[Freedombox-discuss] Cubieboard5 Deemed Unsuitable?

Jonas Smedegaard jonas at jones.dk
Sat Dec 2 12:44:46 UTC 2017

Hi Josh (and others),

Quoting Stefan Monnier (2017-12-02 04:03:36)
>> I was on https://wiki.debian.org/CheapServerBoxHardware and I noticed 
>> that the Cubieboard3 was recomended, but the Cubieboard5 wasn't. Why 
>> is this? Why was the Cubieboard5 deemed " possibly using less than 
>> ideal components or wiring for essential parts" while the Cubieboard3 
>> was not?
> Probably because its SATA port is connected to the SoC via USB.


I appreciate comments like yours, Josh - please do not hesitate to share 
any other questions or suspecicions about the quality of the list: It is
no doubt far from perfect. :-)

Ideally detailed reasons for chosen categorization would be available, 
but I have not found a way to do so with the current format (and please 
do *not* change current format without discussing first, as quite likely 
your ideas for improvements clashes with _other_ priorities - e.g. ease 
of editing the source as plaintext - not only with a javascript-fuelled 
web editing UI).

> At least, that's the main reason why I stick to boards built on the
> Allwinner A20 SoC, which is still the cheapest SoC with real SATA
> support, AFAIK (tho for some reason it's limited to 50MB/s of write
> throughput).

Agreed.  Thanks for chiming in :-)

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20171202/a6c1ca98/attachment.sig>

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list