New Raspberry Pi 8Gb and Beta of 64Bit OS Raspberry Pi OS changing the name from Raspbian
Do You really need that much RAM?
The short answer is that, right now, the 8GB capacity makes the most sense for users with very specialized needs: running data-intensive server loads or using virtual machines. As our tests show, it’s pretty difficult to use more than 4GB of RAM on Raspberry Pi, even if you’re a heavy multitasker.
As part of this announcement, the Raspberry Pi Foundation has decided to change its official operating system’s name from Raspbian to Raspberry Pi OS. Up until now, Raspberry Pi OS has only been available in 32-bit form, which means that it can’t allow a single process to use more than 4GB of RAM, though it can use all 8GB when it is spread across multiple processes (each browser tab is a separate process, for example).
However, the organization is working on a 64-bit version of Raspberry Pi OS, which is already available in public beta. A 64-bit operating system allows 64-bit apps that can use more than 4GB in a single process. It could also lead to more caching and better performance overall.
Automotive things: DIY or Off The Shelf Solutions
Is it better to buy an off the shelf multimedia solution for Your car with Navigation , rearview camera, etc. Or its better to tinker and make a DIY solution from the same amount of money or sometimes less from Raspberry Pis and matching components to do everything You need?
it runs on top of Raspbian Linux … autolaunch fullscreen app
as much as I see OpenAuto Pro Accepts creating a shortcut for external applications to be called / lauched so perhaps the way to control the DAB+ module under linux can be called somehow on a way which is a bit more user friendly and intuitive… perhaps calling script file instead of
this is open auto: 2y ago last commit on github 🙁 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sTOMI1qTiA
One workaround is to run android on the raspberry pi like LineageOS and then use dab+ controller android app for the dab+ unit and corresponding android apps for the rest like the navigation and rearview camera , etc>
Unfortunatelly LineageOS 16 Android 9 graphics performance is not ready for multimedia or gaming use so i dont know how well navigation apps would run in this case
One system which pretty much has all I look for or want to is the i-carus system https://i-carus.com/
It does not seem to have: Bluetooth Audio Passthrough , And I dont see how it could interact with the Monkey DAB+ Module mentioned above previously…..
All you need in car
Multimedia center supproting all audio and video formats
Full HD car DVR camera
OBD-II Engine diagnostics and data reading
Wireless Networks: 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth
Since iCarus is based on Rasberry Pi Linux computer you get almost unlimited opportunities for extanding the functionality of the system by adding external hardware, sensors or creating your own software.
The ICR Board (connects directly to Your cars radio connector)
The heart of iCarus Car PC. Connect your Raspberry Pi (or any other compatible single board computer) to ICR board and build your higly customized Car PC system.
Just connect iCarus Car PC to your car’s radio connector directly (in the case your car uses a standard ISO-10487 connector) or via harness adaptor
Separate ICR board is a suitable solution for makers building Car PC in their own housing
This system raises two important questions for me at least:
Would it be possible for i-carus to interact and control a Monkey DAB+ board? (works from android and from raspbian linux by default) https://www.monkeyboard.org/products/85-developmentboard/80-dab-fm-digital-radio-development-board https://www.monkeyboard.org/tutorials/78-interfacing/87-raspberry-pi-linux-dab-fm-digital-radioCan it be used to be an interface for Android Auto once a compatible smartphone is connected via USB or Wireless?
Can additional apps run on top or parallel like the OpenAuto app project which does similar functions to i-carus? ( so the i-carus can be booted into either i-carus or openauto?) becoming a versatile screen not limited only to be used with i-carus software https://bluewavestudio.io/index.php/bluewave-shop/openauto-pro-detail
Commercial Offerings Out There
Mentioning only one example as these are as many as You can imagine and comes in all form of shapes and sizes.
It ticks pretty much all the boxes I need it to do
What else can be used a Raspberry Pi for in a Car?
There’s another significant new release in this mix, however, and that’s Sasha’s Head Melter. It’s apparently an old track of his, recovered and released as the first part of a bandcamp-only series he’s calling DETAT. It’s a super sweet track, exactly the kind of moody breaks that I like. I don’t know Sasha‘s work well – I can only compare Head Melter to Rabbitweed from the Xpander EP – but this tune makes me want to dig through his back catalog.
I’ll be back next week with my usual end-of-month slow set. I’m thinking 90 BPM, I have a few new pieces at that tempo to play with. ’till then.
What does Open Source Software means? What about Software which uses Open Source code/contribution? Do They give back to the source/s where they were taking from?
The question of Licensing BSD License / Berkeley and the GPL v2 and v3 licenses
Software can be Open Source and Respecting users Freedom/Privacy and be for Cost at the same time But Can They actually make money of that?
What stops an individual to get the open source code of a paid freedom respecting software and fork it / build it on his/her own machine perhaps with just a slight modification of a color or something minuscule to make it just a tidbit differ from the original and use it ,,as his own” for free as in No cost and crippleing the source of income of this company with this move..
What can motivate Companies therefore to Open Source their code of Paid applications * as to show their respecting freedom or otherwise* IF it could cripple their income stream?
On that same thought …Who would continue to pay for Microsoft Office and Visio and Project apps ( not debating how good their are or they are not or if any valid other alternative exists ) if they d just upload it source up to github and People could fork/build it on their own machine and use it for Free as in No Cost? Can Microsoft be blamed for not doing this?
IMHO I believe in Open Source apps but in the same time I believe the need in certain apps of closed source for maintaining its leading edge on the market and to drive them even further in development and making the software better by not telling everyone how its done….
Should Coca cola share the recipe of Coca Cola and let people make it at home ( if possible) and cripple its own revenue source? resulting in thousands of thousands of jobs lost wordwide? Its the same with closed source software ( some respects your freedom and want to do no harm to you while others like Apple for sure want to control you tied to a leash for sure … look at all the controllig and limiting functions of iphones and macs…but that could be another topic) those SW companies with closed source intellectual properties like Microsoft , VMware , Veeam and the list goes on… apart from being called evil of not opening up their source code to the masses by open sourcing it, they also create thousands of jobs.
IF most of us would have access to the source code/s we d for it ourselves and would not ever pay a cent again for the software anymore… people would loose their jobs and go work what?
Open Source Licensing (FOSS Licenses)
Apart from this original or basic dilemma there is another two things … The different Open Source licenses and the Free Software Foundation where Free does not mean No Cost but Free as in Freedom of the Users and respect to their privacy
Its a big pool of mess if You ask me .. More than 80 open source licenses exist in two big categories mostly: permissive and copyleft licenses
A permissive license is simple and is the most basic type of open source license: It allows you to do whatever you want with the software as long as you abide by the notice requirements. Permissive licenses provide the software as-is, with no warranties. So permissive licenses can be summarized as follows:
Do whatever you want with the code
Use at your own risk
Acknowledge the author/contributor
Copyleft licenses add requirements to the permissive license. In addition to the requirements listed above, copyleft licenses also require that:
If you distribute binaries, you must make the source code for those binaries available
The source code must be available under the same copyleft terms under which you got the code
You cannot place additional restrictions on the licensee’s exercise of the license
The table below categorizes popular open source licenses under the permissive and copyleft frameworks. The copyleft licenses are also listed in ascending order of strength, from strongest at the top to the weakest at the bottom. “Strength” refers to the degree to which surrounding software may need to be subject to the same copyleft requirements. For example, GPL is strong because it requires that any program that contains GPL code must contain only GPL code. LGPL is weaker because it allows dynamic linking to other proprietary code without subjecting that linked code to the same GPL requirements. The weakest copyleft licenses, EPL and MPL, allow any kind of integration with other code, as long as EPL or MPL code is in its own file.
