/any-wikipedians-able-to-help/#p38991]</ref>It seems Lynbarn is doing the dirty work that Liz is unable to do herself as a representive of the R-Pi Foundation. Liz and Lynbarn use the excuse that references to the forum should not be used as source material, on the presumption that forum poster would be too close to the R-Pi, and therefore biased in its favor. And in fact two of the sources do work for Broadcom, the R-Pi's close partner and SoC supplier, and the other two are enthusiastic supporters. But their words were being used not as puffery or cheerleading for the R-Pi, but to temper and balance the R-Pi foundation's fundamental claim that the device is intended for, and is suitable for, developing software, particularly Python software, on the device itself. In a recent published interview, R-Pi trustee David Braben is quoted as saying: "The Raspberry Pi Foundation hopes to offer children (of all ages), the opportunity to learn hands-on computing skills by creating software on the low cost, credit-card sized device." Perhaps the Broadcom empoyee was exagerating when he said it took 5 hours on a R-Pi to compile an app that took only 10 minutes to compile on his PC. The app's own users's guide says it should only take 5 minutes to build on a "P4 1.7Ghz/512 Mb." But it is unlikely he would be exaggerating in the opposite direction, trying to make the R-Pi look worse than it actually is. So Lynbarn should be happy about any possible insider bias in this case, not afraid of it.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I am going to assume that you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&action=historysubmit&diff=475929706&oldid=475928646 this edit.] It would help if you were to provide links to diffs as i did above. If you don't know how to do that, just post the exact time and date of the edit you are referring to and I will insert the link for you.
:Re: "''User Lynbarn has 3 times so far deleted notable and well sourced material that I wrote and that user Sbmeirow restored the first time''", it does not appear that the material is the same. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&action=historysubmit&diff=475480560&oldid=475468502 link 1] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&action=historysubmit&diff=475929706&oldid=475928646 Link 2].
:I will address the meat of your argument later; the above is just some housekeeping so that we are all talking about the same thing. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::You are correct that there were two versions of the deleted material (and your links are correct). The original was first removed on 11:06 7 February 2012.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&action=historysubmit&diff=475557206&oldid=475541906] The second (improved) version was removed on 11:58 9 February 2012.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&action=historysubmit&diff=475929706&oldid=475928646] [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
Just my two cents, but 224 MB (256BM - 32MB for a video framebuffer) should be plenty for a rudimental OS (based on the Linux kernel and X-windows) and a (Python) compiler. The reason its not running (fast) now is that they are probably running it on a complete unmodified Linux distro with all the overhead, using so much memory that the system is forced to use virtual memory, and virtual memory on a SD-card is bound to be extremely slow, even when the system supports faster (non SPI) I/O with the SD-card, swapping will take ages. Recent Linux distro's are simply not "lean and clean" enough for these kind of systems anymore, except perhaps for special implementations like puppy linux that do not use a large and memory hungy desktop manager like GNOME. I predict that a reasonable python implementation will run fine on the Raspberry, if they simply only implement the software that is really necessary, leaving out all the unnecessary cruft. Modern programmers are simply spoilt with resources. It can't hurt to learn them from the beginning to be a bit more frugal. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 01:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Mahjongg. I am reminded of this guy who can get 59 miles per gallon in a honda accord, but he has to jetison everything not bolted down, tailgate behind 18-wheelers, and wishes he could lose 60 pounds.<ref>[http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/01/guy-can-get-59-mpg-plain-old-accord-beat-punk]</ref> Yes, you can do it, but you wouldn't want to do it on a daily basis, and you wouldn't advertise an accord as getting 59 mpg. More seriously, if you reduce the GPU to 32MB, can you still get accelerated 2D graphics, like X-windows? I presume someone doing programming would also occasionally want to use a pdf viewer and/or web browser to look up documentation, so you'd want those to be accelerated. I don't think you can adjust the GPU memory allocation without rebooting, and you don't want to do that very often because it takes forever. Some fun and educational things to do in Python are not even remotely possible, like the "natural language toolkit", nltk, with multi-gigabyte corpora. But even with more modest programs, Python can use up memory in a hurry. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od}}
I am on a hot project right at the moment and don't have the time to give it my full attention, but I do intend to analyze this and weigh in on the content dispute. Right now I am supporting neither side. In particular I want to examine the sourcing before I express an opinion. If everybody involved would re-read [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]], that would be a big help.
{{od}}
I do have time to chip around the edges a bit while waiting for a test run to be set up, so let me comment on some side issues.
First, could we all please indent properly and sign our comments? Just look at what you are replying to, count the colons(":") at the start, and use one more colon. Then end the comment with four tildes ("~"). Thanks!
