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

[timbobsteve]

My scincerest (spelling*) appologies if anything I have said in the past caused more trouble for this cause.

I do believe hounding Dig and GPH was the only way to go about getting the source release, but I think involving alot of, so called, "GPL nuts" from the /. post was a little off topic. I know it all stemmed from a personal blog, thats fine and all, but I can totally see alot of OSS fans "Jumping on the Band-Wagon" just because of the /. 'ing of this topic. I think that the ppl that have the most right to complain and pester GPH and Dig are the ppl that actually support the GP2X... us. We are deving for it so we get to have a say. Alot of the /. fans don't own a GP2X and probably never will (I hope I am wrong ) they were just a part of a big mob of ppl that were fighting for a cause they knew nothing about.

On another note, I am trully sorry if DJWillis, Craig and ED all recieved hatefull mail... that is not on. Anyone who sent them hate-mail should send in an appology... from day 1 DJ and CraigX have been the biggest supporters of the GP2X.... why would they want to ruin its progress. I think alot of the ppl sent Craig mail because they thought he was the official 'western' spokesperson for GPH... which is not the case... and as such he and other don't deserve to be doused in crap from GPL kiddies that aren't even passionate about the GP2X.

Now this is turning into a rant... sorry... enough of that has already been done. I mainly wanted to say thankyou to ppl like Craig/ED/DJWillis for doing what they have to get the source to us. It is most appreciated and I hope that the few 'childish' ppl that sent you mail, hasn't soured your love of the GP2X.

Hopefully once the code is released we can put this behind us and start building a better console for everyone to use.

 

[bjimba]

My only wish is that a bit more background research had been put into the blog entry that started the ball rolling, whist it’s not a criticism (blogs are all about personal opinions and I respect that) but a little more research and a few targeted e-mails would have at least given an understanding of the work that was going on behind the scenes to resolve the issue and may have lead to a more balanced article that at least highlighted efforts to resolve the issue or pointed to further reading.

Well, I'm glad that wasn't a criticism. That was my blog, and I certainly hope you actually read my post. I thought I did quite a bit of background research, and provided links to almost everything -- including open2x, Dignsys, and the discussion here. Comments, clarifications and flames are all welcomed. I really did try to be restrained and not turn it into a rant.

I'm glad someone copied Craig's little rant here -- seeing as I didn't purchase from there, I didn't see it on that site until it got quoted here.

The main problem I see with the current approach is that no one has mentioned the elephant in the room -- that as things currently stand, it is illegal for Craig or anyone else to be selling the GP2X. The reason is that he does not have a license to distribute the copyrighted code in the kernel. He doesn't have a license because GPH cannot grant him one. They cannot grant him one because Dignsys cannot grant them one. Dignsys does not have a license to redistribute their modified kernel because they have not complied with the GPL, and have made no alternate arrangements with the copyright holders.

No one in the distribution chain is exempt from the provisions of copyright law. If I buy a truckload of bootleg DVD's, I cannot defend reselling them on the street corner by saying that my supplier should have gotten the license. The same thing applys here.

The negotiations with Dignsys should not result in them releasing what they like when they like. If they don't release the MATCHING source for the kernel at the same time as the binaries, then they have not provided GPH with a saleable product, but rather an unlicensed product. Craig and other resellers should be telling GPH in no uncertain terms that every day that this situation continues is another day that they are in violation of copyright law.

It is certainly true that the copyright holders for the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities, mplayer and the rest would rather see compliance than shutdown, as would I. But no one should be trying to convince Dignsys to release out of the goodness of their heart. This is not their first Linux kernel, and they really should know better.

Oh, and DJ, when this does get resolved, I for one will do my best to provide kernel patches to Open2x.

 

[Muncher666]

-- but I think involving alot of, so called, "GPL nuts" from the /. post was a little off topic. I know it all stemmed from a personal blog, thats fine and all, but I can totally see alot of OSS fans "Jumping on the Band-Wagon" just because of the /. 'ing of this topic. I think that the ppl that have the most right to complain and pester GPH and Dig are the ppl that actually support the GP2X... us. We are deving for it so we get to have a say. Alot of the /. fans don't own a GP2X and probably never will (I hope I am wrong ) they were just a part of a big mob of ppl that were fighting for a cause they knew nothing about.

