1
Software / Hancommobileword.conf
« on: April 28, 2006, 01:14:38 pm »Quote
... can be downloaded in this cacko feed:Cool, thanks. I'm grabbing the whole feed now and I'll check them out.
http://web.mol.ru/~zaurus/feed/
...
~ray
Select language:
News:
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
~ray
2
Software / Hancommobileword.conf
« on: April 21, 2006, 03:33:24 pm »Quote
I have 3 versions of HancomMobileWord in my archives.Sorry, I don't know about the conf file but I'm wondering about that version 1.6 that you have. What's different between that version and 1.5? Is it available for download from somewhere?
hancommobileword_1.5.0_arm.ipk - 406kb [7-19-2003]
hancommobileword_1.6.0_arm.ipk - 415kb [11-6-2003]
hancomword_1.6-lite-1_arm.ipk - 311kb [2-4-2005]
I'm running 1.5 (of the whole suite) on my C860 but it's not properly configured for the landscape screen and higher res. I'd like to fix that (perhaps with a new version?).
Thanks in advance for whatever info you can share.
~ray
3
Linux Issues / Linux Kernel 2.6.14 Breaks Usbnet Xfer From Zaurus
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:21:53 pm »Quote
Has anyone heard of a fix for this? I am trying to NAT my Z on FC4 and it seems I also need to set the MTU on my wireless card to 576 to get it to work....I haven't, but I haven't been looking either. I haven't had a problem since installing the fix and I haven't had time to research it more. I recently upgraded to 2.6.15-1.1833_FC4 with no trouble.
Thanks,
Henry
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
I thought this problem only effected usbnet though; I don't know why your wireless card is effected. (I haven't used mine in a while; perhaps I'll have to check it.)
~ray
4
OpenZaurus/Opie/Qtopia / A Love Letter To The Oz Team
« on: March 21, 2006, 04:45:56 pm »Quote
[snip] everything feels smoother and less, well, linuxey. [snip]...and that's a *good* thing?
hmmm......
5
Linux Issues / Linux Kernel 2.6.14 Breaks Usbnet Xfer From Zaurus
« on: February 20, 2006, 05:08:38 pm »
FYI: The above solution also seems to work if applied on the PC-side. Apparently, the fix works so long as you apply the MTU=576 to either side of the connection.
Those of us running Fedora/Red Hat or distros derived from them probably have a /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-usb0 script to set-up the Z's usbnet connection. I added MTU=576 to mine (after disabling my edits, described above, from the Z) and transfers don't hang.
This strikes me as a "better" solution. IMO, the problem lies in Linux 2.6.14+ (and sounds like a bug to me) and so the fix should reside there as well.
~ray
Those of us running Fedora/Red Hat or distros derived from them probably have a /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-usb0 script to set-up the Z's usbnet connection. I added MTU=576 to mine (after disabling my edits, described above, from the Z) and transfers don't hang.
This strikes me as a "better" solution. IMO, the problem lies in Linux 2.6.14+ (and sounds like a bug to me) and so the fix should reside there as well.
~ray
6
Linux Issues / Linux Kernel 2.6.14 Breaks Usbnet Xfer From Zaurus
« on: February 20, 2006, 03:10:06 pm »
pgas,
Thanks for the pointer; I missed those threads. It works for me also.
It's not permanent though. I was able to make it permanent by tweaking some of the /etc/hotplug scripts.
These are the changes I made, in case anyone wants to know:
/etc/hotplug/usbdnet.conf: add the line:
------
This solution begs a couple of questions though:
1. WHY is this needed? The Z has worked fine with its default MTU of 1500 for ages.
2. Will the smaller MTU result in slower transfers?
Perhaps I'll try to dig up the code for the "hard MTU" patch that I wrote about earlier; it seems even more likely to be the culprit now...
~ray
Thanks for the pointer; I missed those threads. It works for me also.
It's not permanent though. I was able to make it permanent by tweaking some of the /etc/hotplug scripts.
