GP2X [rant] Why Isn't Gph Embracing The Dev Community?

[Flexinoodle]

I think you're wrong but only time will tell

 

[timbobsteve]

I think the main concern alot of the disgruntled ppl on this thread are angry about is the lack of compliance with the GPL. It is a fact that GPH has been less than forthcoming with the source releases, even if they are sub-contracted. The GPL says there should almost be symaltanious releases of the source with each update. I understand that this is not always possible, but still.... 3 months in and we still haven't seen the firmware for 1.0.1???? Less than acceptable under the GPL.

The main reason alot of devs are angry about the lack of source is because they know that everyone here is commited to making a bug free console... and if they had the source they could have it done in half the time it will take DigiSyn to do it..... SD Card problems could be fixed within hours.... not weeks... video problems would be fixed in a couple of days.... dev's would embrace the source... they would grab it and run with it completely... we would most likely see a stable release within a few months and from then on it would only get better.

Don't get me wrong... I am all for GPH and the GP2X... but I just think that if GPH have such a small dev team (3 devs) then why not subcontract the biggest most efficient ppl to do the coding.... THE COMMUNITY!

My 2 cents.... either way, I am on board the GP2X for better or worse... I love it... I just wish I could get a diff Firmware running (still on 1.0.1 because of card incompatabilities)

 

[Series-8]

Is there such a thing as a GCC decompiler...?

You could then compare the extracted source to a base source and get a list of changes...

Yes, yes it would be a ultra horrible way to do things... reverse engineering GPL software...I could get burned at the stake for even suggesting it...

 

[timbobsteve]

Reverse engineering is not really a great option... especially when the GPL says we, the developers, should have unlimited access to the source.

 

[Radek]

Is there such a thing as a GCC decompiler...?

A disassembler? This isn't a problem but needed effort would be.

You could then compare the extracted source to a base source and get a list of changes...

No. There isn't a program what could do "decompiling" it such way its output could be similiar to original source. It'd be a a mess to work with...

Yes, yes it would be a ultra horrible way to do things... reverse engineering GPL software...I could get burned at the stake for even suggesting it...

​

Better just write code from start. It'd be both legal and quicker.

 

[crusty]

Hi All:

I am a developer with over 25 years experience in programming and
software design. None of it has been in game programming but some
has been in real-time systems. A lot has been on small computers.
I wrote my own 8086 compiler for the Oberon language (successor to
Pascal and Modula-2 for those who care). That alone took a year of near
full time effort.

I wonder how many of the people writing to these fora really understand
how difficult the programming task can be. I have seen many a project
fail or fizzle - only some due to my effort or lack thereof. Please give
GPH the benefit of the doubt for at least a year after first release of the
gp2x. It will take that long or more to sift out bugs.

After looking carefully at other handheld consoles I have concluded the
gp2x is right for my application (GPS mapping) and I hope all these
negative thoughts will not stifle the market for the only truly open
system currently available.

 

[stinch]

I wonder how many of the people writing to these fora really understand
how difficult the programming task can be. I have seen many a project
fail or fizzle - only some due to my effort or lack thereof. Please give
GPH the benefit of the doubt for at least a year after first release of the
gp2x. It will take that long or more to sift out bugs.

​

I think a lot of the people here really do understand that and that is why such a fuss is being made about the GPL. A fair bit of source I have written has been released under GPL and a lot of other people here will be in the same boat.

Sure lots of people just used GPL because the project they wanted to contribute to used it or becasue it's popular but a lot of people use it because they aggree with what it says. If they wanted people like GPH to use it for a year and not release the source they would have used a different license.

GPH are using code that a massive number of developers spent time and effort writing. Why should GPH get to ignore the license just because it's inconvient?
Surly that argument would support me cracking expensive software and using it while trying to save up the money to buy it.

 

[crusty]

I wonder how many of the people writing to these fora really understand
how difficult the programming task can be. I have seen many a project
fail or fizzle - only some due to my effort or lack thereof. Please give
GPH the benefit of the doubt for at least a year after first release of the
gp2x. It will take that long or more to sift out bugs.

​

I think a lot of the people here really do understand that and that is why such a fuss is being made about the GPL. A fair bit of source I have written has been released under GPL and a lot of other people here will be in the same boat.

Sure lots of people just used GPL because the project they wanted to contribute to used it or becasue it's popular but a lot of people use it because they aggree with what it says. If they wanted people like GPH to use it for a year and not release the source they would have used a different license.

GPH are using code that a massive number of developers spent time and effort writing. Why should GPH get to ignore the license just because it's inconvient?
Surly that argument would support me cracking expensive software and using it while trying to save up the money to buy it.