On another note, I am trully sorry if DJWillis, Craig and ED all recieved hatefull mail... that is not on. Anyone who sent them hate-mail should send in an appology... from day 1 DJ and CraigX have been the biggest supporters of the GP2X.... why would they want to ruin its progress. I think alot of the ppl sent Craig mail because they thought he was the official 'western' spokesperson for GPH... which is not the case... and as such he and other don't deserve to be doused in crap from GPL kiddies that aren't even passionate about the GP2X.

​

I apologise for any flammatory remarks, but this whole 'someone going on a big rant that's been done to death' thing was really starting to get on my nerves. I'm all with DJwillis, pro-active all the way, which is why I sent polite emails to Dignsys. You've put my position right there - /.ers don't actually give a shit about (well, most of them) the 2x, just zealously defending GPL, and I think a whole bunch of polite emails are a lot more effective than a bunch of rabid angry letters. Getting up on a soapbox is getting pretty old hat, how about we just wait and see what happens? Yes, it's annoying and a violation - but let's talk about something else, guys..

Allan.

 

[Blah]

I did my part: see my sig.

edit: Fine, I shrunk it.

 

[slygamer]

How can we miss your sig. It's frickin' huge.

 

[Mr.Jabberwocky]

My only wish is that a bit more background research had been put into the blog entry that started the ball rolling, whist it’s not a criticism (blogs are all about personal opinions and I respect that) but a little more research and a few targeted e-mails would have at least given an understanding of the work that was going on behind the scenes to resolve the issue and may have lead to a more balanced article that at least highlighted efforts to resolve the issue or pointed to further reading.

..... and I certainly hope you actually read my post. I thought I did quite a bit of background research ......

​

:lol: Prehaps you should try rereading your quote of DJWillis' post. I hope your comprehension of whatever you researched was better than your comprehension in this case.

It amazes me that you actually want to draw attention to your part in this farce.

 

[Flexinoodle]

Yeah sorry about the rant guys, Letting something else influence my post there, Sorry about that

 

[MiniMoose]

Even if we do get the source code from GPH (ne DiginSys or whoever), we're still going to be fighting an uphill battle to get any fixes into the "official" firmware. I know that many of you out there don't, and won't, care about the official firmware once you can compile your own, but I think it is important to focus our efforts on fixing/enhancing the firmware that GPH will release.

By not focussing on the official firmware, we will create multiple versions of firmware that will confuse the end consumer and dilute the user experience. Imagine if back in 1996, the Linux kernel source was split out into 5 competing versions with vastly different feature sets, it would have destroyed Linux.

Getting the source is good, but getting GPH to set up a community organization based around a single, official, CVS/SVN repository would be way better. I'd like to be able to submit patches that, if good enough, get merged into the official firmware.

Open2X is/was a good idea, but if it turns out that Open2X is competing with the official firmware, I would urge the Open2X people to either shut down their site or try to develop a relationship with GPH in order to merge their efforts into a single firmware release.

It's just not going to be good if there are 5 firmwares with different levels of stability and different sets of features.

 

[Squidge]

Personally, I would like a description of exactly what has changed in each kernel release and why, and then an explanation of why each change could not have been done in a module.

If we can get a stable version of the kernel with good module support, then there should be no need to ever release a new version - patches and additions can all be done via module support.

For example, in the last version we know they changed the sd code and video player stuff (and possibly other stuff too, but these where noticable). There's no reason why the SD and Video code can't be in modules and loaded as and when required. People can then easily remove the sd code if they think it is unstable and write there own module without anyone having to reflash there kernel. It also means that people can pick the best bits - most reliable sd driver, most compatible video driver, etc..

 

[timbobsteve]

Even if we do get the source code from GPH (ne DiginSys or whoever), we're still going to be fighting an uphill battle to get any fixes into the "official" firmware. I know that many of you out there don't, and won't, care about the official firmware once you can compile your own, but I think it is important to focus our efforts on fixing/enhancing the firmware that GPH will release.

By not focussing on the official firmware, we will create multiple versions of firmware that will confuse the end consumer and dilute the user experience. Imagine if back in 1996, the Linux kernel source was split out into 5 competing versions with vastly different feature sets, it would have destroyed Linux.

Getting the source is good, but getting GPH to set up a community organization based around a single, official, CVS/SVN repository would be way better. I'd like to be able to submit patches that, if good enough, get merged into the official firmware.

Open2X is/was a good idea, but if it turns out that Open2X is competing with the official firmware, I would urge the Open2X people to either shut down their site or try to develop a relationship with GPH in order to merge their efforts into a single firmware release.

It's just not going to be good if there are 5 firmwares with different levels of stability and different sets of features.

​

I don't think Open2X is a bad Idea at all. Alot of different devices have many different firmwares. Even the linux kernel has a development version and a stable version (in simple terms).... As far as I see it Open2X would get further quicker, and could be regarded as the Development GP2X kernel, while the GPH/DigSys kernel could be seen as the Stable/'Official' kernel release. After all this is an open source console and one of the benefits of OSS is that there are many different sollutions to the same problem.

I do think it was a little rude to just tell DJWillis to "shut down [their] site" ... DJWillis has gone above and beyond the call of duty for the Dev'ers and Gamers on these forums. I can understand if you want complete/working "certified" kernel releases, but that doesn't mean you should destroy all efforts that are heading in a different direction. Bottom line.... if you want stable kernels, then USE THE GPH ones (for general users of the 2X).... for ppl that want a better (but possibly unstable) kernel then they can use Open2X's kernel releases etc. There is nothing confusing about it.

Go for it DJ ! I am all for Open2X!

 

[BBTroll]

Bottom line.... if you want stable kernels, then USE THE GPH ones (for general users of the 2X).... for ppl that want a better (but possibly unstable) kernel then they can use Open2X's kernel releases etc. There is nothing confusing about it.

​

Are you saying that GPH's kernel is stable?

 

[timbobsteve]

Are you saying that GPH's kernel is stable?

​

Hardly... you and I both know that there is yet to be a stable firware that works for most ppl.

Anyway... beyond that... What I meant is that no one is forcing MiniMoose to use the Open2X kernel once it becomes available.... but just becuse he doesn't want to use it, it doesn't give him the right to tell DJWillis to stop all work on Open2X because it is "confising".... nuff said.

 

[saboteur]

I for one think GPH should drop Digisys and pay DJWillis and others to dev OPEN2X. That way GPH can't be held to ransom over this issue and the O/S devving will be transparrent.

Hats of to DJWillis for trying his damndest throughout this sh** storm that has been none of his doing.

Squidges suggestion of modularising things make a lot of sense - and as stated - will reduce brickings and may improve boot times (dependent on selected modules ).

Just my two penneth, anyhoo.

 

[thebohemian]

Are you saying that GPH's kernel is stable?

​

What I meant is that no one is forcing MiniMoose to use the Open2X kernel once it becomes available.... but just becuse he doesn't want to use it, it doesn't give him the right to tell DJWillis to stop all work on Open2X because it is "confising".... nuff said.

​

Yeah, yeah. Looks like common tried and tested F/OSS development practices are still virgin soil for some ppl.

I think having and independent kernel development team for the GP2X is the best thing since sliced bread ...

 

[Series-8]

Imagine if back in 1996, the Linux kernel source was split out into 5 competing versions with vastly different feature sets, it would have destroyed Linux.

​

Do you even know what you are saying.

BAH! :angry:

There were (easily) MORE than 5 kernel versions in 1996.
CONSUMERS @(^$@(*^*@^% are not involved here.

CONSUMERS blindly CONSUME, they don't submit bug reports, feature requests, give donations to developers, join mailing lists and submit patches. Nor do they program their own OS, programs, or firmwares.

We are OSS Enthusiasts, or to use the better older term (the non-corrupted, oldschool version, by the evil politicians).

Hackers.

I will probably NEVER risk installing one of those INSTA-BRICK firmwares Digisys seems to be pumping out. I would never trust it to work correctly. I expect better support from the GP2X community than Digisys or GPH. We actually seem to have more resources. (or perhaps the will to use what we have)

I say let the myrad firmwares flourish, I want to see 20 versions!

Then I'll take the parts from that I like from the 20 and make 21. Linux's strength is not in numbers or FOSS or really even its high quality (which is suspect sometimes), but its flexibility and mobility.

Edit: jeez, MiniMoose upon further reading your post you sound like a M$ employee... :angry:

 

[drn8]

Hello everyone, Craig here,...... it was made by DignSys and I as well as several people from the GP2X scene have been working hard to make them comply with the GPL.......

-Craig

I take it "working hard" includes ceasing business with DignSys and taking them to court? If you are in fact still in business with them after this whole debacle then shame on you, not only did they take your money and potentially destroy your consumer base, but they are still doing it, making you the fool twice.

I have money burning a hole in my pocket waiting for you to comply with the gpl....I really want one!!

 

[MiniMoose]

Yeah, yeah. Looks like common tried and tested F/OSS development practices are still virgin soil for some ppl.

I think having and independent kernel development team for the GP2X is the best thing since sliced bread ...

​

Hrm. I've been involved with and contributed to the Linux kernel source since 1995. I'm not new to F/OSS at all. I've also made many contributions the F/OSS community, including organizing several projects.

From past experience and evidence from other commercial Linux-based products, I would like to state that I believe the Open2X kernel tree will be the best firmware for the GP2X. It will be stable, it will have far more features, and it is also likely to have gray-area drivers like unlicensed SDIO support. GPH will not be able to match the number of man-hours that the GP2X community will be able to throw at the problem.

The only problem with that situation is that there is no established, transparent, community involved, method for Open2X kernel changes to make it back to GPH. That's what I want to see. I want us to be able to offer patches that will be reviewed and possibly merged into the official firmware.

I want the official firmware from GPH to be the best firmware available for the GP2X so that the platform will attract commercial developers as well as F/OSS developers. So much of the GP2X's success rests on GPH producing the best firmware they can and making the GP2X appeal to the widest possible audience.

If a community firmware such as Open2X is always better, and most GP2X users run that firmware, there will be a serious roadblock for commercial game producers who must run on the official firmware from GPH. If there are only 30,000 GP2X's out there, and only 1,000 of them run the official firmware, then there is barely any financial incentive to make a commercial game. However, if there are 30,000 GP2X's out there that all run the official firmware, then there is a significant opportunity for making some money.

I'm most upset with GPH's apparent unwillingness to go 100% on the F/OSS business model and set up a community contribution feedback channel. Just having a Linux based firmware is not enough.

Also, Squidge is right in that modules make the most sense.

 

[timbobsteve]

MiniMosse: You surprised me... for a little while there I thought you WERE an M$ employee (no hard feelings... )

Your recent post makes much more sense to me... but I don't think that it is Open2X projects fault if GPH have no patch/buggzilla setup for submiting community fixes. If GPH were trully about the community (like they say they are) then they would have had a CVS and bugtracker setup from which the community could work from, from day 1.

I also think that DignSys is the third leg here (no not a penis )... they are a commercial entity that suppliesembeded systems for devices like GP2X. What they usually do is supply the base system and the source code to the emebeded linux (like the first release we have) and let the person who bought it do the rest. Because GPH haven't the man power to do the firmware they have contracted DignSys to do it for them... and it seems that Dig think that they are only working with GPH... they don't understand that WE (community) are just as much a part of the development cycle as GPH is...

Anyways... rumors have started, supposedly the Source for firmware 1.3.0 is going to be out this week.... hmmm... we'll see.

If it does come out how long do you think it will take to get it merged into the Open2X project? Obviously the sooner the better, but I think quality and forthought are more valuable in this case. Open2X has the ability to become the cornerstone of the GP2X.... perhaps this is why the source has not be forthcoming... GPH know that Open2X will overtake the guys that they are PAYING for the same work LOL...

anyways... progress is slowly being made on the issue. I think I will go learn more about linux module programing (any usefull www links???)

See you all soon.

 

[Series-8]

Ok, assuming we get a 1.3.0 source as a nice tarball. Open2X goes to town and fixes most of the outstanding software issues. Why would any developer insist on using a buggy, possibly crippled version of the firmware, "official" or not?

What advantage is it to have the GPH blessed Firmware when (assuming, of course) the community one is better?

Are there really going to be commercial developers, I mean this system is about as niche as you could ask for and still be known.

Is it the DRM?

Thats gotta be it right, I can't think of any other logical reason why Digisys/GPH's code would be 'better' than Open2X. (asumption again that the Open2X 1.3.1, ect will be good)

 

[MiniMoose]

Is it the DRM?

​

Bingo, we have a winner. I suspect the reason they are dragging their feet is their license with the secure digital memory standards people. I bet that the SD support is directly in the kernel instead of in a module so they can't release their full kernel source without violating their SD IP contract.

Obviously if that is the case, they only need to extract the SD IP into a module and release it as a binary-only module. But that takes time.

Commercial developers will probably have to sign a contract with GPH to get their games published. The contract will likely require the developer to use the "official" firmware to ensure a certain level of quality for the end user. That's why I want the official firmware to be the best firmware.