These are the changes I made, in case anyone wants to know:
/etc/hotplug/usbdnet.conf: add the line:
Code: [Select]
MTU=576/etc/hotplug/net.agent: Look for the 'ifconfig' line under the "register)" and "usbd0)" cases (line ~74): Code: [Select]
ifconfig usbd0 $IP netmask $NETMASKChange to: Code: [Select]
if [ -n "$MTU" ]; then SETMTU="mtu $MTU"; fi
ifconfig usbd0 $IP netmask $NETMASK $SETMTUIf you'd rather just hard-code it, you can just tack "mtu 576" onto the "ifconfig" line in net.agent.------
This solution begs a couple of questions though:
1. WHY is this needed? The Z has worked fine with its default MTU of 1500 for ages.
2. Will the smaller MTU result in slower transfers?
Perhaps I'll try to dig up the code for the "hard MTU" patch that I wrote about earlier; it seems even more likely to be the culprit now...
~ray
7
Linux Issues / Linux Kernel 2.6.14 Breaks Usbnet Xfer From Zaurus
« on: February 19, 2006, 12:02:48 pm »
Hi,
Has anyone managed to find a solution to this?
The suggested "modprobe cdc_subset" solution doesn't work for me. Furthermore, from reading cdc_subset.c, it does not support the non-standard Zaurus framing, therefore it appears to me that it is not intended for the Zaurus and is NOT the solution for Sharp-ROM-based Zauriis (is it perhaps needed for OZ or others who have done away wth Sharp's non-standard implementation?).
I just realized that I forgot to follow-up on my earlier post about testing 2.6.14-1.1644 -- it didn't work. I'm now running 2.6.15-1.1831 and it fails also. I've been avoiding the problem by sticking with the last release that worked (2.6.13-1.1532) but I think I now need to update because of a mouse driver problem, so this issue has now been pushed back to the top of my queue.
I've been google'ing like crazy and I can find plenty of references to the 2.6.14 usbnet work but I can't (so far) find anything that addresses this problem. Someone out there must have solved this, no???
~ray
Has anyone managed to find a solution to this?
The suggested "modprobe cdc_subset" solution doesn't work for me. Furthermore, from reading cdc_subset.c, it does not support the non-standard Zaurus framing, therefore it appears to me that it is not intended for the Zaurus and is NOT the solution for Sharp-ROM-based Zauriis (is it perhaps needed for OZ or others who have done away wth Sharp's non-standard implementation?).
I just realized that I forgot to follow-up on my earlier post about testing 2.6.14-1.1644 -- it didn't work. I'm now running 2.6.15-1.1831 and it fails also. I've been avoiding the problem by sticking with the last release that worked (2.6.13-1.1532) but I think I now need to update because of a mouse driver problem, so this issue has now been pushed back to the top of my queue.
I've been google'ing like crazy and I can find plenty of references to the 2.6.14 usbnet work but I can't (so far) find anything that addresses this problem. Someone out there must have solved this, no???
~ray
8
General Discussion / Is This The End?
« on: February 12, 2006, 02:04:21 pm »
I agree that this stuff is all really bad.
The obvious and blatant influence that certain special interests have with the legislative branch concerns me a great deal. Corporations are conglomerates of citizens who have the same rights as you and I, but they shouldn't have more (than the sum of their numbers). The description of some of these congresscritters as "sock puppets" was beautiful! There are a number of these "sock puppets" who are so obviously in the pockets of corporations that it's sickening. They're selling out the American people for their own gain and they should be ashamed of themselves. If the people were paying close enough attention then these traitors would be removed from office; unfortunately, I fear there simply isn't enough of us keeping watch. Greed is, sadly, human nature. It's inevitible that some folks in positions of power will perpetrate acts of selfishness and greed if they think they can get away with it; and, sadly, they can easily get away with it when the people aren't paying attention. So, in a sense, it's the people's fault as much as anyone's. The proof of the great depth of wisdom of our founding fathers is that they forsaw the potential for this type of corruption and designed a system that can deal with it. The system allows itself to be corrected in the face of damage caused by unethical individuals. It takes time for the corrections to be applied and the nation will suffer some loss as the process plays out, but, with faith in the basic goodness of most people, the problem will always eventually be corrected. And they also had the wisdom to include the Second Amendment as a failsafe (this is why it exists and why it must be protected at all costs). One way or another, the people will always retain control.
