Orange Pi 6 gives homelabbers what Raspberry Pi 5 doesn’t


Are you getting ready to purchase a new Raspberry Pi for your homelab? I’d seriously hold that purchase and consider the Orange Pi 6 instead. With dual 2.5Gb/s Ethernet ports and way more I/O than Raspberry Pi, the Orange Pi 6 is the better choice for homelabbers.

What is the Orange Pi 6?

It’s just a different flavor of Pi

If you’ve never heard of Orange Pi, it’s effectively another version of the RaspberryPi, just made by a different company. However, their ARM processors and single-board computer design are basically where the similarities end.

Raspberry Pi got its start making cheap and affordable single-board computers for the hobby audience. Orange Pi, on the other hand, is a much wider range of SBCs with higher specs that allow you to do a lot more.

However, this pro of having a wider range of options is also a con, in a sense. Whereas Raspberry Pi only has two single-board computer product ranges to focus on, Orange Pi has a lot more, and that means documentation is a lot more fragmented and board-specific.

The community behind Orange Pi is also a lot smaller than Raspberry Pi’s, though that isn’t necessarily a downside. Also, it’s worth noting that Orange Pi changes their board design much more frequently than Raspberry Pi does.

If you’re looking for a single-board computer that packs a punch and don’t mind doing a bit of legwork on your own, then Orange Pi might be the best choice for your homelab. Otherwise, stick with a Raspberry Pi.

But, these simple comparisons are far from the whole story. Really, the choice between

Orange Pi 6 offers ample I/O options

Dual 2.5Gb Ethernet ports are way more useful than you might think

UniFi US-48-500W managed PoE network switch with Ethernet cables and SFP ports. Credit: Patrick Campanale / How-To Geek

Raspberry Pi has always been focused on compact, yet capable systems. However, they’ve been held back by a non-changing form-factor. Really, the form-factor of the Raspberry Pi hasn’t changed in over a decade. Some components have flipped what side they’re on or been swapped out by newer connectors, but, outside of that, things are largely unchanged.

Orange Pi is doing things a bit differently. The Orange Pi 6 takes the I/O that the Raspberry Pi offers to the next level. For starters, there are two 2.5Gb/s Ethernet ports on the Orange Pi 6.

Before diving into the rest of the crazy I/O options that the Orange Pi 6 has to offer, let’s first unpack how something as simple as a second Ethernet port could be useful in your homelab.

If you’ve ever wanted to run your own firewall or router, then you’ve probably run into the requirement of having to have two Ethernet jacks to run the platforms properly. While this is easy to do with something like a USB Ethernet adapter, it’s always best to do it with onboard hardware.

Plus, Orange Pi didn’t just stick traditional Gigabit Ethernet jacks on the Orange Pi 6—they put 2.5Gb/s Ethernet. This means you can easily use it to handle your multi-gig network natively.

Fantastic Ethernet support is far from the only benefit that the Orange Pi 6 has to offer. Where the Raspberry Pi 5 requires an add-on HAT to use NVMe drives, the Orange Pi 6 has two M.2 2280 (full-size) NVMe SSD slots on its underside, as well as a M.2 2230 KEY-E slot for an upgradable wireless card.

On top of those features, there are also two camera inputs, a microSD card slot, both HDMI and DisplayPort outputs, dual USB-A 3.0, USB-C, two more USB-A 2.0 ports, and so much more.

The I/O options on the Orange Pi 6 are so much better than the Raspberry Pi, it’s not even a fair comparison. The Orange Pi 6 takes everything that the Raspberry Pi does with multiple additional HATs and packs it all into one sleek package.

The Raspberry Pi might be the default choice, but it’s not always the best one

Raspberry Pi is mainstream but way more limited

Stacked Raspberry Pi boards showing Ethernet and USB ports from the side. Credit: Patrick Campanale / How-To Geek

For the longest time, the Raspberry Pi has been the gold standard for single-board computers. The Orange Pi is changing that, though. It has way better hardware, a more powerful processor, and prettty much more of everything.

I specifically love that Orange Pi ships with the ability to run dual NVMe dives without any additional hardware, and that you can easily upgrade the WLAN chip when new standards come out.

Add to that the fact that the Orange Pi 6’s chip is capable of 45 TOPS for AI computing out of the box, and it comes in 8GB, 16GB, or 24GB LPDDR5 flavors, and you have yourself a homelab powerhouse, ready to run whatever you throw at it.


If you’ve only looked at Raspberry Pi before, consider the alternatives before your next purchase

It’s easy to just go with the tried and true option, but, sometimes, it’s better to pick up the unique outliers. Orange Pi SBCs might not be the easiest to source, but they definitely have a lot more to offer than traditional Raspberry Pi systems.

From additional I/O to more power and extra capabilities, if you’re looking for a high-end single-board computer to run your homelab, the Orange Pi might be your best option.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

Meta stripped NameTag facial recognition code from its AI app one day after WIRED exposed it on 50 million phones. Meta says no decision has been made.

Meta removed nearly all traces of an unreleased facial recognition system from its smart glasses companion app on Friday, one day after WIRED reported that the software had been quietly embedded in an app installed on more than 50 million phones. The feature, which Meta internally called NameTag, was designed to convert faces captured by the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses into unique biometric signatures and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. WIRED also found that faces the system failed to recognise were cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is “purely exploratory,” adding that no final decision has been made on what to do with it. That characterisation sits uneasily with the evidence WIRED documented. The version of Meta AI published the day of WIRED’s Thursday report contained several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition, a process for running the NameTag recognition pipeline, and a “Person recognised” alert the app would have shown if someone were identified.

Friday’s release stripped all of it out, along with a folder where the app would have stored the cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognised faces. Meta did not answer WIRED’s questions about why the code was removed or whether the changes were planned before the story was published. A few fragments remain in the latest version, including an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognised person’s profile, pointing to parts of the system that are no longer there.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The gap between Meta’s public statements and the code WIRED found is the central tension. Before the Thursday report, Stone dismissed the findings by writing that the company could not answer questions about how the system would work because “the feature does not exist.” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, called the reporting “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Yet the code was functional enough to include three AI models, one to detect faces, another to crop them, and a third to encode them as biometric data, all embedded in the companion app for a product already at the centre of a mounting privacy crisis.

Meta declined to answer ten questions WIRED posed before publishing, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles NameTag uses, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognised people, and whether that data would ever be sent back to Meta’s servers. The company also did not respond to questions about whether it was building NameTag for blind or low-vision users, or to criticism from privacy advocates who warned the system could let stalkers and abusers identify strangers in public.

NameTag first surfaced in February, when The New York Times, citing internal Meta documents, reported that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as this year. One internal memo reportedly described releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted by other concerns. WIRED subsequently found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been built into the Meta AI app as early as January, months before any public acknowledgement, adding another layer to the company’s pattern of shipping first and disclosing later when it comes to its smart glasses.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty programme at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the removal does not undo the original decision to ship the code and pointed to it as evidence that consumer privacy needs stronger legal protection than Congress has been willing to provide. The Massachusetts House of Representatives last week unanimously passed a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions including a private right of action allowing aggrieved users to sue. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said.

Meta’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement,” Crockford added. “Companies like Meta prioritise their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.” Whether a code removal prompted by investigative reporting constitutes a victory or merely a tactical retreat depends on what Meta does next, and on whether the regulatory pressure building on both sides of the Atlantic produces enforceable consequences before the feature quietly returns under a different name.



Source link