On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > ... this is a good example. you see how if a processor doesn't have > the expected industry-standard interfaces and functionality, it's not > commercially viable? > > i'd looked at the parallela earlier when it came out on slashdot last > week. if it had the standard set of on-board interfaces - SATA, HDMI, > RG-MII and so on - i'd go "GREAT!" and i'd even put up with the > anticipated software hell. > > ... but they're not doing that. > > what they're asking you to fund them for is the mask charges and > production costs of a chip which will *only* have multi-lane LVDS and > a DDR RAM interface. this multi-lane LVDS will be wired up to an > FPGA; the FPGA will be wired up to an ARM processor which *doesn't* > even, as lennart has noticed, have SATA.
The FPGA and nifty parallel engine are nice and all, but no SATA? Really? I would take 100Mbit ethernet and SATA over gigabit and no SATA. > they've had a great idea - get onto kickstarter, raise some awareness > of the product - they may even have a great product *but* it's a > *component* which needs to be part of a well-thought-out and > well-executed *business* strategy with a targetted market (even if > that target market is "general-purpose computing"). > > i wish they'd offered more, i really do. Me too. For now I will stick with my imx53 and cubox. Single core and Coretex-A8 I believe for both, but they both have SATA which makes them useful to me. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