We're all outraged by DRM because of the many obvious issues it has with respect to consumer rights, etc. Most other folks would be too if they were aware of the issues. The content industry can only succeed in passing this stuff by us if they manage to do it under the radar. The colossal blunders of the Sonys of the world will undo this strategy. The number of folks who became newly aware of the DRM problem in the wake of the Sony fiasco was massive. The more that know, the harder it will be to pass this stuff off on us. The press is running with it and that will help the cause a great deal. Getting a bill into Congress doesn't necessarily mean that it has a chance of becoming law. Any sock puppet can introduce one; the trick is then in getting it passed. So far, none have (the DMCA notwithstanding; it's not quite the same, although it does still play into the hands of unethical people) and I think they all have an uphill battle. There are still some ethical congresscritters out there and there are also some great advocates on our side (such as Lawrence Lessig and the EFF). We need to support them.
In the end, even if DRM-mandating laws get passed, they will probably not survive for long. There are many things stacked against them. For starters, there are serious questions about whether the Government can force private hardware manufacturers to produce mandated products. This isn't China, afterall. And the US Government surely can't dictate the actions of *foreign* manufacturers; and they can't realistically ban all imports of illegal electronics (at the very least, the logistics and costs associated with distinguishing between legal and illegal imports will surely be prohibitive). I would expect a major law suit, possibly a class action suit on behalf of all HW manufacturers. There are then serious consumer rights issues, as well as copyright (fair use) issues. All of these things will be litigated bitterly. In the end, I'll be quite surprised if mandated-DRM survives.
In addition to this, regardless of how successful the content industry is at subjugating our legal system, the final word will come from consumers. If enough people don't buy it, it will just go away. For example, do you remember when DivX first appeared? It was basically a pay-for-play system. IIRC, folks could buy DivX DVDs for a low price and they could play them a certan number of times and then they'd have to pay again to watch them further. It isn't around anymore, is it? No one wanted it (and why would they). When people buy something, they expect that it is their property to do what they want with, short of distributing copies to other folks (and, in fact, the law backs this up). If DRM blocks this behviour, people won't buy it. IMO, the content industry is playing a dangerous game of Russion Roulette with their business. They may think they're righteous in what they're doing and that they're justified in limiting consumers' rights in this way, but they're in for a rude awakening, I suspect. In the end, all the righteousness and justification in the world won't amount to a hill of beans if people won't buy it.
If this weren't enough, those of us with technical backgrounds know that it's virtually impossible to create bullet-proof DRM. The general rule is that if you can play it, you can copy it; and if you can't play it, it's useless. I don't see any developments which challenge this principal. They might make it harder but they'll never make it impossible; and as long as it's possible, people are going to do it. As we've all saw, the latest attempts to make DRM work have all required draconian and highly questionable tactics, most of which are illegal already or will quickly become illegal. (When even the US Department of Homeland Security condemns it, you know it's in serious trouble.) Despite going to such extreme measures, these attempts still failed to produce realiable DRM. These draconian tactics are testament to the fact that DRM is technically unworkable.
So, although DRM concerns me, ultimately I don't think it has much of a chance to survive. I don't think there's any reason to panic. But, nevertheless, we must stay educated and aware, and become involved to whatever extent we can. Make people aware of the problem, support the advocates, and continue to make your feelings known (especially to your congresscritters).
But don't panic. These things won't bring about "the end" of anything, but they may bring some changes. Change is really the only constant thing in our lives and we can deal with that.