​

Although I have not looked at it, I understand that GPH has released a copy
of their source. It may be out of date, but yesterday's code will be out of
date in a project that has had three public updates in less than two months.

I suspect that opening up the source using CVS might make matters worse
if the flood of suggested code changes required more time for GPH staff to
review and implement than to do their own work.

 

[evening2005]

I wonder how many of the people writing to these fora really understand
how difficult the programming task can be. I have seen many a project
fail or fizzle - only some due to my effort or lack thereof. Please give
GPH the benefit of the doubt for at least a year after first release of the
gp2x. It will take that long or more to sift out bugs.

​

I think a lot of the people here really do understand that and that is why such a fuss is being made about the GPL. A fair bit of source I have written has been released under GPL and a lot of other people here will be in the same boat.

Sure lots of people just used GPL because the project they wanted to contribute to used it or becasue it's popular but a lot of people use it because they aggree with what it says. If they wanted people like GPH to use it for a year and not release the source they would have used a different license.

GPH are using code that a massive number of developers spent time and effort writing. Why should GPH get to ignore the license just because it's inconvient?
Surly that argument would support me cracking expensive software and using it while trying to save up the money to buy it.

​

Although I have not looked at it, I understand that GPH has released a copy
of their source. It may be out of date, but yesterday's code will be out of
date in a project that has had three public updates in less than two months.

I suspect that opening up the source using CVS might make matters worse
if the flood of suggested code changes required more time for GPH staff to
review and implement than to do their own work.

​

Why? GPH don't have to put the code on CVS and if they decide to do so, they don't have to accept anyone's suggestions. The point is that making the up-to-date code available lets someone else put up a CVS server and accept updates, if they choose to do so. This isn't a practical matter and it doesn't matter at all about how many employees GPH have. GPH have an obligation under copyright law to release the source code to the software they are distributing.

 

[RiX0R]

After looking carefully at other handheld consoles I have concluded the
gp2x is right for my application (GPS mapping)

​

Um, are you definitely sure about that?

I think you'd be better off with a bluetooth-capable PDA and a bluetooth GPS receiver (or something like that). There isn't even a way to connect the GP2X with a GPS receiver yet (short of you building one yourself, that is. If you're into that, by all means go ahead).

 

[DaveC]

I think we should have some patients. You can be quick to say that GPH being small is no excuse, but reality can be a bitch. Right now they have alot of issues they are trying to suss out. They have a dodgy joystick to fix, buggy FW, TV-out cables that are faulty, video,audio, players etc to de-bug and more. That is alot of work and takes alot of time for a tiny company like this, that is a fact, they are not Sony. Getting source code ready to distribute for a bunch of whining linux geeks is probably not top on the list. Eventually they will release the source just maybe not the day you want it.

You have a couple of options. You can wait a bit while giving polite reminders to them that the sources should be released. Then wait.

You could have them sued out of business for violating the GPL. In this case you wont have a GP2X to worry about source code for anymore.

 

[Squidge]

I believe the problem is that Dignsys are doing the Kernel for GPH, and as such, they want to keep it to themselves, as GPH are obviously paying dignsys an unknown amount of money for this job, and dignsys want to keep receiving that money for as long as possible. This would also explain why Dignsys don't want to release the source code.

Not to worry though, as no doubt someone will "send the boys round" if they keep this up

 

[evening2005]

I think we should have some patients. You can be quick to say that GPH being small is no excuse, but reality can be a bitch. Right now they have alot of issues they are trying to suss out. They have a dodgy joystick to fix, buggy FW, TV-out cables that are faulty, video,audio, players etc to de-bug and more.

This may all be true, but it doesn't relate even slightly to the GPL.

That is alot of work and takes alot of time for a tiny company like this, that is a fact, they are not Sony. Getting source code ready to distribute for a bunch of whining linux geeks is probably not top on the list. Eventually they will release the source just maybe not the day you want it.

Calling people who respect the GPL "whining Linux geeks" doesn't affect GPH's obligations under the GPL either. I don't think of myself as a "whining" anything, but I've gained enormously from GPLed software (and not just financially) and I believe that - even if we ignore the copyright issues - those who release their software under that licence (or any licence for that matter) should have their wishes respected.

You have a couple of options. You can wait a bit while giving polite reminders to them that the sources should be released. Then wait.

You could have them sued out of business for violating the GPL. In this case you wont have a GP2X to worry about source code for anymore.

​

I for one don't have any code in the Linux kernel, so I'm not in a position to sue anyone. Even if I did have code in the kernel, I wouldn't sue GPH, because it happens that I'm having a lot of fun with my GP2X and I wouldn't want them to go out of business. Furthermore, the level at which I'm using the GP2X is for programming games - I'm not doing remotely anything like kernel hacking, so the availability of the source code is for me a moot point at best.

