craigix
Mega GP Mania
Each mk0 board now has to have a soldered adjustment by hand so they are not going out as fast as expected. But then again that's exactly the idea of the mk0s - finding the bugs!
How To Get A Dev Unit.
- Thread starter craigix
- Start date
methril
Still Fresh
Hello to everybody
craigix i'll send you an e-mail throguh the board e-mail option. I don't know if it arrives to you, because i can't send you PMs. Could you tell me something about it?
I'm really interested in dev units & i have experience with u-boot & kernel.
Waiting your comments
See you.
craigix i'll send you an e-mail throguh the board e-mail option. I don't know if it arrives to you, because i can't send you PMs. Could you tell me something about it?
I'm really interested in dev units & i have experience with u-boot & kernel.
Waiting your comments
See you.
Great !
It must be more powerful than Nokia N800 I am currently using, which is an ompa2420 with an arm1136.
Can Craig maintain a distribution running on Open Pandora, to get both the software and hardware under test continuously and let developers know the feature status and bugs?
I am interesting in porting software packages and writing drivers.
although there is not very much infomations in the Open Pandora wiki about current development status.
It must be more powerful than Nokia N800 I am currently using, which is an ompa2420 with an arm1136.
Can Craig maintain a distribution running on Open Pandora, to get both the software and hardware under test continuously and let developers know the feature status and bugs?
I am interesting in porting software packages and writing drivers.
although there is not very much infomations in the Open Pandora wiki about current development status.
Well, your PM box is full, so here goes:
QUOTE
Hello,
I am the CTO for CoreCodec, Inc., and I am writing in regards to the Pandora development units.
We produce a lot of multimedia software - we support over 600 devices, on an insane number of operating systems (including Linux and OS X). To achieve this, we have a very nice UI abstraction layer - handles widgets, events, etc.
We have always been fans of open-source - our media player was originally open source, and we currently have a number of open-source projects, including an extended version of C that has OOP features from C++ without the bloat, a very improved "Make" system, etc.
Unfortunately, due to patents, we are limited in what codecs we can distribute without paying royalties; however, we are working to reach the maximum caps to avoid the per-units, which will give us much greater flexibility.
Anyhow, there are a number of things we could provide for the Pandora device as open source, from our UI library (very lightweight and ARM optimized), Legal MP3 playback, UPNP stack, MIDI, etc.
For what it's worth, legal MP3 playback is harder than it sounds. Thomson licensing (which handles MP3 licensing) REQUIRES a $0.75 per unit fee (see http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/).
That being said, as an existing MP3 licensee, we have the ability to get an unlimited royalty (needed for open-source), for "only" a $50,000 one time fee. We are willing to pay that, if it can be put to good use.
You may have seen us on SlashDot over the DMCA takedown fiasco. We send a lot of takedown notices to RapidShare, etc. - if we don't, we're liable for the millions in patent royalties for the "infringing" pirate copies. The CEO was an idiot, a single bad DMCA takedown got sent, and I personally called the CEO at 2AM, yelled at him, then got back to Google to make sure it got put back up. Mistakes happen.
QUOTE
Hello,
I am the CTO for CoreCodec, Inc., and I am writing in regards to the Pandora development units.
We produce a lot of multimedia software - we support over 600 devices, on an insane number of operating systems (including Linux and OS X). To achieve this, we have a very nice UI abstraction layer - handles widgets, events, etc.
We have always been fans of open-source - our media player was originally open source, and we currently have a number of open-source projects, including an extended version of C that has OOP features from C++ without the bloat, a very improved "Make" system, etc.
Unfortunately, due to patents, we are limited in what codecs we can distribute without paying royalties; however, we are working to reach the maximum caps to avoid the per-units, which will give us much greater flexibility.
Anyhow, there are a number of things we could provide for the Pandora device as open source, from our UI library (very lightweight and ARM optimized), Legal MP3 playback, UPNP stack, MIDI, etc.
For what it's worth, legal MP3 playback is harder than it sounds. Thomson licensing (which handles MP3 licensing) REQUIRES a $0.75 per unit fee (see http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/).
That being said, as an existing MP3 licensee, we have the ability to get an unlimited royalty (needed for open-source), for "only" a $50,000 one time fee. We are willing to pay that, if it can be put to good use.
You may have seen us on SlashDot over the DMCA takedown fiasco. We send a lot of takedown notices to RapidShare, etc. - if we don't, we're liable for the millions in patent royalties for the "infringing" pirate copies. The CEO was an idiot, a single bad DMCA takedown got sent, and I personally called the CEO at 2AM, yelled at him, then got back to Google to make sure it got put back up. Mistakes happen.
atomicthumbs
I am the king of the collectors, with hospital bed
I guess CoreAVC is a no-go then
Svartalf
Active Member
Did anyone catch that they were willing to pitch in things like UI toolset, legal (as in licensed...) MP3 playback, UPNP, etc?cyt0plas said:
I'm intrigued about ALL of that, actually. I'm presuming you're the CTO over there, then?
