[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Replacement for raspPi



On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 08:32:14PM +1000, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> G'day 
> 
> I've been following the recent thread  Subject: Re: Debian on Pine64
> H64B?
> 
> I'm looking for suggestions for a new SBC, please. Ideally something
> more than 2M RAM. I see that a few a happy with Pine laptops. Does this
> translate to their SBC?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Background.
> I've just set up a new SDCard with raspberryOS. Set myself up as a
> user, and set root passsword. When I sshfs to my laptop, the mount
> point AND all subdirectories are owned exclusively buy user pi.  Not
> even root has access.  So I'm out of raspberry as quick as possible.
> I'm in the process of writing debian to a SDcard in the hope that that
> will let me get on.
> Some will recall the discussion around raspberry adding a MS repo to
> sources.list last year.
> 

You'll have seen the pointer to 100+ SBCs. The problem with many of them
is that they are cut down to a price point rather than being built to a 
quality standard. "Raspberry Pi-alike" GPIO pins don't transfer to 
automagically being able to run an add on in the same way you would on a 
Raspberry Pi, for example, and some manufacturers appear to produce
a large range of almost identical looking boards where you can't rely on them
_actually being identical.

I'd single out Odroid as being very highly priced by comparison but
also very well built: the problem is that the boards take a while to
be fully supported on non-vendor kernel and in vanilla Debian - and by
that stage, the board may be out of production.

Pine's RockPi with 4G of memory seems to work quite well and be relatively
well supported.

Factor in cases, eMMC and so on as well, if you want them. A lot of the 
boards do not hve a custom made case and some of them will be non-standard
shapes/sizes.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater


> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Keith Bainbridge
> keith.bainbridge.3216@gmail.com
> 


Reply to: