Ce Testing

[j.pickens]

Critically examining the progress has shown crossed communications.

And pray tell how your "Critical Examination" has helped anything, except to help raise the aggravation level around here?

 

[Phawx]

@j.pickens

I understand your question is rhetorical but I'll answer it and hope I can finally put this subject to bed.

I am sure it has not helped anything. This is why I apologized.

From the past week alone, what we found out from the devs has made me realize that no amount of questions would affect the pace of getting our Pandora's. (Fast or slow) Hell, I even wanted to start a fund to pay for next day delivery. It has it a schedule of it's own, though.

Had I been aware of the situation as I know it now, I would have never asked anything pertaining to its progress.

In retrospect, it was a lose/lose situation I put myself in. The only thing I have to show for it is:

1.) The value of my posts carrying a negative weight, regardless of it's worth.

2.) Indirect snipes at my expense when people reference "someone"

3.) Having to explain myself in the hope that someone might take me seriously.


To wrap this up I'll end with a rhetorical question.

Why kick a man when he is already down?

I was hoping that we could get past this, however, If the community believes that my presence adds no worth, I will go.

 

[hch]

I think it's really strange that something as well-designed as the Pandora had to come from a small development team basically working as volunteers.

Obviously the corporations aren't innovating very hard anymore, and it's probably because most customers are too stupid to demand anything that's actually better.

no, i think it is because with 'innovation' the companies would ruin their bussiness model. this and the mass market character of computer products.

i'm old enough to remember the times when a computer was still really expensive. and only 'enthusiasts' would want to use them really. back in that days, it was kind of obvious, that with the given piece of hardware you would try to do the maximum possible.

that has completely changed. these days, you hace a notebook, a desktop, a netbook for surfing, a smartphone, maybe a skypephone, a wii, a pda, an ipod, a psp,...... all of these are essentially computers that can do kind of all computer tasks in a way. but for the companies it is much more profitable to sell you each of its functions as a seperate piece of hardware. and an average customer is used to the nothion that one device basically can do one thing. and it's kind of logical to keep different functions on seperate devices.

but at least for me, it is so frustrating to see that you can buy a full-fledged computer in pocket format and then you are basically locked in to listening music with it or playing a set of games one company decides to offer. it's just such a waste.

 

[Username]

This topic is useless. Everyone knows kicking people when they're down is fucking hilarious.

 

[Esn]

Interesting point, hch.

I never quite made that connection, but it makes sense.

The only computer I actually own is a desktop PC... I don't have any laptops or ipods or even cellphones. I guess you could say that I'm technologically backward. But I expect the Pandora to do a lot of those functions when I receive it. It's great value for money for someone who didn't feel the need to buy any of those other gizmos when they came out.

 

[Monk]

Why kick a man when he is already down?

Because that is the time he is least likely to be able to fight back!

 

[j.pickens]

Phawx,
This is an open forum, there is no need for you to "go away". You should expect that others will comment on your comments. Welcome to the internet.

 

[lingenfr]

Why kick a man when he is already down?

Because like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who lost every appendage... because even though he was down, he just wouldn't shut up.

CODE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno


The Black Knight

 

[MarkoeZ]

Ok, Phawks made a mistake, no harm intended and original questions answered.

please close this one, it's going nowhere anymore (if it even was somewhere to begin with... ; )

 

[PoisonedV]

Phawx... your criticism isn't real criticism. It's not thinking critically... it's you making a big deal of your anger over misinterpretations that were your own deal to begin with

ps i would kick you while you're down but im already in risk of getting banned i know, bad situation im in

 

[Vorporeal]

Phawx... your criticism isn't real criticism. It's not thinking critically... it's you making a big deal of your anger over misinterpretations that were your own deal to begin with

ps i would kick you while you're down but im already in risk of getting banned i know, bad situation im in

Oooh, PoisonedV has some semblance of inhibitions. Incredible.

 

[Dunny]

Ok, Phawks made a mistake, no harm intended and original questions answered.

please close this one, it's going nowhere anymore (if it even was somewhere to begin with... ; )

I asked for this one to be closed quite a while ago, as ED had answered my question satisfactorily. Seems that Chip et al only lock threads that they find have become derailed, not ones that have served their purpose.

Strange, as I've seen him lock threads at the request of the OP before now.

D.

 

[Exophase]

Ok, Phawks made a mistake, no harm intended and original questions answered.

please close this one, it's going nowhere anymore (if it even was somewhere to begin with... ; )

I asked for this one to be closed quite a while ago, as ED had answered my question satisfactorily. Seems that Chip et al only lock threads that they find have become derailed, not ones that have served their purpose.

Strange, as I've seen him lock threads at the request of the OP before now.

D.