Second, don't make assumptions about how people will use the Raspberry Pi. For example, I am very likely to be using it headless - no monitor or keyboard, running a single embedded program. I have several uses where an Arduino is not quite powerful enough and I want to replace a 100Mhz 486DX system with 64MB of RAM with something modern.
Third, be careful about speculations on what the RP is likely to be able to do. Read the section above about crystal balls again. In particular, I would like to respond to the above comment "''...to temper and balance the R-Pi foundation's fundamental claim that the device is intended for, and is suitable for, developing software, particularly Python software, on the device itself.''" Wrong, wrong wrong! This is a completely wrong kind of thinking. We are not to "balance" the claims of the RPF. If they claim it cures cancer, we simply report that they claimed that. If some other reliable source claims that the cancer claim is wrong, we report that as well. We don't say whether or not the claim is true.
Fourth (and I haven't dug into the details, I am just responding to a couple of things that caught my eye in the comments above) blogs and online discussions are not as a rule considered to be reliable sources. Again please study [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
: I noticed two mistakes in what I wrote here. I claimed that user Lynbarn deleted the material 3 times, but the second deletion, was instead by user Macon, on 10:42 8 February 2012. I also said that Lynbarn claims the material is unsourced. That should say that Tom Morris in protecting the page refers to "unsourced/badly sourced". My appologies to Lynbarn for the mistakes. I have taken the liberty of correcting the original, in order to minimize any further damage or confusion. [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 08:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
=== Lynbarn's response ===
Yes, I did twice revert a section of text from this article, and I gave what I consider to be two reasonable and reasoned explanations for the reversals. I did not break the [[WP:3RR]] rule, so I was (As far as I am concerned) perfectly justified in making those reversions. I have also made other changes, in an attempt to improve the standard of the article (in Wikipedia terms, using the MoS and other wiki resources as my guide) to make it into a more general enclopedia article. I still believe that the article relies too much on a small number of sources, including the Raspberry Pi Foundation's own forum (more of that in a moment). It was not and is not my intention to make the article biased for or against the project, but to make it wikipedia standard-compliant, neutral, informative and generally of interest. Wikipedia is not the personal fiefdom of the editors, and I welcome all those who like me, wish to improve the quality of this and any other article.
It was also I who requested that the article be semi-protected, and I gave a reason. A wikipedia Admin reviewed my request, and acted accordingly, In truth, I was surprised he protected the page for a full month, as I had expected perhaps a week, to protect the article and give an opportunity for myself and others to continue the tidying exercise.
There are a number of comments in the text above which relate personally to me, and I will therefore address them accordingly:
* Lynbarn is an unabashed cheerleader for the R-Pi foundation.
::Nothing is perfect and where I find fault, I will criticise in a constructive and civil manner - it is my way. - although I have no link to the Foundation, and no inside information, I do happen to believe it is generally a GOOD THING.
* His user page says: "I discovered a fantastic British computing initiative with massive potential - the Raspberry Pi Foundation."
::Yes, I did, and I still think its a fantastic initiative - why is that relevent to this discussion?
* He himself is one of the R-Pi forum's top posters.
::Yes, but again, why is that relevent? Not all my posts are pro the Foundation, or the project.
* He acts as a self-appointed R-Pi forum administrator, dispatching suspected trolls.
::No, I don't, I act as a responsible member of an on-line community, making my views known, answering questions when I know the answers, and being civil and friendly to all I encounter, just as I do on Wikipedia. What I actually said here was:
::''Maybe you got off on the wrong foot, but 10,000 others seem to be quite happy with the way the Admins perform their often thankless tasks.''
::''Just take a step back, breath deeply, count to ten, then start again. Do bear in mind though, that not all the Admins are involved with the Foundation in any other way than as Admins to this forum.''
::Far from "dispatching trolls", this was merely some advice to a new member of the forum, who was having some difficulties getting his point across to other members. It would also help to read it in the context of the other posts on that thread, but here is not the place.
* User Lynbarn apparently feels it is his role to keep the wikipedia article the way the R-Pi publicist would want it. He raised the issue on the R-Pi forum.
::Yes, I did raise it there, for precisely the same reasons I edited here - because the article was not of good quality (in Wikipedia terms). I said:
::''The Raspberry Pi has an article on Wikipedia. For many people, this is likely to be their first place of reference when they hear about the project.''
::''To my mind though, as it stands currently, the article is in need of some reworking to bring it up to an acceptable wikipedia standard. At present, it relies heavily on references to this forum, the blog and other sources very close to the project, and as such contravenes several of the Wikipedia guidelines. Are you Wikipedia editor? Could you help to develop the article in line with the general wikipedia principles? I have already been involved in a difference of opinion with one wiki editor over one particular paragraph, and it would help to get consensus on the best way to develop the complete article into a trustworthy, objective, complete and well-written article.''
