[Arm-netbook] Intel at CES

[Alain Williams]

I wonder where they got the idea from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472

http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone] http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm

[Julie Marchant]

That could be a problem. If it's successful, people will associate the concept with Intel and assume that eoma is a cheap ripoff. Also, with Intel controlling it, you can bet x86 will dominate it.

Our response should be to publicly urge Intel to use an eoma standard, to ensure architecture agnosticism and that there isn't a conflict of interest.

--
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone]  http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Sen

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Julie Marchant
That could be a problem. If it's successful, people will associate the concept with Intel and assume that eoma is a cheap ripoff. Also, with Intel controlling it, you can bet x86 will dominate it.

... yyup.

Post by Julie Marchant
Our response should be to publicly urge Intel to use an eoma standard, to ensure architecture agnosticism and that there isn't a conflict of interest.

if they've actually reused the PCMCIA connectors then that's an
incompatibility issue which would be a Certification Mark infringment
[risk of bringing EOMA68 into disrepute through electrical or
electronic incompatibility].

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Sen

[peter green]

Post by Julie Marchant
That could be a problem. If it's successful, people will associate the concept with Intel and assume that eoma is a cheap ripoff. Also, with Intel controlling it, you can bet x86 will dominate it.
Our response should be to publicly urge Intel to use an eoma standard, to ensure architecture agnosticism and that there isn't a conflict of interest.

I would expect them to laugh at you.

Why would they want to cripple their product by restricting themselves to the set of interfaces Luke has chosen.

Intel operates under a totally different set of constraints from Luke. If Luke wants to make a successor to his compute cards he needs to find a new SoC that has the right set of interfaces. If Intel wants to make a successor to their compute cards they can ensure that one of their upcoming SoCs has the right set of interfaces.


_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.p

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by peter green

Post by Julie Marchant
That could be a problem. If it's successful, people will associate the
concept with Intel and assume that eoma is a cheap ripoff. Also, with Intel
controlling it, you can bet x86 will dominate it.
Our response should be to publicly urge Intel to use an eoma standard, to
ensure architecture agnosticism and that there isn't a conflict of interest.

I would expect them to laugh at you.
Why would they want to cripple their product by restricting themselves to
the set of interfaces Luke has chosen.

?? peter!!

Post by peter green
Intel operates under a totally different set of constraints from Luke. If
Luke wants to make a successor to his compute cards he needs to find a new
SoC that has the right set of interfaces. If Intel wants to make a successor
to their compute cards they can ensure that one of their upcoming SoCs has
the right set of interfaces.

which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious
question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be
prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a
*REALLY* thorough analysis.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large a

[Jonathan Frederickson]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious
question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be
prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a
*REALLY* thorough analysis.

I think all he meant was that Intel can pick whatever interfaces they
want for the standard that they think will be relatively future-proof.
They don't have to worry about finding SoCs with those interfaces,
because they manufacture the SoCs - they just have to decide on them
at the start.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to a

[Jonathan Frederickson]

It's a shame that none of the previous EOMA-68 devices got off the
ground before Intel pulled this out - "hey this already exists"
would've been a serious advantage for EOMA-68 as a standard.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Frederickson

Post by Jonathan Frederickson
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious
question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be
prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a
*REALLY* thorough analysis.

I think all he meant was that Intel can pick whatever interfaces they
want for the standard that they think will be relatively future-proof.
They don't have to worry about finding SoCs with those interfaces,
because they manufacture the SoCs - they just have to decide on them
at the start.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large a

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Jonathan Frederickson

Post by Jonathan Frederickson
It's a shame that none of the previous EOMA-68 devices got off the
ground before Intel pulled this out -

that's what i thought, initially... but then i realised that it's
better with a long-term standard to get it right than to release
before the standard's ready.

standards have *ONE SHOT* at getting it right. make even one single
mistake and that's it, nobody will trust the standard - EVER (they
also won't trust you, either).

look up my analysis of the 96boards consumer standard, and the CEO's
response, for an example.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.p

[peter green]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by peter green
Why would they want to cripple their product by restricting themselves to
the set of interfaces Luke has chosen.