Maybe he's become more hesitant to lock threads because of my thread about it... ;D

If ordinary users were intended to lock their own threads on request then they'd have that ability (yes, it's an option for this forum software). Just because someone started a topic doesn't mean they should be entitled to close whatever discussion ends up happening there, even if it's not "on topic"

 

[Monk]

Maybe he's become more hesitant to lock threads because of my thread about it... ;D

There was a thread? why do I miss all the important memos?

If ordinary users were intended to lock their own threads on request then they'd have that ability (yes, it's an option for this forum software). Just because someone started a topic doesn't mean they should be entitled to close whatever discussion ends up happening there, even if it's not "on topic"

+1

 

[gp2.eXe]

Maybe he's become more hesitant to lock threads because of my thread about it... ;D

There was a thread? why do I miss all the important memos?



Yup, here:
CODE
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?showtopic=47299


The funny part is what happened to that thread...

 

[Nik1]

So which phase is the Pandora currently in? Case mould? I realize http://openpandora.org/ isnt updated that frequently thats why I ask.

 

[hedwards]

So which phase is the Pandora currently in? Case mould? I realize http://openpandora.org/ isnt updated that frequently thats why I ask.

Some of that's concurrent and until that 30-35 days is up crossing off the things that are done whilst doing that is a bit silly. I believe that the keypads and case ones can be done at more or less the same time once the dimensions are finalized. But on the other hand it would give a false sense of progress. Who knows.

Not that I'm one of those who would kick the devs whilst they're down. I would however like to kick several of the forum goes while they're down, I think that would be quite amusing.

I can totally understand why the devs would be pretty demoralized by now. I cannot imagine how any of them made it through all the speculation about this being an overly elaborate scheme to drag things out for interest monies and such.

 

[torpor]

]There are two problems with your post.

I'm going to follow-up on this here, but possibly we can do a separate thread about it if its at all interesting ..

QUOTE

The first is that having to compile a configuration file into the binary is pure madness. It's a hell of a lot more work than typing up a PXML text file, could never be modified by the user, and can only be done by the actual programmer (or somebody with the source, proper build environment, and knoweledge of the language used). Many wouldn't bother at all, and the usefulness of the PXML file would be lost. A separate PXML file can be created or modified by anybody with a text editor.



And when you delete the .pxml file, what happens?

I just see it as another file I have to keep around, know about, deal with, etc. With my solution (if its an executable, and if the --show-pxml-object cmd line string is in the strings of the file, then run "./someexecutable --show-pxml-object" ..), the user doesn't have to do anything .. and anyway, why should it ever be needed to edit the PXML data once its been published by the programmer ..

I don't think there are any valid cases for user-editing of the PXML file that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that the PXML file exists as a separate entity in the first place - i.e. the only reason you'd want to edit the PXML file is because .. you MOVED the PXML file!

So its self-serving.

QUOTE

The second is that Pandora programs are already meant to be distributed as a single file. A .pnd file is just a zip file containing everything the program needs to run and the PXML file.



Ah, now this is a bit more sensible, and I think its interesting - but if it really is the case that a .pnd container is being wrapped around Pandora-only executables, then why bother forcing the programmer to add a .pxml file to the archive when they can just as easily render the PXML data to stderr/stdout on processing of argv[]?

QUOTE

The way the OS is set up, you drop a .pnd on an SD card (anywhere), the system finds it on bootup or card insertion, parses the PXML file, and adds it to the proper program category. To uninstall a program, simply delete the .pnd file. There will probably be a graphical package manager at some point also, but this system is already up and working and cannot be any simpler.



Well if its working then its too late for discussion, but anyway .. I would've done it differently. Certainly, the .pnd archive is a handy trick - we've seen such bundling done elsewhere (iPhone/Android/etc.) so its definitely a workable technique ..

I just like the idea of having the app talk directly to the program-manager by way of stdout on prompting to do so by a cmd-line argument .. this seems 'neater' to me, but okay ..

Three, actually. The third one is that:
If you're using FAT32 as SD Card, you can't set an executable flag.
The Pandora executables don't have a .exe or similar extension - like in linux, they can be anything.
So if there's no way to mark those executables, the menu would have to try to run each file on the card with --output-pxml and check if there's output coming back... I don't wanna know how long this would take

Obviously, the .pnd extension is a solution to the FAT32 exe-bit not being settable. So, just parse all the .pnd files, find the executable files within, run them individually with '--output-pxml', and oila ..

QUOTE

Believe me, PXML works fine as is, we've got it working already
BTW: .pnd is just an option for the dev. You can also simply put all files extracted in a directory onto your SD Card However, .pnd is easier for quick deletion of the app



I think this .pnd solution is good enough - my problem with having a separate .pxml file was that it was yet one more file for the user to maintain/fuss with, when I really believe that for a portable/handheld platform, there should be -NO- fussing with such things in order for it to be friendly enough for casual users. If I can just get a game for the Pandora by downloading a single file onto the SD card and sticking it in, thats about as simple as it can get .. my argument against the PXML-as-separate file technique is moot given that PND files are being used as a standard executable bundle type.

