Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Remote Control Unit
Re: Remote Control Unit
From: Rocker <rocker_at_shaw.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:33:45 -0700
> 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.
As a blind dude who is dying to get the most accessibility out of Rockbox I
would gladly pay someone for this ability to become a reality...
Just don't ask me how much! LOL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linus Nielsen Feltzing" <linus_at_haxx.se>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Remote Control Unit
> 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 :)
> > ...is 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
> > # 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 2003-11-17