QUOTE
For what it's worth, legal MP3 playback is harder than it sounds. Thomson licensing (which handles MP3 licensing) REQUIRES a $0.75 per unit fee (see http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/).
That being said, as an existing MP3 licensee, we have the ability to get an unlimited royalty (needed for open-source), for "only" a $50,000 one time fee. We are willing to pay that, if it can be put to good use.
Heh... If they've got a good playback lib, I'd say that if they're willing to pitch in, we ought take 'em up on it.
Also worth noting that it might be worth passing the hat for something that's been annoying the hell out of people for a while now on Linux.
While OGG's better, trying to get devices to play it are "tough", whereas MP3's "good enough" and equally DRM free.
QUOTE
You may have seen us on SlashDot over the DMCA takedown fiasco. We send a lot of takedown notices to RapidShare, etc. - if we don't, we're liable for the millions in patent royalties for the "infringing" pirate copies. The CEO was an idiot, a single bad DMCA takedown got sent, and I personally called the CEO at 2AM, yelled at him, then got back to Google to make sure it got put back up.
Heh... Now we get the honest story from start to finish on that little brown paper bag moment for 'em. Heh, I would like to have been the fly on the wall for THAT little conversation. I find it a bit difficult to accept or believe that you guys HAVE to do this stuff because you're liable for the infringements caused by pirated copies (You didn't make the infringing, unpaid-for item, the pirates did...royalties are typically owed by things YOU produce...)- but I suspect that you're doing it per Counsel's instructions on the matter. I'm sure you could explain it further, but it doesn't matter much, it's how you're operating and that's how it's got to be. I just find it obnoxious to say the least that you HAVE to do that.
QUOTE
Mistakes happen.
Sure they do. Unfortunately, when you screw things up like that, there's consequences. I hope the CEO over there realizes that it was a boneheaded move that burned up quite a bit of good will with the people that were selling it by word of mouth for 'em at the very least.
Heh... How about we just get CoreCodec on board to make a "version" once things are a bit more gelled? Then you all could charge for it for those that want the improved h.264 playback ability.cyt0plas said:
Keep in mind, folks, h.264 does require licensing and as such, we're probably not going to see it out of box on the Pandora; it'll have to be an item that gets put in after the fact by someone- otherwise, you'll have to charge for it no matter what codec you end up using for it.
[edited because I realized I was addressing the CoreCodec CTO there...
]
Last edited by a moderator:
QUOTE
I find it a bit difficult to accept or believe that they HAVE to do this stuff because they're liable for the infringements caused by pirated copies (They didn't make the infringing, unpaid-for item, the pirates did...royalties are typically owed by things YOU produce...) but they're doing it because they got the short end of the stick on the licensing deal or they're doing it "to be sure" because their Counsel told 'em to.
We're required to take "commercially reasonable" steps to prevent piracy.
The reasoning behind this is simple. Companies are permitted (under most multimedia patent licenses) to distribute trial versions, provided they are limited to X files, Y plays, etc. (it differs). Where there not a contractual obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure purchasing, someone could start a company, distribute a trial where the copy protection was absolutely trivial, and distribute copies all day long. Open-Source exists as kind of a "grey area" - typically, the patent holders leave people distributing source alone. This provides opportunities for companies to see (and use) different implementations - they just have to pay once they start distributing.
We're smart enough to realize that some degree of piracy actually increases sales, and someone pirating our software who would never buy it isn't a loss of revenue. We try to strike a balance between copy protection and usability - the last thing we want is the pirate copy to be better, more featured, and/or easier to use than a legitimate one. Too many software developers focus on the "how" of copy protection, without focusing on "why".
Part of the reasoning behind the commercial aspect of our software is the ability to be in a position to go "yeah, we'll pay the patent licenses to do this legally". It also lets us hire the best developers in the business, and gives them the time to do things right. Money lets us purchase devices to test on - we support over 600 separate devices, on Palm, Windows CE/Mobile/Embedded, Windows NT2+, Linux, OS X, and Symbian.
We also use a lot of open-source software internally - hoard, horde, apache, openldap, openssl, openssh, etc, etc, etc. It's always nice to be able to give something back.
QUOTE
I just find it obnoxious to say the least that you HAVE to do that.