::Again, this is not really the place, but I feel it necessary to respond to the comments made about me above.
::Note, there is no mention of favouring the project, merely of improving the article. Liz did indeed respond afterwards - I had not known until then that she too was a Wikipedian.
::Every edit page contains the following comment to editors:
::'''If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.'''
::All editors would be well served by reading and remembering this basic tenet of Wikipedia. Regards, [[User:Lynbarn|Lynbarn]] ([[User talk:Lynbarn|talk]]) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Oh - and I should add, I have today been asked to act as Admin on the aforementioned forum, so although I will continue to monitor, and perhaps make quality improvements to this article, Wikipedia POV guidelines indicate that the majority of improvements to this article from now on may need to be applied by fellow wikipedians. I do hope, trust and believe that the result will be an article that is trustworthy, objective, complete and well-written. [[User:Lynbarn|Lynbarn]] ([[User talk:Lynbarn|talk]])
{{reflist}}
::::Lynbarn has addressed my concern that he does not have a neutral POV, confirming that he is now an official administrator of the R-Pi forum. He has also demonstrated his comfort in using the [[Argumentum_ad_populum]] fallacy against anyone who dares to disagree with the 10000 R-Pi forum members. However, he has not addressed the main issue of why the non-self-serving first-hand published reports of his fellow R-Pi forum administrators, including Broadcom employees JamesH and Dom, should be considered unreliable third-party reports, unsuitable for Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::: How about discussing content, not throwing mud at editors? It's also a bit rich to attack one editor who has been clear about their involvement with the Raspberry Pi, whilst you remain an anonymous [[WP:SPA|spa]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::[[User:72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]],"Argumentum ad populum" is not an appropriate response. My ''10,000 others seem to be quite happy'' was merely to point out that the poster was one of a small minority - I wasn't suggesting he was wrong! As for ''the main issue'' (Incidentally, the sentence '''However, he has not addressed the main issue of why the non-self-serving first-hand published reports of his fellow R-Pi forum administrators, including Broadcom employees JamesH and Dom, should be considered unreliable third-party reports, unsuitable for Wikipedia.''' seems to be counter to your own argument - I believe there is a ''NOT'' missing towards the end), on first reading the article, I realised the accuracy, verifiability or appropriateness of various sections was in need of improvement. I dealt with what I considered to be the most urgent requirment first. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is an expression I well remember from my childhood. It may not be commonly known in California, or wherever you are, but it is a well-used phrase where I come from. That I hadn't tackled the other issues I saw is a matter of time available, and other, non-wikipedia priorities. (and at the time, they weren't ''fellow administrators'' in any case. As I mentioned above, I was only asked to become an Admin after all this took place (and before you ask, No, it wasn't because of all this!).
:::::Having been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and with several thousand edits behind me, I think I do have some idea of what is required, and would say that even forum entries from acknowledged RP Foundation members cannot necesarily be considered as a ''reliable source'', unless perhaps made in some official capacity. As a single-interest editor (or perhaps a [[Sockpuppet (Internet)|sockpuppet]]), I'm not sure what your credentials are, but I suggest it may be more appropriate and productive to take a less agressive attitude towards others with whom you do not agree.
:::::I think I have made enough of my point. My conscience is clear. Regards, [[User:Lynbarn|Lynbarn]] ([[User talk:Lynbarn|talk]]) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::You can demand to see my credentials on the R-Pi Forum, but not here. I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last nite. OK? You can slag off the posters on the R-Pi Forum, but not here. Liz is appalled that there are editors here that aren't R-Pi Forum members in good standing. So what? Liz doesn't make the rules here. I could ask about your credentials, but you've already boasted that you didn't understand a word of the R-Pi datasheet, so I won't bother. You raise the issues of accuracy, verifiability, and appropriateness. Those are reasonable issues. But it is very well established that compile speed is atrocious on the R-Pi, just as it is for similar ARM processors with limited memory and a slow swap device, for modest applications like Stellarium that JamesH reported takes 5 hours rather than the 5 minutes or less it's supposed to take. Can you imagine walking into your child's classroom and seeing all the kids with their heads on their desks waiting the 5 or so hours it takes to compile their code, and not being able to use their machines for anything else while they're waiting? No, I can't either. There's a good reason why Pentium II class computers were removed from classrooms years ago. [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 06:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::72.211.206.238, put the flamethrower away. This is Wikipedia. You have two choices; you can choose to be '''[[WP:CIVIL]]''' or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
:::::::Re: "''It is very well established that compile speed is atrocious''", either provide a citation to a reliable source that says exactly that (blogs and forum comments are not reliable sources) or stop making the claim.