?? peter!!

Post by peter green
Intel operates under a totally different set of constraints from Luke. If
Luke wants to make a successor to his compute cards he needs to find a new
SoC that has the right set of interfaces. If Intel wants to make a successor
to their compute cards they can ensure that one of their upcoming SoCs has
the right set of interfaces.

which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious
question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be
prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a
*REALLY* thorough analysis.

If you look through the history of this list you will find the evolution of EOMA68 is a battle to find a compromise between

1. Interfaces that are useful.
2. Interfaces that are ubiquitous on SoCs today
3. Interfaces that are likely to be ubiquitous on SoCs tomorrow.
4. Interfaces that fit within the pins of a pre-existing economical connector.

Intel doesn't have to worry nearly as much about 2 through 4 as you do. They have no reason to make it easy for competitors to make compatible products. They can ensure that their own future SoCs retain the Interfaces previous ones had. They think and work on a scale where custom connectors are an economical option.

Of course this also means they have a much higher threshold of success. A product line with hundreds of thousands of sales would be a big success for someone like you but would likely be considered a flop for them.

If I was in their place I would be including PCIe, SATA and Ethernet (likely in some kind of MII form so the card isn't burdened with the cost of a transceiver).



_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large atta

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by peter green

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by peter green
Why would they want to cripple their product by restricting themselves to
the set of interfaces Luke has chosen.

?? peter!!

Post by peter green
Intel operates under a totally different set of constraints from Luke. If
Luke wants to make a successor to his compute cards he needs to find a new
SoC that has the right set of interfaces. If Intel wants to make a successor
to their compute cards they can ensure that one of their upcoming SoCs has
the right set of interfaces.

which are, in your opinion, the "right set of interfaces"? serious
question. if you're going to make such comments, you'd better be
prepared to back them up and be prepared to justify them with a
*REALLY* thorough analysis.

If you look through the history of this list you will find the evolution of
EOMA68 is a battle to find a compromise between
1. Interfaces that are useful.
2. Interfaces that are ubiquitous on SoCs today
3. Interfaces that are likely to be ubiquitous on SoCs tomorrow.
4. Interfaces that fit within the pins of a pre-existing economical connector.

sounds like a reasonable set of requirements. keep going. you've
started so you're going to have to go through with a full evaluation.

Post by peter green
If I was in their place I would be including PCIe, SATA and Ethernet (likely
in some kind of MII form so the card isn't burdened with the cost of a
transceiver).

ok so those are the set you're going with? what about video, sound,
GPIO, low-speed peripherals and sensors?

i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's
interfaces are "crippled", peter.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@f

[Boris Barbour]

I don't think the Intel announcement is bad news. Firstly it
validates/builds recognition of the general idea, which may be helpful
in some quarters. Second, there are plenty of people that will want the
cheap, low power version, which means ARM. Intel can't do that. And they
hate really pushing cheap stuff, in case it undercuts the expensive stuff.

As you were...

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@fil

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's
interfaces are "crippled", peter.

ok, so can you see what i did, peter? you laid down a challenge (to
do better)... and after three days, you've not responded. you
*provisionally* described an alternative standard... but did not
follow through.

*that's* what makes the difference, here. it's *not enough* to say
"the standard you came up with is rubbish", you have to *follow
through*, and if you can't follow through then it's.... you know what
i'm trying to say?

what you *should* have said, is:

"i appreciate all the hard work and persistence that you've shown,
luke, and how comprehensively you've worked on designing EOMA68,
making tough decisions and comprehensive evaluations that, each time
you removed an interface you had to throw away thousands of dollars of
money and you also made sure that you kept everybody informed,
solicited people for ideas and reviews of each decision, and i *do*
recall you saying that this is just the first standard in the series
and that you're deliberately creating one which is 'within reach' of a
libre engineer *and* uses SoCs that are actually accessible rather
than being cartelled or require NDAs and much more, BUT...."

... and *then* went into "i still feel that the EOMA68 interfaces are
crippled", i would have gone, "yeahh, i know... tell you what: i would
really like to design the next standard for a future Card, how about
we start that now?"