I wish there were an online version of the licenses - unfortunately, as long as patents on software are permitted, we will be subject to the terms of such licenses. Believe me, we don't like paying hundreds of thousands of dollars and agreeing to their terms, but it's the price of doing business legally in the United States (and other jurisdictions that recognize such patents).
Edit: Fixed a typo, responded to one more sentence.
I find it a bit difficult to accept or believe that they HAVE to do this stuff because they're liable for the infringements caused by pirated copies (They didn't make the infringing, unpaid-for item, the pirates did...royalties are typically owed by things YOU produce...) but they're doing it because they got the short end of the stick on the licensing deal or they're doing it "to be sure" because their Counsel told 'em to.
We're required to take "commercially reasonable" steps to prevent piracy.
The reasoning behind this is simple. Companies are permitted (under most multimedia patent licenses) to distribute trial versions, provided they are limited to X files, Y plays, etc. (it differs). Where there not a contractual obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure purchasing, someone could start a company, distribute a trial where the copy protection was absolutely trivial, and distribute copies all day long. Open-Source exists as kind of a "grey area" - typically, the patent holders leave people distributing source alone. This provides opportunities for companies to see (and use) different implementations - they just have to pay once they start distributing.
We're smart enough to realize that some degree of piracy actually increases sales, and someone pirating our software who would never buy it isn't a loss of revenue. We try to strike a balance between copy protection and usability - the last thing we want is the pirate copy to be better, more featured, and/or easier to use than a legitimate one. Too many software developers focus on the "how" of copy protection, without focusing on "why".
Part of the reasoning behind the commercial aspect of our software is the ability to be in a position to go "yeah, we'll pay the patent licenses to do this legally". It also lets us hire the best developers in the business, and gives them the time to do things right. Money lets us purchase devices to test on - we support over 600 separate devices, on Palm, Windows CE/Mobile/Embedded, Windows NT2+, Linux, OS X, and Symbian.
We also use a lot of open-source software internally - hoard, horde, apache, openldap, openssl, openssh, etc, etc, etc. It's always nice to be able to give something back.
QUOTE
I just find it obnoxious to say the least that you HAVE to do that.
I wish there were an online version of the licenses - unfortunately, as long as patents on software are permitted, we will be subject to the terms of such licenses. Believe me, we don't like paying hundreds of thousands of dollars and agreeing to their terms, but it's the price of doing business legally in the United States (and other jurisdictions that recognize such patents).
Edit: Fixed a typo, responded to one more sentence.
Have all the dev units already gone out -- I'm just curious why it SEEMS like only a select 2 or 3 or so have dev units (based on their posts here; I don't know why a developer would want to remain in the dark so much about having received a dev unit), and why some developers still haven't received one that I figured would easily have had one by now: Skeezix, Tinnus, Exophase, zx-81, etc.
You could imagine from the recent posts on the matter that they're having several problems with the dev-boards, like the PandoraCurve... So I imagine at the moment the boards are only getting to more "core" work-related people, liek kernel work and such.
So I imagine at the moment the boards are only getting to more "core" work-related people, liek kernel work and such.
MWeston
Internal Development
Tinnus is exactly right. For now, Pandora boards are for people doing low level kernel work trying to make a nice stable kernel (and multifunction bootloader) for other developers to use and so there isn't too much to show from a pretty picture/youtube kind of perspective. This includes testing that USB host situation and there does appear to be a solution for it soon (like July, not November ) Some others are using TI EVMs to code applications and menus.
It can be an issue of "too many cooks in the kitchen" with this critical stuff if we just send too many boards to too many people at this point and also some damaged boards has put a nice dent in the time line to get more boards out to more people.
Tinnus, did you get my PM?
) Some others are using TI EVMs to code applications and menus. It can be an issue of "too many cooks in the kitchen" with this critical stuff if we just send too many boards to too many people at this point and also some damaged boards has put a nice dent in the time line to get more boards out to more people.
Tinnus, did you get my PM?
Kyo
Well-Known Member
Thinking about what?
fanoush
Still Fresh
So, umm, which linux kernel version will pandora use? Current linux-omap 2.6.2x one or the one supplied by TI perhaps also with some binary blobs or stuff not merged to linux-omap like their dspbridge? How comes there is nothing (patches, discussions) in linux-omap list about Pandora? Where is the kernel 'community' around Pandora? Where is Pandora kernel source? I can see a lot of traffic related to Beagleboard but nothing about Pandora.MWeston said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Kyo
Well-Known Member
I think I read 2.1x somewhere, but I'm not sure
Squidge
Certified Guru
2.1x? Huh?
At the moment the Pandora doesn't use the TI one, but one specific to Pandora. More details will be released shortly.
At the moment the Pandora doesn't use the TI one, but one specific to Pandora. More details will be released shortly.
