David Hall wrote:
>> Alex Parker wrote:
>> there is always the
>> current build (or a 3.2 equivalent archive build) if people want USB.
> I think Jens Arnold's earlier argument that people gravitate to the
> releases is a valid one, and a factor which needs to be taken into account.

Yup, but I feel that the potential for corruption overrules it. Also, I
don't think releases are the correct place for testing.

> Paul Louden makes the strongest argument against 3.2 + USB, IMHO. The
> risk, no matter how slight, of data corruption is a serious one.*
> Considering 3.2 + USB is therefore a risk, the slightly higher barrier
> to entry of needing to do a manual install can be considered a good thing.

Agreed

> 3 - "Breaking" of iTunes support on iPods.
>
> We can be pedantic all we want and say "Rockbox never supported
> iTunes, that was Apple's disk mode" and we would be correct. The fact
> is, though, that for whatever percentage of the iPod userbase the
> distinction between Rockbox USB and Apple Emergency Disk Mode is lost.
> For these people I think the apparent loss of the three points I raise
> above is inappropriate for a "release".

I see the point, and if it is decided to go the mimicking OF USB
extensions route great, but if that turns out not to happen for whatever
reason then ultimately I don't think we should limit Rockbox in order to
support an OF sync tool (albeit a very widely used one).

Alex
Received on 2009-03-15