... which would have been a _much_ less confrontational way to
introduce the topic you wanted, wouldn't it?

ehn?

*rueful*....

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachmen

[peter green]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's
interfaces are "crippled", peter.

ok, so can you see what i did, peter? you laid down a challenge (to
do better)... and after three days, you've not responded. you
*provisionally* described an alternative standard... but did not
follow through.
*that's* what makes the difference, here. it's *not enough* to say
"the standard you came up with is rubbish", you have to *follow
through*, and if you can't follow through then it's.... you know what
i'm trying to say?

The compromises you made are a result of your goals. You wanted a standard that could be implemented with virtually any cheap SoC. That basically forced you into the decisions to use USB and parallel RGB.

Unfortunately USB has a reputation for poor performance and reliability. Some of this is possibly the fault of the USB standards themselves, some is a result of crappy implementations.

Intel has different goals, their job is to make something that takes best advantage of their own current and future products. EOMA68 does not do that, it drags it down to the lowest common denominator. As such I believe that by adopting EOMA68 Intel would be crippling their product. I gave some examples of interfaces I think Intel should include that were unsuitable for EOMA68.

I don't know exactly what Interfaces it would be best for Intel to include, that would require knowing both full details of the chips they plan to use in their current cards as well as their future roadmaps (if they have something on their SoCs today but plan to drop it in the future it would be stupid for them to put it on their compute cards).




_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Se

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by peter green

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
interfaces are "crippled", peter.

ok, so can you see what i did, peter? you laid down a challenge (to
do better)... and after three days, you've not responded. you
*provisionally* described an alternative standard... but did not
follow through.
*that's* what makes the difference, here. it's *not enough* to say
"the standard you came up with is rubbish", you have to *follow
through*, and if you can't follow through then it's.... you know what
i'm trying to say?

The compromises you made are a result of your goals. You wanted a standard
that could be implemented with virtually any cheap SoC. That basically
forced you into the decisions to use USB and parallel RGB.
Unfortunately USB has a reputation for poor performance and reliability.
Some of this is possibly the fault of the USB standards themselves, some is
a result of crappy implementations.

Examples please.

If USB had such a bad track record then why is it the most used peripheral
interface?

And which part of the USB standard? The physical interface or the
communication protocols?

Post by peter green
Intel has different goals, their job is to make something that takes best
advantage of their own current and future products. EOMA68 does not do
that, it drags it down to the lowest common denominator. As such I believe
that by adopting EOMA68 Intel would be crippling their product. I gave some
examples of interfaces I think Intel should include that were unsuitable
for EOMA68.

The lowest common denominator is what's going to get this running. Everyone
can join in with almost everything. You could even create a EOMA Card with
a beefy Microcontroller.

Once everyone is in, new interfaces can be chosen/developed for the next
version/type.

Post by peter green
I don't know exactly what Interfaces it would be best for Intel to
include, that would require knowing both full details of the chips they
plan to use in their current cards as well as their future roadmaps (if
they have something on their SoCs today but plan to drop it in the future
it would be stupid for them to put it on their compute cards).

Intel could force a "new" standard by flooding or hyping the market. That
would require every other vendor to follow the Intel route.

For other company's to follow that usually comes in two tracks:
1. Intel has made a success en the they "chime" in on the succes
2. Intel actively recruits "partners" to co-develop products

But I don't think so. Intel is desperate to find new grounds and are
shooting with hail. It'll surprise me if they are still around after ten
years.

1. Desktop and Laptop markets are shrinking.
2. Server market is shifting to better Power/Watt ratios. ARM is gaing. The
market is opening again to other CPU architectures becaus of Saas offerings.
3. Computing market is shifting to GPU's.
4. Intel failed at the mobile market. To power hungry/To late.
5. Intel failed at the IoT market. To power hungry/To late.

Post by peter green
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Philip Hands]

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

That's _very_ light on details, and I note that they're careful not to
show the business end of the socket -- so is that the old tactic of an
incumbent announcing vapourware in order to try and kill interest in a
disruptive product that they would prefer not to have on the market?