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) MIT Apache 2
Affero GPL (AGPL)GPLLesser GPL (LGPL)Mozilla Public License (MPL)Eclipse Public License (EPL)Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
When a company wants to include an Open Source element into their closed source software (( nevertheless if its nice of them to have their own code closed source and using bits and pieces from Open source software for free as in no cost to make their own software of closed source better… )) some open source licenses make this easy and effortless while others make it near impossible to be used without certain limitations or loosing of the possibility perhaps to copyright the resulting application as a whole itself…
Its very complex and confusing for me to be honest .. but nevertheless is an interesting topic
Top open source questions
When I advise clients on open source licensing, the four most common questions they ask are:
What is “distribution?”
How do open source licenses affect patent rights in software?
What is the “notice” requirement and how do I comply?
What is a “derivative work” and, related, does incorporating GPL code into my proprietary code cause the proprietary code to be licensed under GPL?
The short answers to these questions appear below:
What is “distribution?” In simple terms, distribution refers to transferring a copy of a copyrighted work (such as software) from one legal person to another. The concept of distribution matters because the requirements of open source licenses are triggered only when software is distributed. Thus, a person who does not distribute software cannot violate an open source license’s terms. And because “legal person” includes a corporation, there is no distribution—and therefore no risk of violating a license’s terms—if software is merely transferred between employees of the same company.
Today, distribution can be a thornier question for businesses that deploy software through the Internet, cloud, or a SaaS model. Does allowing users to interact with a software application over the Internet qualify as distribution? For most open source licenses, the answer is no. Indeed, GPLv3 uses the term “convey” rather than “distribute,” precisely to clarify that SaaS use does not trigger any license requirements. But the Affero GPL (AGPL) license is one exception that takes a different approach. AGPL’s requirements (which are the same as GPL) are triggered once software is modified and made available for use and interaction over a network.
How do open source licenses affect patent rights in software? Some open source licenses (e.g., Apache 2, GPLv3) include express patent license provisions, which grant recipients a license to any patents covering the software product. Other open source licenses (e.g., BSD, MIT, GPLv2) are mum on patent licenses. Nonetheless, for these licenses, courts may use the doctrine of “implied license” to find that recipients are still licensed and protected from any patent infringement allegation arising from using the licensed software product. By doing this, courts prevent licensors from taking “two bites at the apple” and suing for patent infringement for using the very software they have licensed. In sum, unless expressly stated otherwise, open source licenses limit the author’s ability to sue license-abiding recipients for alleged patent infringement.
What is the “notice” requirement and how do I comply? The notice requirement means that a distributor of open source software must inform recipients that certain open source software, which is available under the noticed license, is included in the software being delivered to the recipient. Open source licenses each have their own specific notice requirements. Commonly, these requirements include providing entire copies of applicable licenses and acknowledging authors and contributors. A best practice is to deliver the source code covered by the license up front because full copies of licenses are typically included as text files in the source code package. Another best practice is to follow the GPL’s notice requirements because they are considered among the most stringent. Thus, complying with GPL’s notice requirements will usually ensure compliance with other applicable open source licenses’ notice requirements.
Derivative works and the myth of viral GPL: A common concern of clients is that by incorporating code licensed under GPL (or similar copyleft license) into their proprietary code, the proprietary code will be “infected” or “contaminated” and become licensed under GPL (i.e., the proprietary code is effectively converted into GPL code) or forced into the public domain. This concern causes some to view GPL as viral and discourages them from using GPL code because they are worried that any derivative works that incorporate GPL code will also be licensed under GPL.
These concerns are largely unfounded. It is true that under GPL, all code in a single program must be either be subject to GPL or not subject to GPL. So if a developer were to combine GPL code with proprietary code and redistribute that combination, it would violate the GPL. But the likely worst-case consequence of this violation is that the author of the GPL code could exercise their right to bring a claim for copyright infringement. The remedy for copyright infringement is either damages (money) or injunction (stop using the GPL code). Critically, copyright law supports no remedy that would force the offending developer to license their proprietary code under GPL or to put that code into the public domain. Combining GPL code with proprietary code does not therefore “infect” the proprietary code or convert it into GPL code.