Silence!

[TrashyMG]

It will be interesting if it can boot without a blob (obviously losing internal BT/wifi/GPU functions).

You can without too much issues. You may need to switch up some things for xorg and screen rotation.

From what I understand these driver blobs used for Bluetooth and Wifi are not really special and are bundled in the standard Debian repo, if they're in the free or non-free repo I'm not 100% sure. So those who belong to some kind of software "freedom" religion who find these blobs as sacrilege can just use a BT/WIFI USB dongle that abides to their particular beliefs of "freedom".

 

[oskda]

You should take a look at modern technology instead of relying on your experience with decades old bricks. Just because hardly anyone uses them anymore doesn't mean that they haven't advanced.

This reflections

are from a Pandora, with its resistive layer, or from an outdated brick?

Or do you consider Pandora an outdated brick? (I don't)

 

[Silent-Hunter]

That's weird, I don't notice reflections on mine unless I deliberately try to reflect light off it.

 

[Grench]

This reflections
are from a Pandora, with its resistive layer, or from an outdated brick?

If you switch any capacitive screen phone (iPhone, Galaxy Note 2+) off or to display nearly all black, they reflect worse than your examples above.

That is why the term, "Black Mirror" is so appropriate to the devices.

Now, if you do something on the screen that actually uses the screen with adequate brightness to the surroundings, the reflections pretty well vanish from all of them.

Reflections has nothing to do with the actual technology of the touchscreen. A piece of standard window glass can appear to be reflective if the room behind it is 100% dark.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

That's weird, I don't notice reflections on mine unless I deliberately try to reflect light off it.

Exactly. Resistive touchscreens are matte by design due to the way they work, even matte screens reflect quite well if you want them to.

Reflectivity wasn't my point, and given the wording ("that resistive layer is really horrible... and reflective.") it wasn't the main point of criticism either. The worst part of old resistive screens has always been the awful sensitivity, and that really has changed a lot.

 

[oskda]

You can without too much issues. You may need to switch up some things for xorg and screen rotation.

From what I understand these driver blobs used for Bluetooth and Wifi are not really special and are bundled in the standard Debian repo, if they're in the free or non-free repo I'm not 100% sure. So those who belong to some kind of software "freedom" religion who find these blobs as sacrilege can just use a BT/WIFI USB dongle that abides to their particular beliefs of "freedom".

If it can boot without custom firmware or closed driver/blob, it is a good point, even if you decide not to use in that way and to use BT/Wifi/GPU closed drivers.

With modern Intel (and other manufactures) you boot with closed firmware and that firmware controls ALWAYS your computer.

It is not about religion, but about who is the real OWNER of the device the user has paid, who can really control it.

 

[levi]

Can you specify what blob do you mean ?
I've been assuming (I usually try to make sure about this things before I pay, but it's been so long I'm not sure my memory is right) that you could run
a Pyra without blobs (deblobing hms linux or patching the litlle delta on linux-libre).
Then you didn't get wifi or BT (you can use an USB dongle) and you have unaccelerated graphics (just display), but the rest works. Maybe the modem does
not work if you don't load the blob to the modem.

But you sound like if the only way to boot a pyra is with some blob inside the kernel ?

I think we were talking about the binary blob that supports OpenGLes. There's an open source shim kernel object which hooks into the kernel, which itself hooks in the binary blob so it's all running with kernel privs. If you eliminate that shim api you'll disable OpenGLes (and probably other bits like the image subsystem or the DSP alone), but the kernel itself should still boot. Hopefully 2d graphics should still work, but I'd need someone with a devboard to explicitly test that out to be sure.

Edit: Invoking boot from open causes problems for almost everything I suspect. Most ARM chips have a pre-boot algorithm implemented in silicon which searches for uboot, but I personally trust that not to do anything too nefarious because I can cross compile aiming at a pure armv7 target and it runs okay on the device.

 

[TrashyMG]

It is not about religion, but about who is the real OWNER of the device the user has paid, who can really control it.

Well some take software freedom to levels that make most religious extremists look progressive.

 

[oskda]

That's weird, I don't notice reflections on mine unless I deliberately try to reflect light off it.

When we use displays with that problem (a resistive layer), and I have used a lot of them, we automatically orientate it in a way with little or no reflections.

Please look at a computer with a good mate non-refective display (for example some Thinkpad, not all of tjem). You never can get an image like those I show with Pandora.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

When we use displays with that problem (a resistive layer), and I have used a lot of them, we automatically orientate it in a way with little or no reflections.

We orientate them like that because 90° is obviously the most natural angle to look at them. Being less reflective is just a nice side effect.

You never can get an image like those I show with Pandora.

Cameras tend to record the light differently than human eyes, though. Even with the filters in their lenses they still record a lot of non-visible light that will appear in their pictures.

Please look at a computer with a good mate non-refective display (for example some Thinkpad, not all of tjem). You never can get an image like those I show with Pandora.

Oh, of course you can get an image like that. People just usually don't turn their backlight that low. My T60p reflects plenty like that if the backlight is off or on a low setting.

 

[oskda]

If you switch any capacitive screen phone (iPhone, Galaxy Note 2+) off or to display nearly all black, they reflect worse than your examples above.

....

Reflections has nothing to do with the actual technology of the touchscreen. A piece of standard window glass can appear to be reflective if the room behind it is 100% dark.

¿Does Pandora reflect or it doesn't? Obviously it does.

On other side I see Pyra (or Pandora) like a pocket personal computer, with its physical keyboard and controls (it isn't a smartphone and it doesn't rely in a touch display like most modern smartphones do). So I think on notebooks with mate non-reflective screen.

If you look for example at some Thinkpad with a good mate non-reflective screen you will understand what a non-refelective screen is.

And I have never seen a screen with resistive layer without reflective problems, never. All devices with resistive layer I have seen had reflections, no one was non-reflective matte.

¿Why Amazon choose to put infrared sensor instead of a cheaper and more simple resistive layer? Simply: because those layers make reflections.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

¿Does Pandora reflect or it doesn't? Obviously it does.

All screens reflect, that's plain physics. The question is how much of it is being blended over by the screen's backlight or the pixels' own light emission.

I don't know about you, but I tend to turn the backlight to minimum as far as I can still read the screen because it saves a lot of battery. That automatically makes reflections more of a problem, regardless of the type of screen.

What makes modern smartphone screens so readable despite their extremely reflective glass screens is the simple fact that the OLEDs' light intensity is so high that it easily blends over the light being reflected by the screen. OLED screens have their own bunch of issues, though.

 

[oskda]

Exactly. Resistive touchscreens are matte by design due to the way they work, even matte screens reflect quite well if you want them to.

Reflectivity wasn't my point, and given the wording ("that resistive layer is really horrible... and reflective.") it wasn't the main point of criticism either. The worst part of old resistive screens has always been the awful sensitivity, and that really has changed a lot.

I don't know if they are matte, but I know all those resistive layers I have seen cause reflections, and that manufactures who want to avoid reflections go to other type of display. For example some bad e-ink reader has resistive layer, and REFLECTIONS, while other manufactures wanting touch input opted to use IR sensor so they didn't add reflections due to reflective layer.

«The worst part of old resistive screens has always been the awful sensitivity»: I think you are wrong other time: a lot of time ago (like 9-10 years) there were resistive screens with very goo sensitivity. My old Nokia with Symbian and resistive screen had excellent sensitivity (the minor pressure, near no-pressure, and touch was perfectly registered). But reflections were there, of course.
[doublepost=1520018789,1520017871][/doublepost]

All screens reflect, that's plain physics. The question is how much of it is being blended over by the screen's backlight or the pixels' own light emission.

.... OLED screens have their own bunch of issues, though.

Yes, all screens reflect, but some reflect very little (for example some matte non-reflective displays) and they are a pleasure to use. On other side resistive screens, all that I have seen, reflect a lot of and they are note so a pleasure.

When I used pocket computers with resistive displays I learned to orient it in a way it has less reflections, but the problem is there. It is not like a proper non-reflective matte display.

I know that some screens can have a very high bright mode which can compensate some part of the reflections, but not all the problem is compensated.

About OLED displays: I don't like them for a lot of reasons (for example shorer life) but that is another history. I prefer a good LCD for Pyra: LCD screens are near eternal.
[doublepost=1520019877][/doublepost]

Reflections has nothing to do with the actual technology of the touchscreen. A piece of standard window glass can appear to be reflective if the room behind it is 100% dark.

It may be that air gap between LCD and resistive layer add up for reflection. All resistive screens I have seen have reflection problems, and no one is like a good matte non-reflective display.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

It may be that air gap between LCD and resistive layer add up for reflection.

That causes refraction, not reflection. The big issue with finding a good resistive touchscreen for the Pyra was that the screen's high DPI didn't really work well with the refraction caused by most touchscreens - at some point it causes color shifts by presenting the light of the subpixels unevenly.

 

[Djhg2000]

Unfortunately this is how most of my research into high performance blob-free SoCs ends:
They end up being just slightly different levels of proprietary.

 

[Grench]

some bad e-ink reader has resistive layer, and REFLECTIONS

Yes, all screens reflect, but some reflect very little (for example some matte non-reflective displays) and they are a pleasure to use. On other side resistive screens, all that I have seen, reflect a lot of and they are note so a pleasure.

When I used pocket computers with resistive displays I learned to orient it in a way it has less reflections, but the problem is there. It is not like a proper non-reflective matte display.

I know that some screens can have a very high bright mode which can compensate some part of the reflections, but not all the problem is compensated.

About OLED displays: I don't like them for a lot of reasons (for example shorer life) but that is another history. I prefer a good LCD for Pyra: LCD screens are near eternal.

It may be that air gap between LCD and resistive layer add up for reflection. All resistive screens I have seen have reflection problems, and no one is like a good matte non-reflective display.

OK - I think I understand what you're on about. There are three things going on here.

1. Screen technology (LCD, OLED, e-ink)

2. Touch screen (Resistive, Capacitive)

3. Glossy Vs. Matte surface layer

Regardless of 1 or 2 above, 3 could be either glossy or matte.

Using the same screen, a glossy surface will be brighter and have better visibility in bright (outdoor) conditions.
Using the same screen, a matte surface will be dimmer and have fewer reflections in dim (indoor) conditions.

Over the lifespan of the Pandora, there were both matte and glossy screens used. The original CC Pandora had a matte screen. The later 1Ghz model initially shipped with a somewhat brighter, but glossier screen.

Both used resistive touch layers.

 

[oskda]

OK - I think I understand what you're on about. There are three things going on here.

1. Screen technology (LCD, OLED, e-ink)

2. Touch screen (Resistive, Capacitive)

3. Glossy Vs. Matte surface layer

Regardless of 1 or 2 above, 3 could be either glossy or matte.

Yes, but adding a resistive layer always get a more reflective screen. At least that is what I have seen.

For example if you get a good e-ink display, when you add a resistive layer, screen reflection is much more worse, even if original e-ink display was low reflective. And that is the reason moving some e-ink manufactures to use a more expensive and complicated IR system for touch input instead of simpler and cheaper resistive layer.

Using the same screen, a glossy surface will be brighter and have better visibility in bright (outdoor) conditions.
Using the same screen, a matte surface will be dimmer and have fewer reflections in dim (indoor) conditions.

I suppose a glossy screen can be brighter, but I have seen cases where a dimmer matte non-reflective screen gets better results. One example on a cloudy day and not under direct sunlight:

T480s (left) vs. X1 Carbon HDR (right). X1 Carbon is brighter but glossy, and T480s matte is better although dimmer (source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2018-WQHD-HDR-i7-Laptop-Review.284682.0.html )

 

[Grench]

I suppose a glossy screen can be brighter, but I have seen cases where a dimmer matte non-reflective screen gets better results. One example on a cloudy day and not under direct sunlight:
T480s (left) vs. X1 Carbon HDR (right). X1 Carbon is brighter but glossy, and T480s matte is better although dimmer (source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2018-WQHD-HDR-i7-Laptop-Review.284682.0.html )

I know that ED went through several iterations of screen & touchscreen layers to get it exactly how he wanted with the best visibility, lowest ghosting, etc... He's pretty picky and I trust his judgment on it.

Your above arguments can be summarized as, "It is a resistive touchscreen layer therefore it is going to have loads of reflections and suck." If you actually had a Pyra in hand while making these claims, OK. But all the above is about is, well - fear, uncertainty and doubt.

There isn't much point in arguing with you because you're not here to be convinced that it is going to be OK - you're here to stir things up and ...

Well, what IS your objective in raising fears over screen reflectivity in a device that hasn't shipped yet?

 

[oskda]

I know that ED went through several iterations of screen & touchscreen layers to get it exactly how he wanted with the best visibility, lowest ghosting, etc... He's pretty picky and I trust his judgment on it.

Your above arguments can be summarized as, "It is a resistive touchscreen layer therefore it is going to have loads of reflections and suck." If you actually had a Pyra in hand while making these claims, OK. But all the above is about is, well - fear, uncertainty and doubt.

There isn't much point in arguing with you because you're not here to be convinced that it is going to be OK - you're here to stir things up and ...

Well, what IS your objective in raising fears over screen reflectivity in a device that hasn't shipped yet?

You talk about "suck" and that you TRUST someone.

Well, I don't TRUST someone, I trust knowledge, experience and examination: in my experience (I have seen a lot of resistive displays), resistive layer is worse (more reflections). I have never seen a resistive layer (that is plastic with something more) to be less reflective, but the opposite. Obviously I will wait for Pyra and I will evaluate it when it be final, but I don't trust someone for being someone like you do.

Obviously ED made a lot of expectations he could not meet (time to ship and others). But you can trust the messiah you choose, of course

I value ED for its work, but he isn't infallible (although we would like, and we would have Pyra a few years ago)

 

[ible]

i've never expected my computer screens to be daylight readable.

are we being picky?