Cheers, Phil.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Philip Hands

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

That's _very_ light on details, and I note that they're careful not to
show the business end of the socket -- so is that the old tactic of an
incumbent announcing vapourware in order to try and kill interest in a
disruptive product that they would prefer not to have on the market?

it'll be very interesting to see if they actually "Get It". the
ice-computer team - even with $100m investment - utterly failed. the
team behind olpc australia, with a $AUD 10m grant from the aus govt,
failed to get it. google, with project ara, failed to get it.

so... yeah...

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to a

[Alain Williams]

Post by Philip Hands

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

That's _very_ light on details, and I note that they're careful not to
show the business end of the socket -- so is that the old tactic of an
incumbent announcing vapourware in order to try and kill interest in a
disruptive product that they would prefer not to have on the market?

About 30 seconds in on the BBC video you get a quick view of the hole.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone] http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.phcomp.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Alain Williams
About 30 seconds in on the BBC video you get a quick view of the hole.

ah! that looks very much like Mini PCIe. which has USB and a
one-lane PCIe on it, a few GPIOs and I2C. 50 pin. if that's what
they've picked it's not a bad choice.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large

[Paul Boddie]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Alain Williams
About 30 seconds in on the BBC video you get a quick view of the hole.

ah! that looks very much like Mini PCIe. which has USB and a
one-lane PCIe on it, a few GPIOs and I2C. 50 pin. if that's what
they've picked it's not a bad choice.

Mini-PCIe rang a bell, and then I suddenly remembered the following unrelated
product from before the Christmas vacation:

http://globalscaletechnologies.com/p-72-marvell-espressobin.aspx

I actually found it via here, originally:

https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Marvell/ESPRESSOBin

Which may mean that some of the Debian-on-ARM people are familiar with it. The
Mini-PCIe connection is that this board actually supports that interface along
with SATA and multiple network ports, which is pretty unusual for a low-cost
single board computer.

What might be more interesting in the context of EOMA68 or related standards
is the SoC, the Armada 3700:

https://github.com/MarvellEmbeddedProcessors/main/wiki/Armada-3700

Despite very odd usage of the word "proprietary" on that page, it appears that
the documentation and software is pretty transparent, although I haven't dug
into any of this myself.

Sorry if this is tangential or got mentioned before!

Paul

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

It's astonishing... there are so many similarities it can't be a coincidence.
They just saw a new market and feeled they should be in.

Intel is able to promote their products on a different scale but I do think eoma68 can make it's way to the general public anyway. Having a good community making it easy to use for the lambda user can make a difference (just like there are Windows users switching to GNU/Linux everyday because they met a friendly and open community online).

[Alain Williams]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

It's astonishing... there are so many similarities it can't be a coincidence.
They just saw a new market and feeled they should be in.
Intel is able to promote their products on a different scale but I do think eoma68 can make it's way to the general public anyway. Having a good community making it easy to use for the lambda user can make a difference (just like there are Windows users switching to GNU/Linux everyday because they met a friendly and open community online).

It has hit /. just when I have 15 mod points -- which expire soon, get posting:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/01/05/2049258/intels-compute-card-is-a-pc-that-can-fit-in-your-wallet

Flag up interesting posts, I won't continue to look at that page.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone] http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attac

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Alain Williams
Flag up interesting posts, I won't continue to look at that page.

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10083875&cid=53615691

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbo

[Alain Williams]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Alain Williams
Flag up interesting posts, I won't continue to look at that page.

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10083875&cid=53615691

Modded +1 interesting
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone] http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.phco

[Jonathan Frederickson]

if you check 30 seconds in the connector is completely different (otherwise intel would have a Certification Mark infringment case on their hands)

Wait, how? It's a pre-existing connector. How do you have any control
over Intel's use of PCMCIA?

Now if they'd *called* it EOMA68, or EOMA68-compatible, or some
such... then sure.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachment

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Frederickson

Post by Jonathan Frederickson

if you check 30 seconds in the connector is completely different (otherwise intel would have a Certification Mark infringment case on their hands)

Wait, how?