So, thanks for explaining it to me .. I look forward to releasing my own few .PND's here and there too, w00t!

 

[WizardStan]

I had no hand in the PXML development but I'm answering anyway. Your proposition sounds uninformed and very dangerous, but I want to know more.

And when you delete the .pxml file, what happens?

1) You can't if it's built into the PND file. As mentioned, the PND is just an archive, with the PXML being just another file in it, or appended to the end of it, however it works. Point being that it's just one file.
2) If, for some bizarre reason, the author is distributing an unpacked version, or you've unpacked the PND file manually, the PXML file is irrelevant. It tells what the executable is, what icon to use to display, other things like that (from my understanding), so deleting it has absolutely no impact on the programs ability to run. The difference is that instead of being told which file in package is the one to be executed, you have to select it. And you don't get a useful icon on the desktop to make selecting it easier, but I imagine there's a default just as there are in every other OS.

QUOTE
I just see it as another file I have to keep around, know about, deal with, etc.
Not really. It's in the PND package, and there are very few useful games and apps that don't already have many other files already. What's one extra file that the user shouldn't normally be touching anyway?

QUOTE
I don't think there are any valid cases for user-editing of the PXML file that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that the PXML file exists as a separate entity in the first place - i.e. the only reason you'd want to edit the PXML file is because .. you MOVED the PXML file!

Just because you can't see a reason to use a feature is no reason to actively remove that feature. Doing work to intentionally limit yourself seems counter intuitive.

QUOTE
Ah, now this is a bit more sensible, and I think its interesting - but if it really is the case that a .pnd container is being wrapped around Pandora-only executables, then why bother forcing the programmer to add a .pxml file to the archive when they can just as easily render the PXML data to stderr/stdout on processing of argv[]?
A PND isn't a wrapper around the executable, it's a package around everything: the executable, map files, icons, music files, etc...; anything and everything that that program would rely on.

QUOTE
I just like the idea of having the app talk directly to the program-manager by way of stdout on prompting to do so by a cmd-line argument .. this seems 'neater' to me, but okay ..
This is not to be taken as an insult, but 99% of the "neater" ideas I've seen in software development are candidates for the http://thedailywtf.com/

QUOTE
Obviously, the .pnd extension is a solution to the FAT32 exe-bit not being settable. So, just parse all the .pnd files, find the executable files within, run them individually with '--output-pxml', and oila ..
There's no way to "find the executable files". FAT32 doesn't have an execute bit. You would have to run --output-pxml on every single file in the pnd archive until it hit with a match. This will not only take a long time, but you'll be trying to execute a bunch of files that simply aren't executables. Some of those files might actually look like executables anyway, but not be the right one, and there you get into dangerous territory. It just doesn't sound like a good idea.

Consider this, however. Suppose there is an easy way of figuring out what file is the correct executable. If only the executable could produce the pxml, then you rely on the developer to have actually coded that in. What about all the existing packages, or beginner or lazy programmers that didn't add it? They would need to be recompiled to output the pxml data under your scenario, or simply add a pxml file separately to the package and be done. It's easier the second way. What if the format is found to be buggy and needs to change for some reason? You can either write a parser which very easily takes all existing pxml files and fixes them to the new format, or force everyone to recompile their executables.
It just sounds like you're "neat" idea is locking down too many features for the sake of being neat.

 

[Chip]

And when you delete the .pxml file, what happens?

I just see it as another file I have to keep around, know about, deal with, etc. With my solution (if its an executable, and if the --show-pxml-object cmd line string is in the strings of the file, then run "./someexecutable --show-pxml-object" ..), the user doesn't have to do anything .. and anyway, why should it ever be needed to edit the PXML data once its been published by the programmer ..

I don't think there are any valid cases for user-editing of the PXML file that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that the PXML file exists as a separate entity in the first place - i.e. the only reason you'd want to edit the PXML file is because .. you MOVED the PXML file!

So its self-serving.
What happens when you delete the executable or a bundled library? Anything packaged in the .pnd file is necessary and shouldn't be removed willy-nilly.

Also, there are plenty of reasons someone might want to edit the PXML file. What if you want to change the program's category? Perhaps you want to separate out your interpreters from your emulators. What if the program is named "Puckman Deluxe Platinum Edition 3.2.0.16 Public Beta 5" and you just want it to show up as "Puckman"? What if you want to change the icon? What if the programmer didn't bother to fill out all program informational fields? What if they just did a quick port and didn't add the information output function at all? Your idea to build this feature into every executable is not only more complicated and labor intensive, it is incredibly limiting.

As your method has no benefits whatsoever and quite a few detriments, there is no reason to change the already working (and clearly superior) system we have now.