Where Is The Firmware

[abigsmurf]

To be honest your whole post is completely wrong.

​

erm no it isn't

it's still going to be reliant on people risking bricking their units to test each iterative version. With lots of little bits of pieces being added all the time, how many times will people be taking this risk? having the same code worked on by multiple people is hard enough when people are working together in an office and have rigid oranisation, does the open2x project have the structure in place to vet four or five sections of code from different people, all of which run to several hundred lines and rely on each others code all submitted within a few days of each other for instance?

It's still no doubt going to introduce incompatibilities with existing software.

You're going to end up with a minimum of two firmware versions going concurrently. Of course official releases could also cease and we could end up with little to no input from the people with the most knowledge of the hardware

 

[Cyclops]

erm no it isn't

it's still going to be reliant on people risking bricking their units to test each iterative version. With lots of little bits of pieces being added all the time, how many times will people be taking this risk? having the same code worked on by multiple people is hard enough when people are working together in an office and have rigid oranisation, does the open2x project have the structure in place to vet four or five sections of code from different people, all of which run to several hundred lines and rely on each others code all submitted within a few days of each other for instance?

It's still no doubt going to introduce incompatibilities with existing software.

You're going to end up with a minimum of two firmware versions going concurrently. Of course official releases could also cease and we could end up with little to no input from the people with the most knowledge of the hardware

​

The question should be asked is why currently there is no safe way of updating the GP2X that is a fault of how the current sytem *doesn't work*. Esp since several verions of linux(the kernel) can co-exist at one time. Its not like the firmware is/will ever be finalised.

I'm sure everyone would prefer if as other companies have done. GPH drove it, clearly they are not capable or they would not have sub-contracted to another company, and I hope they haven't been paid yet, otherwise GPH have been truly stuffed.

BTW is anyone stupid enough to pay someone for a job let them install in on over 1000 products rely on it and not have the source. I suspect GPH are lying about not having the source otherwise they earn major stupid points.

Open2X concern for the kernel if successful should make zero diffences to anything. Thats the point of the kernel, Its provides a common interface to the hardware. If your refering to all the stuff on top thats a different matter, but not really relevent here as there is so little of it, and 95% of what I run has little or nothing to with GPH.

If you are refering to libaries etc I think you will already see that is already happening, SDL is faster, Is that price worth inconsistany. You are actually arguing against evolution :blink:

I suspect if GPH have to subcontract they will stop work as soon as possible,

 

[evening2005]

To be honest your whole post is completely wrong.

​

erm no it isn't

it's still going to be reliant on people risking bricking their units to test each iterative version. With lots of little bits of pieces being added all the time, how many times will people be taking this risk? having the same code worked on by multiple people is hard enough when people are working together in an office and have rigid oranisation, does the open2x project have the structure in place to vet four or five sections of code from different people, all of which run to several hundred lines and rely on each others code all submitted within a few days of each other for instance?

It's still no doubt going to introduce incompatibilities with existing software.

You're going to end up with a minimum of two firmware versions going concurrently. Of course official releases could also cease and we could end up with little to no input from the people with the most knowledge of the hardware

​

But all you've written is an argument for not releasing the source. But that isn't something you can argue for because the source must be released. In short, I don't understand what you're arguing for.

 

[Mikey242]

Although I seminally agree with you, I feel you're introducing more flamage to the forums... the basic point that most people are trying to make is that GPL violation equals a lack of legally deserved freedom, and I agree with that. I also agree with you that all of this yelling and screaming about it is futile. It irks me that certain people who are crusading over all of this business will do absoloutely nothing with the source. But you come from a community who are trying to make the GP2X better, and you as a consumer (hell, I am as well) should also at least be quietly upset about this. I'm personally a very patient man, and I'm quite happy to wait - but I helped (at least, I think I did) in a friendly and un-obtrusive manner - what I'm trying to say is if all of the people who hounded Dignsys/GPH had done it with a nicely written and polite letter, I'm sure we'd be getting more official response out of them. I was getting constant, quick replies from Dignsys before they got so many abusive emails. I'm ranting - so here it is, you can normally make your point without being rude, sarcastic and above all, fucking bratty.

Allan.

