FriendlyARM Sucks

Doug Abbott
I am totally disgusted with the Min2451, the successor to the popular
Mini2440. While the Mini2440 used a highly respected open source boot
loader, u-boot, the Mini2451 uses this piece of crap called Superboot that
has no documentation and as far as anyone can tell has no features. I've
had it. I got sucked into buying 20 of these bricks and I'm going to find a
replacement board for my Embedded Linux Learning Kit.

Sandeep Sondagar
Dear Abbott,

Superboot is more simpler and more efficient than supervivi on older
And Yes, Mini2451 is really good upgrade for Mini2440.

This thread has gone quiet:

however, I wonder if it is worth getting in touch with them.

Doug Abbott
Well, you're absolutely right that superboot is "simpler" because it has no
features! There's no way to control the boot process, you can't boot the
kernel over TFTP, and you can't mount the root file system over NFS.
Mounting the RFS over NFS is how you do development! What are you people

Yes, the Mini2451 is an improvement in hardware, but that's useless if the
software isn't usable.

Seriously, has anyone else been suckered into using the Mini2451?

Oh, and I'm also very disappointed in your distribution of a fork of the
kernel. Why didn't you submit your changes to

Hi Doug

I think they do themselves a disservice, for some very useful hardware, by
the binary blob approach they are using. There is a lot of competition in
this space, with lots of support, and getting better and better all the


I completely agree, the hardware is very good. 
If they just followed mainstream kernel, uboot and samsung sources, it
would give them less work and would make their platform great and better.

They would just have upstream features included in their product

I give the example of nanopc-t1:

It could just put raspberry and others in the pocket if they just didnt do
illegal stuff like not releasing uboot code that they are using mixed with
the superboot blob(take the ubuntu t1 image for example).

They release the source for tiny4412, and not for nanopc. What is the
problem? They already did modify uboot to run on the nano pc for the ubuntu
image... Plus, it is illegal not to release it.

The result is that we developers that buy their products, if we want to
build an industrial linux solution for it, we obly have a old and
undupported image of ubuntu, a stalled kernel with some bugs on the mfc
component, and no uboot to do the normal development process (tftp,etc)

There is awesome support for samsung soc related stuff on the mainstream

That makes me think that someone at friendlyarm (the one that makes
decisions) is kind of stupid.