*CERTIFICATION* mark. *NOT* **TRADE**mark.

Post by Jonathan Frederickson
It's a pre-existing connector. How do you have any control
over Intel's use of PCMCIA?

i don't. nobody does. you've misunderstood.

Post by Jonathan Frederickson
Now if they'd *called* it EOMA68, or EOMA68-compatible, or some
such... then sure.

that's Trademark infringment, which is completely different.
CERTIFICATION mark infringment is based on STANDARDS. a Trademark is
based on a PRODUCT or a brand..

you cannot apply for a Trademark on a STANDARD.

you cannot apply for a Certification Mark on a PRODUCT or BRAND

you can apply for a Certification Mark on the H.264 STANDARD (if you
were the copyright holder)

you cannot apply for a TRADEMARK on the H.264 STANDARD.

does that help clarify the difference?

in fact now i think about it, intel probably are actually infringing
the Certification Mark by having a product that could be *CONFUSED*
with EOMA68 computer cards. PCMCIA doesn't matter so much: it's on
its way out.

but if intel's "compute card" can in *any way* cause people to go
back to the shop and complain, "i bought this thing i don't know what
it is, it looks the same, i plugged it in and it didn't work, i tried
jamming it in really hard and it still didn't work" or worse, having
two items on the shelves and people even REMOTELY considering that
they're the same just because the size and casing is "about the right
size and about the right colour", that's enough to be a CERTIFICATION
mark infringment, if the CERTIFICATION mark (the standard) says "the
size must be 54 x 86 x 5mm".

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send l

[Jonathan Frederickson]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
that's Trademark infringment, which is completely different.
CERTIFICATION mark infringment is based on STANDARDS. a Trademark is
based on a PRODUCT or a brand..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of certification marks
is that, while they're related to the standards published by a given
entity, the actual certification mark is the mark on the casing of the
device (or on the box, or on a sticker...), and *not* the whole set of
standards that must be met in order to qualify for that mark.

Furthermore, at least in the US it appears that the owner of a
certification mark is not permitted to use it themselves:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certification_mark

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send lar

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Jonathan Frederickson

Post by Jonathan Frederickson

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
that's Trademark infringment, which is completely different.
CERTIFICATION mark infringment is based on STANDARDS. a Trademark is
based on a PRODUCT or a brand..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of certification marks
is that, while they're related to the standards published by a given
entity, the actual certification mark is the mark on the casing of the
device (or on the box, or on a sticker...), and *not* the whole set of
standards that must be met in order to qualify for that mark.

.... i believe they go hand-in-hand. i just remembered the instance
of HDMI: if you want to put "HDMI" on the outside of a box, you have
to go to an accredited certifier (AGC Cert for example whom i just
visited a couple months back), pass some very specific tests, and
*then* you can put "HDMI" on the outside.

those tests will be to ensure compliance with the HDMI standard.

ok *sigh* so intel get away with it... as long as they don't put
"EOMA68" on the outside of the cases.

arse. that's gonna be a damn nuisance.

Post by Jonathan Frederickson
Furthermore, at least in the US it appears that the owner of a

yeah yeah, you like that? pretty funny, huh? so i can make these
devices for people but i have to tell them "go put your own stickers
on them, and pay $5k to a Certification Company to have the tests
done".

also, ironically, how the hell am i supposed to bootstrap the initial
eco-system??

duuuuh... i don't think the people who created the Certification
Mark system thought of that one...

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to ar

[Allan Mwenda]

Pretty hilarious how much of a direct clone that Intel card is. Imitation is the sincerest flattery I guess?

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Alain Williams
Flag up interesting posts, I won't continue to look at that page.

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10083875&cid=53615691
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Allan Mwenda
Pretty hilarious how much of a direct clone that Intel card is. Imitation is
the sincerest flattery I guess?

in a word... yeah :)

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

just got this from a friend:

-----

I sent a 'correction' to the BBC about it. Probably wouldn't hurt if
other people pointed out that Intel is not the first to market with
modular computing and that a crowd funded 'open source' project beat
them to it. EOMA68 already exists and the very first prototype
devices have been produced for desktop and laptop housings. Unlike
Intel's solution this one is completely open for anybody to adopt. The
video got it wrong in saying it won't be seen in desktops/laptops any
time soon given that they very first housing prototypes were a laptop
and desktop.