EDITED: to cut bulk of quote. By the way Deed, I wouldn't be quite so proud of that.

​

Thank you.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

I'm trying to figure out what this means. It sounds like you're bashing the likes of me? but.... I really don't know. Do you mean to say that all of us who want the source are going to get nothing of it? That's interesting. Because FluffyPanda seems interested in at least taking part in the development of the Community OS. And I'm sure there are many others. What we have yet to see is something constructive, an amssing of all those interested in working on an OS that will, of course, use the coveted source, and a compiling of all the goals said OS will hope to acheive.

And... I don't think the point of this is to get the masses interested in Linux. We, I guess, kind of want a better product, if that makes any sense. :huh:

For your competition of producing meaningful additions, I for one will be exempt because I'm not 'flaming', I'm 'informing'.

​

I'm not 'bashing' ... I'm merely pointing out what seems to happen when these sort of 'religious' discussions turn into the heated flames that I seem to see directed at GPH (who, as I understand it, isn't even RESPONSIBLE directly to the firmware - if someone sells me a chip for a project, and they do something wrong, I shouldn't be held liable for their actions - please correct me if I'm mistaken).

I believe there is a time and place for open source solutions and a time and place for commercial software. I understand that SOMEONE isn't playing to the spirit and apparently legal moniker of GPL. But, all this just ISN'T HELPING anyone.

Believe me - if I could code in anything worth a crap, I'd be doing GP2x projects left and right (I still may write games when a decent game-only language comes along - I'm not going to hang myself learning C when I can get something high level designed specifically for games). I'd pick a project and help.

Am I pissed I can't play MPGs (despite originally being promised I could)? YOU BET YOUR ASS. Hell, its still in the Wiki that you can play MPGs. If I had the source code available, right now, as everyone is screaming about - no matter HOW MUCH I want MPG playback - I couldn't affect a change. So, I'd channel my energies elsewhere to improve the community offering while I wait for someone else to fix it.

Its not like we've been told "You will never get the source code". Sure, we've had some time slippage, but hell anyone that's a PROFESSIONAL developer (sorry, not to sound like a dick, but open source coders seem to have a luxury of 'whenever I feel like it' when it comes to deadlines, milestones, etc.) understands that timetables slip ... requirements change ... unforseen acts of God happen. Could the company CLUE US IN a little better, yes. But as a developer myself (client server, no real languages there) I DEFINTELY understand the concept of 1) time slippages and 2) telling the customer their crap is going to be delayed and I don't know when it will actually release now. The source code will come.

Now, if people want to scream about the joystick on the GP2x ... that's something that NOTHING other than shipping the unit back or buying a new one will fix - THAT is something I could get behind and cry FOUL about.

Would I like an OS that boots in less than 30 seconds? Sure thing. Would I like better battery management? Damn straight. Would I like to be able to play MPGs as promised? Yes. But my situation WILL IMPROVE eventually - and source or not, there is NOTHING I can do to speed things up. I think MOST people viewing this are in the same boat.

I'm damn pleased with the GP2x community for the spirit and drive. I really am - and my posts aren't meant to take shots at anyone. I'm HELLA grateful at the hard work of others (and I've spoken with my wallet - I think I've sent over $100 in donations to GP2x software authors).

I'm just trying to level things out a bit.

 

[Rayek]

Thanks for that one helluva clarification. Your argument makes complete sense this way. (And I'm not being sarcastic.) The main reason that I've been so verbal is that I have just gone from wondering, "why the hell do people want this source thing, anyway", to understanding why it's a good thing for the community. I'm not for taking legal action, and I'm definitely against any agressive action, until it is absolutely necessary, and they outright refuse. I'm not one to get silly over release dates (I still don't have my GP2X that I 'pre-ordered' from Lik-Sang, and while I'm bitter, I'm accepting my fate, and seeing the good that comes from it), so when it comes, it comes.

My 'crusade' seems to be much different than others here who want stuff NOW, and will do anything to get it. I just want people to realize that the people who are eager for the source aren't all 'GPL zealots', or 'rabid Linux penguins'. There is an actual point that Linux has this model in the first place, and it only serves to benefit the community, regardless if anything comes from it that I'll use or find useful. Someone will. And on RGR, you always state that it's an 'open handheld', I would've thought you'd be a little more insistant as this is (beleive it or not) one of the major selling points of the GP2X.

But if this firmware gets released without a source (I don't care how long it takes...), mine, and others' patience will be wearing thin. For me, not because it's the 'law', because it's preventing us from making the system we want to make.

Edit: Also, it puts my GP2X order in jeopardy, because if Lik-Sang got miffed because of some unstable bugs in the firmware, they'll definitely pull orders (as will everyone else) if this controversy goes hugely public. I, simply, won't get a GP2X. So I'm definitely not for legal action. Distributors are going to notice, though, if the next firmware is released without a source, that's why I'm chomping at the bit for it, as soon as possible. To protect the (and my) GP2X from the GPL zealots, as it were

 

[DijiTao]

I think alot of times people over estimate how complicated working with Linux sources can be. Yes, there's some really hard stuff if your actually making changing to the code, but there's also really simple stuff – you wouldn't believe how easy it is to patch and compile a kernel for instance. I know when I ran Gentoo it literally was this hard:

cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig
<Move around the menu config menu and toggle some stuff on or off>
make dep && make bzImage modules modules_install
cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/<kernel-version>

ta-da! - that's pretty much it, just a matter of editing your boot loader and rebooting into your freshly compiled kernel. So if I had the kernel source adding support for various odds and ends is a pretty easy thing to do, or disabling support for things that don't make any sense to support is also easy. I know that personally I'm pretty sure that I would be able to make atleast some improvement to the gp2x's boot time by just rolling a more streamlined kernel and editing the init scripts – that's really nothing that hard to do.

-However-
What I do concede about the brick point is that yes it's way to easy, and as given the risk I won't be screwing with the contents of the on board memory any time soon. My *hope* is that someone brighter then me will be able to take the source to U-boot and add support for booting off the SD Card. Once we have that, let the experimentation begin.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

, regardless if anything comes from it that I'll use or find useful. Someone will. And on RGR, you always state that it's an 'open handheld', I would've thought you'd be a little more insistant as this is (beleive it or not) one of the major selling points of the GP2X.

​

Let me clarify what I consider "open". Open to me means that ANYONE can develop for it. You do not have to pay for a $50,000 SDK. You are not restricted by someone else's idea of QUALITY to release a title. No matter HOW HORRIBLE Elf Bowling is on the DS, SOMEONE will play it and probably LOVE it. I never expect a consumer to be able to alter the CORE system of ANY product for the very reasons that have been stated here time and time again. If you want to see the DOWN side to open development, look no further than Firefox and the ugly "extension" issue where every build was breaking extensions - where extensions did UGLY things (hell, my friend found an extension that pinged an ad server). OSS is a cool thing for a community - its less cool for a business trying to earn the confidence of customers and keep "bad things" out of their product. Again, time and place for everything.

To me, if the GP2x NEVER opened the firmware to open source, I don't feel cheated (no, I realize I didn't write anything that was used to make it and somehow feel cheated that GPL isn't followed) NOR would my feelings on "The Gp2x is an open console" change. ANYONE can dev for it. No charge, no fee, no restrictions.

 

[Robster]

Shane R. Monroe: "open" is about choice... I use firefox, I haven't seen any extensions that I cared to install, and so I've have precisely zero problems with updates breaking extensions. I have, however, experienced forced (or at least, "critical") IE updates hosing my Windows installation, requiring a complete re-install. I know which one I prefer.

As for being happy about not having the source, that comment could only come from a non-devver. And I'm not criticising you for that, but you should realise that the coders on this platform really need the source to make it really shine. If we can't compile the kernel, then we can't add things like interrupt handlers, to synchronise timing. We can't do things that the MMSP2 chip is capable of, but that the kernel doesn't support (and there are quite a few of those). And we can't improve applications and fix bugs.

The absence of source is certainly a "restriction" on the development of software for this console.

You may not understand it yet, but with the source released and the developer community able to change the kernel, you will notice the difference in the applications that you end up using.

 

[Flexinoodle]

I can't believe people are even thinking that everybody who wants GPH to comply with the GPL better be "Doing something with the source"

There are a lot of people outside this very very small community of GP2X users who contributed to that source and they may never have anything to do with the GP2X, Does this mean that GPH can abandon there responsibility to them ?

 

[DijiTao]

@Shane R. Monroe

I disagree – strongly. OSS is frequently used commercially with great results.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/01/...ver_survey.html

As you can clearly see the vast majority of web servers are running Apache. Businesses trying to earn the confidence of customers are running Apache. In fact do you trust your web hosting company Speedhost.com? – because they seem to have won your business with the hosting of Monroeworld.com and they're running Apache, on Linux none the less:

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?ur...roeworld.com%2F

You know better still looking over this record, we can see that you left an ISP running ISS on Windows, for an ISP running Apache / Linux – seems like the OSS solution has won your business. It really doesn't get any clearer then that.

As for your Firefox example – I try every browser I can get my hands on and the ones worth a damn are all on some level using open source code in them. Opera uses OpenSSL code, Safari uses KHTML, the “recent” Netscapes use Mozilla, and of course Konqueror, Mozilla, and Mozilla Firefox, are completely open source. The only browser I know of that's made from purely proprietary code is Internet Explorer, and I think we've all seen how well that's worked out.

On your final point of “the Gp2X is an open console” just read what Robster said a couple of times because he's dead on.

Before you reply consider this – just know that you're only able to post here because of Linux, running Apache & PHP:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?ur...//www.gp32x.de

 

[triton]

zing? pwned? well said. i am curious as to when the new firmware will be out tho, im borrowing a card from a friend to upgrade firmware and he wants it back soon. my toshiba dont work for upgrades, ive got 1.1 right now

 

[lancelott]

zing? pwned? well said. i am curious as to when the new firmware will be out tho, im borrowing a card from a friend to upgrade firmware and he wants it back soon. my toshiba dont work for upgrades, ive got 1.1 right now

​

craigix said Friday. Also, try upgrading to 1.2.1. That release was made to fix Toshiba SD cards.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

Shane R. Monroe: "open" is about choice... I use firefox, I haven't seen any extensions that I cared to install, and so I've have precisely zero problems with updates breaking extensions. I have, however, experienced forced (or at least, "critical") IE updates hosing my Windows installation, requiring a complete re-install. I know which one I prefer.

Don't worry - I won't TOUCH IE. I'm a DIE HARD Opera user, and I'm damn happy I paid for it when it was a "pay browser". You're right - its about CHOICE. With Opera, I don't NEED extensions. The browser isn't open to scrutiny (you call it improvement - but someone needs to explain how you can make something REALLY secure when the source code is flying around in the wild - don't come back and say "Closed source code isn't secure either" - answer the question).

That's not the argument here ... Here, we agree ... CHOICE is good - but choice doesn't require "hippy free love" of source code to exist. I don't believe a company should be blackballed or slammed for wanting to create a product that is unmodifiable by third parties. Again - a time and place for everything. I'm a person that believes that paying gives me a voice. Since I cannot 'alter the source code to fit my needs', I have to resolve to PAY someone (why is "pay" a dirty word in the OSS community? Yes, I am aware there are 'pay' projects out there - doesn't change the overall viewpoint I hear from the OSS/Linux zealots.)

If the creators of the firmware (its not GPH right? They just use it - no one has contradicted this point - so I'm assuming at this point, I'm correct) used OSS to make money, then YES - they are BOUND to its rules and I'm not disputing that. But why unleash your venom on GPH? If you build a PC with parts you build from Best Buy, and the CPU performance sucks, you don't go scream at Best Buy - you scream at Intel or AMD. Its not Best Buy's fault that 1) They carry a processor that doesn't meet your expectations. 2) You bought it.

I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook - I'm trying to understand the directional of the flames.

As for being happy about not having the source, that comment could only come from a non-devver. And I'm not criticising you for that, but you should realise that the coders on this platform really need the source to make it really shine. If we can't compile the kernel, then we can't add things like interrupt handlers, to synchronise timing. We can't do things that the MMSP2 chip is capable of, but that the kernel doesn't support (and there are quite a few of those). And we can't improve applications and fix bugs. The absence of source is certainly a "restriction" on the development of software for this console.

The funny thing is ... I AM a developer .. I don't code in C ... or ASM ... But I know numerous languages ... I've worked TONS of projects. I do client server applications in various languages including ASP/PHP and do COM in VB. I've done PERL coding - Cold Fusion coding. I've coded in various specialized languages over time (laugh if you like - you do it in C in a month, I'll do it in AMOS in a day - in the end, the customer doesn't care - as long as it works). Have I ever been frustrated with a product's inability to provide "Feature X"? Of course! This is the nature of things. If my car needs attention, I don't have the skills to repair it. I PAY someone to fix it. Sure, I could spend MY TIME to learn the skills and do it myself - or, I could bill out $35 an hour doing a moonlight contract job. Is money saved money earned? Honestly, we use third party COM objects and tools all the time - and yes, we've run into snags. But, since we paid for it, we have some priority service and when we put in a trouble call, stuff gets done. I don't see a problem with that.

Let's say I COULD code in C. Let's say I DID understand ARM programming. Would I enjoy fixing other people's problems? Or would I rather work on something of my own .. something fresh and new? Or extend the work of someone else that really makes a difference?

I understand your points ... MY point is - you want source code because you haven't been given a proper development kit. THAT is what we should be REALLY screaming about here. When you have a proper SDK, you don't have to HACK the source code to figure out how to turn on the second CPU. You don't HAVE to hack the source code to implement promised features that are currently denied. It sounds to me like people want source code because of the lack of a proper SDK. THAT makes sense to me - however; I think the right answer is to push for a proper SDK. We ALL know that commercial software RIGHT NOW is being created for the GP2x ... we also can be relatively sure that these teams have FULL ACCESS to the hardware in some sort of SDK that we community folks do NOT have access to (I would suppose). Hacking the source code doesn't sound like the right answer to me. Demanding a proper SDK makes a LOT MORE sense, based on what you're saying.

You may not understand it yet, but with the source released and the developer community able to change the kernel, you will notice the difference in the applications that you end up using.

​

My point is (from above - in case someone skipped down) the problem isn't with "not having the source code" (aside from the GPL legal mumbo jumbo) ... the problem appears to be the lack of a proper SDK.

 

[DaveC]

I can't believe people are even thinking that everybody who wants GPH to comply with the GPL better be "Doing something with the source"

There are a lot of people outside this very very small community of GP2X users who contributed to that source and they may never have anything to do with the GP2X, Does this mean that GPH can abandon there responsibility to them ?

​

I know it is against the rules and I am not saying the source should not be released eventually but:

What is the big deal that the GP2X uses some code done by someone else? Does that person lose money? No. Does that person's code dissapear off of his HDD to never be seen again because GPH "stole" it? No. Does that person even know what a GP2X is or even care? probably not. Would that person be able to do anything with the GPH version to enhance linux itself or the other more used versions? No. Will the whole GPL concept collapse into oblivion if the source is not released instantly? no. It seems that people are freaking out just to freak out. Work to get the source released by civil means with some patients in the situation (which I think Craig and DJ Willis was doing), ok. Freak out and demand the source by the letter of the law with absolutely zero tolerance or flexibility or else sue everyone and collapse the community just on "principle", No I think that is a bad idea and the worst of the choices.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

@Shane R. Monroe

I disagree – strongly. OSS is frequently used commercially with great results.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/01/...ver_survey.html

As you can clearly see the vast majority of web servers are running Apache. Businesses trying to earn the confidence of customers are running Apache. In fact do you trust your web hosting company Speedhost.com? – because they seem to have won your business with the hosting of Monroeworld.com and they're running Apache, on Linux none the less:

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?ur...roeworld.com%2F

You know better still looking over this record, we can see that you left an ISP running ISS on Windows, for an ISP running Apache / Linux – seems like the OSS solution has won your business. It really doesn't get any clearer then that.

As for your Firefox example – I try every browser I can get my hands on and the ones worth a damn are all on some level using open source code in them. Opera uses OpenSSL code, Safari uses KHTML, the “recent” Netscapes use Mozilla, and of course Konqueror, Mozilla, and Mozilla Firefox, are completely open source. The only browser I know of that's made from purely proprietary code is Internet Explorer, and I think we've all seen how well that's worked out.

On your final point of “the Gp2X is an open console” just read what Robster said a couple of times because he's dead on.

Before you reply consider this – just know that you're only able to post here because of Linux, running Apache & PHP:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?ur...//www.gp32x.de

​

I responded to Robster separately ...

Let me clarify something ... I have a GREAT DEAL of respect for Linux and its ilk (mySQL, PHP, Apache, et al) as a server platform. If given a choice - I'd pick PHP/Apache ALL THE WAY. Those are products that run in a controlled environment by intelligent people that know what the hell they are doing.

The desktop is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT beast. I can talk about that all day if you like.

Yes, my platform of choice is built on OSS. That doesn't invalidate ANYTHING I've said. This isn't a matter of "How can you bad mouth OSS when you're using it?" I'll bad mouth Windows ALL DAY LONG, and yet I'm on an XP box right now. Why? Because I don't like Windows - I like what I can run on it. I don't have to LIKE OSS or Linux to leverage it to get work done. I'm not sure I can be any more clear than that.

That being said - my problem isn't with the CONCEPT, its with the attitude and mentality of people behind it. The fact of the matter is, 9 out of 10 people using OSS (that number I pulled out of my ass - I'm sure I can do a poll and find out) have ZERO need for source code. They have need for free software. Period. Yes, I'm pleased that folks like yourself have use for it (I'm not being sarcastic), but the rest of the people that are just using it to get a job done have trouble getting our hands around your need for FULL EXPOSE' of EVERYTHING. Again, you might be able to do something with it - we can't. You guys can't seem to figure out why we just DON'T CARE and we can't figure out how YOUR access to the source code will somehow get our requested Feature X into the equation. People learn to code and want source code to fix THEIR OWN problems, not User X's wants and needs. I may say that playing .IFF video files on GP2x is a MUST and without that feature its PURELY useless to me. Let's be honest - the GP2x ain't gonna be running IFF video anytime soon unless a DEVELOPER that happens to have some free time from his MS-centric job to work on it over the weekend ALSO wants that feature. Sure, everyone wants MPG playback (esp. me) and in time, SOMEONE is going to provide it. But Open Source doesn't help User Y that needs .IFF playback. It can't be hard to understand why OSS means NOTHING to User Y.

Damn, does that make sense, or did I type myself into a corner?

 

[furikuri]

Work to get the source released by civil means with some patients in the situation (which I think Craig and DJ Willis was doing), ok.

​

You mean like what DJWillis said?

I have been contacting and negotiating with a number of people with standing (in the GPL sense, i.e. a claim to copyright) on all the GPL connected items that ship on a stock GP2X, this is not just the kernel but libs, U-Boot, SDL, mplayer, tools etc. the list goes on. The reason for requesting support from people with standing is simple. They are the only people who have legal recourse to enforce the GPL on there individual items of copyright.

To that end there are legal ‘cease and desist’ notices being drawn up to be served on GPH, DignSys and potentially suppliers if it came to that. All of these people with standing are prepared to put there names to these letters and GPH, DignSys and co. where recently warned about there impending dispatch. The next stage after that would be a timescale for compliance.

​

 

[GeminiDomino]

What is the big deal that the GP2X uses some code done by someone else? Does that person lose money? No. Does that person's code dissapear off of his HDD to never be seen again because GPH "stole" it? No. Does that person even know what a GP2X is or even care? probably not. Would that person be able to do anything with the GPH version to enhance linux itself or the other more used versions? No. Will the whole GPL concept collapse into oblivion if the source is not released instantly? no

Does GPH have any intention of compensating those that did the work they are now profiting off of? No.

Programmers who release code under the GPL, such as everyone who's contributed to the Linux kernel, forego compensation in exchange for derived code being released under the GPL. That's what they want in return, and GPH isn't keeping their end of it. And that'is just the ethical problem. The myriad technical problems have been mentioned througout the thread (a movie player that can't play mpeg, the most basic video format? The ridiculous launcher system that separates games from apps from utilities via dos-like extensions, and makes you execute them under DIFFERENT menus?).

If there are two dozen splinter firmwares out there, GOOD. That improves the chances that ONE of them will be usable. Whereas, if the current firmware is any indication, relying on GPH/Dignsys/whoever for "official" firmware only pretty much guarantees we'll only be getting a system that makes Microsoft look competent.

 

[Rayek]

That being said - my problem isn't with the CONCEPT, its with the attitude and mentality of people behind it. The fact of the matter is, 9 out of 10 people using OSS (that number I pulled out of my ass - I'm sure I can do a poll and find out) have ZERO need for source code. They have need for free software. Period. Yes, I'm pleased that folks like yourself have use for it (I'm not being sarcastic), but the rest of the people that are just using it to get a job done have trouble getting our hands around your need for FULL EXPOSE' of EVERYTHING. Again, you might be able to do something with it - we can't. You guys can't seem to figure out why we just DON'T CARE and we can't figure out how YOUR access to the source code will somehow get our requested Feature X into the equation. People learn to code and want source code to fix THEIR OWN problems, not User X's wants and needs. I may say that playing .IFF video files on GP2x is a MUST and without that feature its PURELY useless to me. Let's be honest - the GP2x ain't gonna be running IFF video anytime soon unless a DEVELOPER that happens to have some free time from his MS-centric job to work on it over the weekend ALSO wants that feature. Sure, everyone wants MPG playback (esp. me) and in time, SOMEONE is going to provide it. But Open Source doesn't help User Y that needs .IFF playback. It can't be hard to understand why OSS means NOTHING to User Y.

Damn, does that make sense, or did I type myself into a corner?

​

How is that different than letting a few dudes at Dignsys work on the firmware? They are much further away from the community and we have less of a chance to get .iff videos (?) on the GP2X doing it their way. Plus, this community OS will most definitely be comprised of people that are end users, who want what 9 out of 10 (that number I pulled out of my ass - I'm sure I can do a poll and find out) end users want, like Mpeg playback, proper tv-out support, access to the 'hidden chips' on the mainboard, etc, etc. And they will be in constant direct contact with the community here.

The reason Dignsys has for delaying the release of the firmware is that they had bigger projects that they needed to complete for one of their bigger clients who was, possibly paying them more money. That situation is bad. You get a company who either a) delays in releasing or developing a new firmware or B) does it half-assed, doesn't get things promised by GPH finished. The OSS model is so we can grasp the kernel with our hands, and mold it like clay, so to speak. What you're complaining about for this source release is the exact same scenario we're in RIGHT NOW. These people don't know or care what a GP2X can do, and they obviously have bigger fish to fry than hearing our complaints and wishes for the console. For some reason, I'd think that a few community-minded devs here would love to get a goal list from end users in order for the Community OS to be the best it can be.

I'm not bashing GPH at all. Dignsys just plain doesn't care, or doesn't understand the law of the license they used. And my worry is that Magiceyes, the creators of the hardware, won't want everyone to be able to see code that was a 'secret' up until some upstart group decided to make one of those damned video game handhelds with Linux as the OS. That will see the end of GPH, and the production of the GP2X, at worst.

And, honestly, I don't think devs will be so daft as to make and release thier own version of the kernel without having some sort of feedback loop, and pooling together their efforts to make a 'super-OS'. If anything, I can thank all the folks who only see bad coming from the Comm-OS for warning us of that danger.

 

[mongolito404]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing about Open Source and Free Software while it's clearly the wrong place to do it. If you want to learn about how the hell a software can be secured while the code is flying around the net, or why GPL compliance matters, or what is the GPL, use Google and go to FOSS sites, they have the resources your are looking for.

The point is
- GPL compliance is a legal thing. GPH/DignSys don't have the choice to release to source, they have to. There is no need for discussion. You may not care about the legal aspect, just like you don't care about illegals ROMs, pirated software, etc.
- GPL compliance is a legal thing made to protect an ideology from people whom don't give a shit about it. You may not care about Free Software but the GPL is made to prevent you to abuse people who do. Don't like it ? Make your own software or buy one. But don't say stealing other people works is right just because you think the free in Free Software is like the one in free beer. It's not and you known it. And again, in case you decided that you don't care, the GPL is here so you can't profit of the works from people and shit on their idiologies.