:::::::Re: "''Can you imagine walking into your child's classroom and seeing all the kids...''", stop it. Just stop it. Nobody here is going to pay the slightest amount of attention to your speculation. We will consider that argument right after a teacher outfits a class with Raspberry Pis and reports - in a reliable source - the results. Nobody cares what you ''think'' will happen in a classroom. ''Even if you are right'' nobody cares. ''Even if your arguments make perfect sense'' nobody cares. ''Even if you buy a bunch Raspberry Pis, put them in a schoolroom and post a video showing you are right'', nobody cares. We don't care about any of that because it none of that is a citation to a reliable source. So just stop it. You are wasting everybodies time with stuff that Wikipedia cannot use. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 10:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
:Stop your crystal ball gazing, and dismissing the ability of the RasPI to provide a platform for kids to learn to program in Python before the official software package to do so is even released. These kids do not want to compile extremely large application programs, they want to run "hello world" programs, up-to maybe a hundred lines of code, on a software package expressly tailored to do that. If such a package is released and cannot do that, then you can add information about it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your POV. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::I do believe that people either in the Raspberry Pi group or related interests have been trying to spin this article to be more positive for them. I think the most important thing that needs to be driven into people is: "Though the raspberry pi queen has 100% control over her blog doesn't mean her fanboys can do what they want on wikipedia". The raspberry pi is an interesting product and I'm sure it will be very popular, but it sure the heck isn't the "jesus" computer that you all act like it is. The ONLY reason that people care about it...is the price...and if you think otherwise then sell it for over $100 to see how many people truly think the same about it. • [[User:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;">Sbmeirow</span>]] • [[User talk:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;White;">Talk</span>]] • 11:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I believe there is a fundamental difference between how two groups look at the RasPI. one group seems to think the RasPI is somehow a "PC for $35", and they compare it with a normal desktop computer, and point out its (obvious if you look at it that way) shortcomings. The "enthusiasts" see the potential for the RasPI to fundamentally change how "computer education" might change from "learning about IT" to going back to the fundamentals about having fun learning about how computers work on a fundamental level, and how to program them. Its what kids learned on the [[BBC Micro]], writing simple little BBC BASIC programs. They see the rasPI as a "BBC Micro 2", bringing back what was good about learning to understand how computers work, by writing small programs on them. Obviously no longer by using BASIC, but by using a more modern but still appropriate language (such as Python). On which you have immediate and rewarding feedback, so its still fun to do. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be, (and isn't) a platform for "spinning" any story, whether negative or positive. If you look at it as if it was a "low cost PC replacement", you can only become disappointed, it certainly isn't a "jesus computer" (a terminology which seems to be borrowed from iPAD bashers). But that simply isn't what the RasPI is for, it is an extremely low cost (so massively applicable) platform to learn programming, and the fundamentals of how computers work, on. And as such I hope it will succeed. It isn't a "honda accord" it might not even be "road safe", but I hope it will be a great "tricycle" for kids learning about computer fundamentals. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Mahjongg, I don't think it makes sense to say small programs will work and large ones will not. It also matters what language features are used. I believe integers take 16-bytes each, so a simple loop like the following can take 160MiB. It simply prints the factors of x, that is, the numbers whose remainder is 0 when divided into x. Give it a try if you have python installed. And yes, I know this example can be made more efficient using xrange.
::::<poem>
x = 9999999
for i in range(1, x): '' ([[User_talk:Mahjongg|Mahjongg:]] [[Red herring|you can get even a mainframe grinding to a halt with this "program" if you add a few digits to the x= assignment)]]''
if x % i == 0:
print i
</poem>
::::It also seems unlikely that R-Pi users will only compile small programs. It used to be the case that beginners would type in code from magazines, since it's much easier to modify someone else's code than to start from a blank screen. The equivalent these days is that students tend to download large amounts of source code for applications, games, and utility libraries from the internet, and expect to be able to compile it. [[Special:Contributions/72.211.206.238|72.211.206.238]] ([[User talk:72.211.206.238|talk]]) 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::You are still concentrating on the wrong "problem", and still assuming the RasPI will be like a PC, running on top of a typical PC OS that takes up 80% or more of the memory. I'm assuming instead that the RasPI will be like a BBC micro with BBC basic replaced by some form of a limited Python system, without large (GUI) libraries, and running on as simple an OS, with as small a memory footprint, as is possible, do not think "windows", but think DOS with a dedicated graphics library. It remains to be seen whether such a system will perform satisfactory, but I would not simply dismiss it beforehand, as you seem to want to do. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::We need to edit the page so that is does not contain any hint of either assumption. Instead it should report what is in the sources, and if the sources don't exist (likely considering it hasn't shipped yet) we should be silent until they do. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed without reliable sources there is simply nothing to report, one way or the other. Until then we should remove all speculation. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
| |||