dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Remote Control Unit

Re: Remote Control Unit

From: Linus Nielsen Feltzing <>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:19:55 +0100

First of all, I apologize for my earlier reply, that was somewhat
uncalled for. I honestly don't want another mail fight like the other
ones we have had in the past.

Anyway, here's my reply:

BlueChip wrote:
> Nicely edited dude :)
> there a special reason that you removed the portion that said
> "Yes, if enough people want it"?

Not really, just trying to keep it short.

> What is baffling is that you [Linus] are one of the few people who
> know how much "behind the scenes" time I have spend helping Rockbox
> (for others, "A LOT"). And all you have done is find endless
> reasons to sit on the information that I spent weeks if not months
> tracing for you.

Yes, I offered you help because nobody else did. I have very
little time to spend on Rockbox development. There is a reason why many
people ask me "how's your wife" when they meet me in IRC and other places.

"endless reasons"... thanks a lot.

> # I get grief for not understanding CVS - and a refusal to help me
> learn. (see news archive

You don't get grief for not understanding CVS, or not understanding how
to create patches for that matter. You may have been getting it because
you were repeatedly asking people to educate you, instead of finding
things out yourself. There are tons of HOWTO's and documentation out there.

> # I get grief for sending code to people who specifically ask me to
> send it to them. (see news archive)

I don't know what you are referring to. That must clearly have been a

> # I get grief for trying to locate documents to help Rockbox. (see
> news archive)

Not entirely true. I agree that Daniel was a bit hard on you, and it's
not your fault. However, we've had that discussion (playback of other
audio formats) several times before, and I guess you took the heat that
lots of guys should have taken before you, in previous "why isn't WAV
possible" discussions.

Nobody gave you grief for trying to get hold of the MAS docs, only for
arguing against our standpoint that it isn't possible until we have the
docs, and are legally allowed to use them in our open source project.

> # I get ignored for getting the docs and trying to find people to
> help. (news archive, IRC archive & offline conversations)

You weren't being ignored just because nobody replied to your call for
"Player developers with in-depth knowledge about the hardware". I know
that you didn't want to tell what it was all about, but the "hard core"
developers are few and busy.

I agree that the response for your request was quite, well, non-existant
really. I did respond though, even if I don't really have the time.
Maybe I shouldn't have, since I can't help you fast enough.

> # I get grief for offering to help with code optimisation - my
> speciality. (see my orignal posts in news archive)

I remember that. You called the rand() function "horribly complex and
memory hungry", and the arguing started from there. We also didn't feel
a need for optimizing the standard libraries. Daniels reply to your offer:

"If you can prove that such a rewrite has a significant impact on
  Rockbox performance, then I'm for it. Otherwise, keeping things in C
  is easy and readable and allows more people to understand and improve
  the code. I have serious doubts that your mentioned rewrites into
  ASM is what we need to improve Rockbox. I think that effort is better
  spent at improving algorithms, fixing code hickups or similar."

I don't call that "getting grief". However, the discussion that followed
got nasty indeed, because you didn't accept that answer.

> # I get grief for asking which files are required to make the dev kit
> work (see IRC archive)

Are you referring to the "gcc.exe not found" discussion? In that case,
you did get quite a few replies on how to install cygwin and gcc, but
you weren't satisfied with that either.

> # I get grief for asking if anyone else is interested in a new
> feature. (see above)

Do you mean the remote control discussion that started this thread? You
weren't getting any grief for suggesting it, and I asked you if you
wanted to implement it.

> # And as for being left off the "contributor" list - how personal are
> you trying to make it?

Not having you in the credits is unacceptable and I'll remedy that in a
second as soon as I have your name. I have searched the archives, but I
can't find any place where you told us your name.

> So I stand by my comments (in IRC archive) I wanna see the WAV codec
> running just as a big two finger salute to all the people who said
> it was impossible - then I'm gone!

Nobody said WAV playback was techically impossible, only legally. Now
that you have obtained information on how to do it, we still need to
find out if we can distribute the codec with Rockbox without getting
into trouble.

> SOMEONE is sitting on the info required for WAV support, and hence
> menu/games sound, speech synthesis, MIDI support, MOD support, and
> even MODTracker.rock ...and you and I both know who that is, Linus.

Yup, that's me. I offered my help as nobody else did, although I have
very little time to work on it.

> The DOOM clone - and yes, it *IS* possible (whatever inferior
> programmers tell you) - you can forget, I will not be wasting my
> effort trying to get the graphics moving naturally - if I ever get
> really bored and you guys get really lucky you may see it in .rock
> format one day.

...and what is your point? As far as I can remember, nobody said it was
impossible, only unplayable on a B&W 112x64 LCD.

> I don't know what has "got your goat" Linus, but if you just wanna be
> nasty, then we can play it that way instead - but do not be
> mistaken, these are YOUR rules, not mine.

Again, I'm sorry about my reply, I was tired and grumpy.

> You have shown all along that this project is "your baby" and outside
> developers are NOT welcome.

I'm not sure that the other 19 developers with CVS access feel
unwelcome. If they do, I hope they speak up, so we can sort this out.

If we don't want other developers, why would we even bother using the
patch tracker and incorporate heaps of patches into CVS?

> The ultimate proof HAS to be the
> complete LACK of an official working dev kit.

We have specifically chosen open source tools as gcc and CVS to avoid
maintaining an "official dev kit". Anyone can build gcc and start
working on Rockbox. Windows users may have a somewhat harder time to
make it work (as you also need to install Cygwin), but I blame Windows
for that.

Also, the simulator build may not be up-to-date, but that is not our
primary target. The simulator is only one of the tools, and those who
feel that the simulator needs work should work on that.

> --- I told you not to read that bit :p ---

Ouch! You caught me! :-)

Received on 2003-11-16

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy