Hackaday Links: September 21, 2012

And then Obi-wan said, “you were supposed to be the chosen one!”

Yesterday, a little bird told us Makerbot will be moving to a closed source model for their newest printer. This was confirmed, and now [Zach Smith] a.k.a. [Hoeken] – creator of the RepRap Research Foundation and co-founder of Makerboth Industries is weighing in with his take on the situation.

Hey! Free stuff!

Remember that DIP28 ARM chip with BASIC? Remember how I told you Coridium will be giving a few hundred away as samples? Yeah, that’s happening now.

Replacing a scroll wheel with titanium

[Rhett] has been using a Logitech mouse for a few years now. Recently the scroll wheel became corroded, so [Rhett] replaced it with a titanium version. The perfect match for the trusty battle axe, theIBM Model M keyboard.

Web-based IDE for the Raspi

[Phil Torrone] sent in a video of something he and [ladyada] are working on. It’s a web-based IDE for the Raspberry Pi. We’ll do a full review of this when it’s released.

Intro to software defined radio

So you have one of those TV tuner dongles and want to get in to software defined radio. Where do you start? [Al Williams] over at Dr. Dobbs has a great introduction to SDR, and gives a few pointers that should help you get that cool looking waterfall plot very quickly. Thanks for sending this in, [Chris].

31 thoughts on “Hackaday Links: September 21, 2012

  1. http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2010/03/25/open-source-ethics-and-dead-end-derivatives/

    Open Source Ethics and Dead End Derivatives
    Posted by [b]Bre Pettis[/b] on Thursday, March 25, 2010

    Sometimes an individual or a company makes a derivative of an open source project, goes to market with it and then doesn’t share their derivative designs with their changes. This is not only against the license, but it’s also not ethical. It is a dead end for the innovation and development which is the heart of the open source hardware community.

    At MakerBot, we take open source seriously. It’s a way of life for us. We share our design files when we release a project because we know that it’s important for our users to know that a MakerBot is not a black box. With MakerBot, you get not only a machine that makes things for you, but you also get an education into how the machine works and you can truly own it and have access to all the designs that went into it! When people take designs that are open and they close them, they are creating a dead end where people will not be able to understand their machines and they will not be able to develop on them.

    1. Shame on Makerbot. What a disappointment. I loved the open source style. Oh well, I will still enjoy using my original Cupcake but not sure if I’ll ever get as excited with Makerbot’s developments again.

  2. If Tangibot was on kickstarter again, I’d contribute to it. Before I was on the side of open Hardware and Makerbot, but today Tangibot would be considered a viable fork project that I would be proud to support.

  3. “Every RepRap can make RepRaps. Also, every closed-source 3D printer, and every non-replicating 3D printer such as a MakerBot, can make RepRaps.
    But RepRap won’t make any of them. The exponential mathematics of the RepRap population against the rest follows inexorably. Chasing licence infringers will make almost no difference.”

    Adrian Bowyer.

    1. True, but if it’s truly open source why even bother in creating a restrictive license in the first place? I sure wouldn’t. I would go as far to say just simply release it without any expectations at all, not even attribution. The only value I can see any license having is preserving one’s freedom to use what they created,and gave away,recognizing it’s no protection from anyone who has the deeper pockets. I once was contact by someone about an idea that I shared in a forum. He thought we could make few coins by making/selling copyrighted plan booklet. In where the idea was so simple I doubted it could be original, I simply told him to run with it. Not that I’m a nice person although I am. I didn’t want to deal with in discovering who it really was that I’d be collaborating with.

    2. It’s hardly inexorable as the number of repraps is bound by the number of people who both possess the skill and time to assemble one. It’s only exponential in the trivial fact that the initial number was 0 and now there are more than 1.

      I know that it’s hard to estimate how many repraps are out there but I’ve heard the number 20,000 used a few times. So since 2007 there have been what, 20,000?

      If replicator serial numbers are indicative of how many have been sold then Makerbot has reach half of all repraps in just 9 months.

      Which is rather obvious considering that it requires little to no assembly and thus is not predicated on a background in hacking/engineering.

      I hope that repraps continue to grow, and they will grow exponentially. But to discount a printer being sold traditionally doesn’t make sense mathematically.

    1. I think you need some reading skills
      “Theoretical resolution: 0.0125 mm”
      is pretty much same as
      “Positioning Precision: XY: 11 microns”
      except for the word “Theoretical” which means “we just lied to you”

    2. 100 microns is simply the default “High Quality” option for Makerware when you print. You can set the layer height to whatever you want.

      Which is exactly the same thing that Ultimaker users do when they set the layer height to 20 microns in netfabb.

      Trying to boast that Ultimakers can print at 20 microns is like saying your text editor can print at a font size of 8 while another text editor’s default size is 12.

    1. That is a good idea :) I always have heat shrink tube around.
      I used a bucket of “Dip a Grip” stuff from Lowe’s on my dad’s wheel. Just some tape around the axle bits. I would recommend having a rig set up to hold the wheel as I didn’t think that part thru the first time for drying lol. Also I would think a person without metalworking skills could maybe build one out of washers or coins stacked together to get some heft.

  4. Open source hardware is a nice buzzword, but as soon as someone actually tries to exercise the freedom the license gives, these companies go back to closed source. They’ve just been exploiting the community.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.