You confuse knowledge and intelligence. That makes you and "idiot" and a "moron", but not me. Nice fail.
I think th SGX part (which may be anything from completely irrelevant to critically important) is probably due to licensing conditions and not really TIs fault. It does suck though.
An in what part is "crippled documentation" compatible with "education"? Are we educating people to be uninformed now?
Actually, the cheaper Olimex A20 boards are cheaper than a RPi and superior in basically every aspect. Go figure.
Oh, because it is low cost, and targeted at kids, that makes regarding the customers as stupid o.k. in your book?
Well, first I have not found any "large parts they leave out" so far, and second, the RPi datasheet "excerpts" are missing things as fundamental as the full GPIO specs. TI does no such utter BS.
That is just my point: They FAILED to publish the full GPIO specs! How demented is that?
Anything that has the full MCU datasheet published is significantly superior. Get a Beagle Bone Black for example.
Get a Beagle Bone Black. It is about $10 more, but you get a good design, the full specs and nobody is lying to you and you have none of the reliability issues the RPi suffers from.
Dream on. The Beagle Board, for example is from 2008 and fas fully open from the start. The Cubieboard is from 2012, same time as the RPi.
That explains a lot. Really, "targeted at education" and "full datasheet not available" do not go together, except for the most stupid or most corrupt of players. I have been wondering how this incredibly stupid choice was made.
Indeed. And if you look at the competing chips, for example from Ti (e.g. on the Beagle Bone black), you have the full, detailed datasheet after a minute of web-searching. Broadcom chips have no place in "open" hardware.
Indeed. The choice by the RPi-team was utterly stupid and can only be attributed to incompetence. I mean, a computer aimed at education, and then you cannot publish the full datasheet? That is just insane!
Personally, I also found the official forum overrun with people with big egos and small skills and a lot more techno-mysticism than actual engineering. It is no surprise that the RPi is such a badly designed device. Basically all competitors are significantly superior.
Some cretins dreaming about bio-weapons does not give them any real capability. And no, they are neither easy to make nor cheap nor easy to use. This is just the usual exceedingly unethical fear mongering used to sell more copy and to keep the population docile.
It is also not a new tactics, but most people are still cretins that fall for it every time:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
While that certainly plays a role, it is a minor one. It does stand in the way of solving things, but if you do not have developers that can do secure software engineering competently (and that is the normal case), then giving them too little time and money to do secure software engineering does not matter. The other thing is that people that actually understand software security are much less likely to declare something finished or secure than those with only a superficial understanding of things. Software security really is an additional, and exceedingly hard to obtain, qualification. That most "programmers" these days struggle even with simple things (see http://blog.codinghorror.com/t... , for example) is not the root cause.