You can report errors here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial


---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Allan Mwenda
Pretty hilarious how much of a direct clone that Intel card is. Imitation is
the sincerest flattery I guess?

in a word... yeah :)

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send larg

[Alain Williams]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial

Done.

I won't CC what I wrote - far better if everyone writes something different.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
[phone] http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@fi

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Alain Williams

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial

Done.
I won't CC what I wrote - far better if everyone writes something different.

yeah good call.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachm

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial

Good idea ! Done for me too.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attac

[ryan]

I'd like to point out that Ars Technica, Gizmodo and Tech Republic also
reported on Intel's Compute Card with no mention of other similar
projects...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/intels-compute-card-is-a-pc-that-can-fit-in-your-wallet/

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ces-2017-how-the-tiny-intel-compute-card-could-revolutionize-iot-device-management/

http://gizmodo.com/intels-incredibly-tiny-compute-card-could-soon-run-your-1790826525


I was originally going to suggest that maybe Intel independently came up
with the same idea, but then I saw just how eerily-similar the
promotional images and pitches were to EOMA68 and now I can tell its
clearly copying us...

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
-----
I sent a 'correction' to the BBC about it. Probably wouldn't hurt if
other people pointed out that Intel is not the first to market with
modular computing and that a crowd funded 'open source' project beat
them to it. EOMA68 already exists and the very first prototype
devices have been produced for desktop and laptop housings. Unlike
Intel's solution this one is completely open for anybody to adopt. The
video got it wrong in saying it won't be seen in desktops/laptops any
time soon given that they very first housing prototypes were a laptop
and desktop.
http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Allan Mwenda
Pretty hilarious how much of a direct clone that Intel card is. Imitation is
the sincerest flattery I guess?

in a word... yeah :)

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by ryan
I'd like to point out that Ars Technica, Gizmodo and Tech Republic also
reported on Intel's Compute Card with no mention of other similar
projects...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/intels-compute-card-is-a-pc-that-can-fit-in-your-wallet/
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ces-2017-how-the-tiny-intel-compute-card-could-revolutionize-iot-device-management/
http://gizmodo.com/intels-incredibly-tiny-compute-card-could-soon-run-your-1790826525
I was originally going to suggest that maybe Intel independently came up
with the same idea, but then I saw just how eerily-similar the promotional
images and pitches were to EOMA68 and now I can tell its clearly copying
us...

jaezuss, you could even say that they'd been reading the crowdsupply
page and the whitepaper i wrote, and literally copying some of it.
the gizmodo article in particular, they're "excited that you can take
your computer home with you instead of a 2lb device".

*sigh*... :)

Post by ryan

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
-----
I sent a 'correction' to the BBC about it. Probably wouldn't hurt if
other people pointed out that Intel is not the first to market with
modular computing and that a crowd funded 'open source' project beat
them to it. EOMA68 already exists and the very first prototype
devices have been produced for desktop and laptop housings. Unlike
Intel's solution this one is completely open for anybody to adopt. The
video got it wrong in saying it won't be seen in desktops/laptops any
time soon given that they very first housing prototypes were a laptop
and desktop.
http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/editorial
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Allan Mwenda
Pretty hilarious how much of a direct clone that Intel card is. Imitation is
the sincerest flattery I guess?

in a word... yeah :)

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large at

[Nick Hardiman]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Alain Williams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38515472
http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/compute-card/intel-compute-card.html

It's astonishing... there are so many similarities it can't be a coincidence.
They just saw a new market and feeled they should be in.

I suspect this is a marketing exercise, to gauge interest in the idea. If this is an idea that made it onto some Intel marketer’s ‘good idea, let’s look at it more’ list, then EOMA68 computer cards are one step closer to being sold in supermarkets. I’m guessing, I know nobody at Intel. I do assume they are smart guys who have a pretty good hit rate at spotting these good ideas.



_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large atta