The Open Compute designs (which is where this will end up) aren't just a list of parts. They include things like blueprints for custom chassis, circuit boards for power supplies and even designs for solid state storage devices[1][2][3]. The also include the source code for custom management software[4].
While it is true that they don't generally design their own logic boards, it is quite a long way from a list of parts.
I don't think backblaze called their case designs open source hardware.
You'd be wrong about that: This new Storage Pod performs four times faster, is simpler to assemble, and delivers our lowest cost per gigabyte of data storage yet. And, once again, it’s open source.[5]
I think "open source" is completely appropriate here, and to be honest I don't quite understand your objection.
[1] http://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/SpecsAndDesigns
[2] http://www.opencompute.org/projects/chassis/
[3] http://www.opencompute.org/projects/power-supply/
[4] http://www.opencompute.org/projects/hardware-management/
As much as you might not agree, plans for building a birdhouse constitute hardware design too.
Sure I've opened the schematics, but unlike a birdhouse made from wood you have zero chance of being able to build one from scratch on your own, or sourcing the Intel™ processors from another vendor.
This is the same reason for why if I release the binary of a program produced with a secret compiler as "open source" I'll be laughed at, it completely goes against the spirit of the thing, which is that anyone should be able to change any part of the thing I've released.
It's good that they're doing this. But it's completely incomparable to actual fully open source hardware.
Since there is hardware that is actually open in that sense it's worthwhile to distinguish whether you're talking about open hardware or merely open plans for assembly of closed hardware.
Sure I've opened the schematics, but unlike a birdhouse made from wood you have zero chance of being able to build one from scratch on your own, or sourcing the Intel™ processors from another vendor.
This is some kind of confluence of the values of FSF captial-F "Free" style software with the more pragmatic goals associated with open source.
> This is some kind of confluence of the values of
> FSF captial-F "Free" style software with the more
> pragmatic goals associated with open source.
There's a real and unambiguous line to be drawn in the sand here. If you get "open source" plans for hardware that you can't replicate with third-party fabrication & your own materials it's not open source. It's just a recipe for assembling commercial proprietary components.
It's awesome that people publish those recipes, but don't call it open source hardware and dilute the meaning of hardware that is genuinely open.
Some of the most active areas of research in data center design are around the mechanical design to maximize cooling.
Wikipedia defines Computer Hardware as:
Computer hardware (usually simply called hardware when a computing context is concerned) is the collection of physical elements that constitutes a computer system. Computer hardware is the physical parts or components of a computer, such as the monitor, mouse, keyboard, computer data storage, hard disk drive (HDD), graphic cards, sound cards, memory, motherboard, and so on, all of which are physical objects that are tangible.[1] In contrast, software is instructions that can be stored and run by hardware.
It's difficult for me to see how this doesn't fit.
Funny story, Ycombinator is one of the reasons I got it. Since there's no great way to keep track of threads, it was a way for me to catalog and follow up with threads in these posts.
Seems tricky given we usually call a collection of components on PCB's and such a computer, hardware design, server, or so on. Putting open-source in front of them doesn't make it clear how much is open-source. That might be what we need to resolve. Anybody have ideas?
Open planning?
Open what???
Open sharing??