I see two problems with GPH's position: First of all, even if the people who have GP2Xs are desperate to see GPH succeed, there must be many hundreds of contributors to the Linux kernel and the othe software on the GP2X who don't have GP2Xs or don't care about GPH's fate. So GPH should be concerned that one of them will start thinking about enforcing copyrights. The other issue is that by not releasing the source in a timely manner, they are (arguably) losing out on a major resource in trying to get the firmware bugs fixed. You are right to call GPH a small company, so why doesn't this small company try to leverage a community which is overwhelmingly well-disposed to them (ie ours)?

 

[crusty]

After looking carefully at other handheld consoles I have concluded the
gp2x is right for my application (GPS mapping)

​

Um, are you definitely sure about that?

I think you'd be better off with a bluetooth-capable PDA and a bluetooth GPS receiver (or something like that). There isn't even a way to connect the GP2X with a GPS receiver yet (short of you building one yourself, that is. If you're into that, by all means go ahead).

​

Given the relative costs of PDA and bluetooth GPS compared to gp2x and
a wired GPS, it is a no-brainer. PLUS, the cost of batteries becomes an
issue if you want to use these tools over an eight hour period.

I have found a GPS receiver (Rikaline) with a 5 volt TTL output and RS-232
signalling which should be a close match to the EXT port on the gp2x. So,
I need to prepare a suitable cable and also factor in power supplied from
the autombile 12 volt moron lighter. Rikaline makes such a power cable.
Now I need to mate it with a gp2x power adaptor all in the same connector,
so that the lighter plug becomes a central wiring point for power and data
for both devices to simplify the visible wiring.

 

[Fiendicus_Prime]

Finally what Squidge just wrote makes sense to me. I couldn't understand why GPH weren't embracing the dev community more and getting source releases out so bugs could be squashed - it could only be to their advantage. The fact that the source releases need to come from a subcontractor (Dignsys) with their own interests makes a lot more sense.

Regarding competition from a "totally open" handheld - how long do you think it would take GPH / Dignsys to get the source released if there was any real risk of a migration to that platform? Here's hoping someone makes one to get the process moving!!

In time I think it will all come good. As others have said this is the best choice for an "open" handheld at the moment - sure it's not perfect, but it leads the way in the right direction.

 

[timbobsteve]

I am just annoyed because alot of devs here would like to work on getting the kernel / firmware stable for the users of the GP2X. I think if there was at least one release of the current source devs could set up and alternate branch and users could choose between the constantly changing CVS / Open Source kernel/fw or GPH's slowly developing, sub-contracted kernel from digisyn.

Knowing the capabilities of the GPL and its proof in linux, I know that a source code release would only be another step towards success for GPH. As long as the source is slow in coming forward GPH will have more problems to fix than it can handle.

 

[chris_r]

I think instead of everyone bitching about this we should actually come up with a plan of action.

First off I think we actually need Craig in here to tell us what is actually going on down at gph and what they're doing with the software.

Second of all we need the linux gurus to come along and write a letter or email or something explaining how the gpl works and how they can also benefit from releasing their source and possibly maintaining it in a cvs setup.

And lastly we need some of the members here who are fluent in korean to translate it for us because the language barrier seems to be a big problem and gph doesnt seem to be coping well with annas translating skills all the time.

 

[timbobsteve]

I second that cris_r !

How can Craig help tho? Is he close the the GPH devs ? If so, thats kool, perhaps he would have a better chance at explaining some things for us.

 

[Squidge]

Craig is already doing things, no doubt he'll tell us all in due time as soon as he gets some info. No use pestering him unnecessarily; he knows whats going on, and reads these boards regularly.

I really do think the big barrier is Dignsys - they are obviously being paid, but no one knows exactly how, when or exactly what for. They are obviously worried that if they release too much code, groups of people will get together and make it better, possibly taking them out of the loop (and thus losing money). It's these people, if any, you need to target. I don't think GPH have a lot of control over this issue (well, I suppose they could refuse to pay them, but then if someone else doesn't take up the job, what are they going to do then?)

 

[timbobsteve]

I really do think the big barrier is Dignsys - they are obviously being paid, but no one knows exactly how, when or exactly what for. They are obviously worried that if they release too much code, groups of people will get together and make it better, possibly taking them out of the loop (and thus losing money). It's these people, if any, you need to target. I don't think GPH have a lot of control over this issue (well, I suppose they could refuse to pay them, but then if someone else doesn't take up the job, what are they going to do then?)

If dignsys don't comply and GPH were to drop them as a sub-contractor then GPH could demand a source release and then turn it over to the community for completion... It would be messy, but GPH would by no means be left in the dark.