~ray
The obvious and blatant influence that certain special interests have with the legislative branch concerns me a great deal. Corporations are conglomerates of citizens who have the same rights as you and I, but they shouldn't have more (than the sum of their numbers). The description of some of these congresscritters as "sock puppets" was beautiful! There are a number of these "sock puppets" who are so obviously in the pockets of corporations that it's sickening. They're selling out the American people for their own gain and they should be ashamed of themselves. If the people were paying close enough attention then these traitors would be removed from office; unfortunately, I fear there simply isn't enough of us keeping watch. Greed is, sadly, human nature. It's inevitible that some folks in positions of power will perpetrate acts of selfishness and greed if they think they can get away with it; and, sadly, they can easily get away with it when the people aren't paying attention. So, in a sense, it's the people's fault as much as anyone's. The proof of the great depth of wisdom of our founding fathers is that they forsaw the potential for this type of corruption and designed a system that can deal with it. The system allows itself to be corrected in the face of damage caused by unethical individuals. It takes time for the corrections to be applied and the nation will suffer some loss as the process plays out, but, with faith in the basic goodness of most people, the problem will always eventually be corrected. And they also had the wisdom to include the Second Amendment as a failsafe (this is why it exists and why it must be protected at all costs). One way or another, the people will always retain control.
We're all outraged by DRM because of the many obvious issues it has with respect to consumer rights, etc. Most other folks would be too if they were aware of the issues. The content industry can only succeed in passing this stuff by us if they manage to do it under the radar. The colossal blunders of the Sonys of the world will undo this strategy. The number of folks who became newly aware of the DRM problem in the wake of the Sony fiasco was massive. The more that know, the harder it will be to pass this stuff off on us. The press is running with it and that will help the cause a great deal. Getting a bill into Congress doesn't necessarily mean that it has a chance of becoming law. Any sock puppet can introduce one; the trick is then in getting it passed. So far, none have (the DMCA notwithstanding; it's not quite the same, although it does still play into the hands of unethical people) and I think they all have an uphill battle. There are still some ethical congresscritters out there and there are also some great advocates on our side (such as Lawrence Lessig and the EFF). We need to support them.
In the end, even if DRM-mandating laws get passed, they will probably not survive for long. There are many things stacked against them. For starters, there are serious questions about whether the Government can force private hardware manufacturers to produce mandated products. This isn't China, afterall. And the US Government surely can't dictate the actions of *foreign* manufacturers; and they can't realistically ban all imports of illegal electronics (at the very least, the logistics and costs associated with distinguishing between legal and illegal imports will surely be prohibitive). I would expect a major law suit, possibly a class action suit on behalf of all HW manufacturers. There are then serious consumer rights issues, as well as copyright (fair use) issues. All of these things will be litigated bitterly. In the end, I'll be quite surprised if mandated-DRM survives.
In addition to this, regardless of how successful the content industry is at subjugating our legal system, the final word will come from consumers. If enough people don't buy it, it will just go away. For example, do you remember when DivX first appeared? It was basically a pay-for-play system. IIRC, folks could buy DivX DVDs for a low price and they could play them a certan number of times and then they'd have to pay again to watch them further. It isn't around anymore, is it? No one wanted it (and why would they). When people buy something, they expect that it is their property to do what they want with, short of distributing copies to other folks (and, in fact, the law backs this up). If DRM blocks this behviour, people won't buy it. IMO, the content industry is playing a dangerous game of Russion Roulette with their business. They may think they're righteous in what they're doing and that they're justified in limiting consumers' rights in this way, but they're in for a rude awakening, I suspect. In the end, all the righteousness and justification in the world won't amount to a hill of beans if people won't buy it.
If this weren't enough, those of us with technical backgrounds know that it's virtually impossible to create bullet-proof DRM. The general rule is that if you can play it, you can copy it; and if you can't play it, it's useless. I don't see any developments which challenge this principal. They might make it harder but they'll never make it impossible; and as long as it's possible, people are going to do it. As we've all saw, the latest attempts to make DRM work have all required draconian and highly questionable tactics, most of which are illegal already or will quickly become illegal. (When even the US Department of Homeland Security condemns it, you know it's in serious trouble.) Despite going to such extreme measures, these attempts still failed to produce realiable DRM. These draconian tactics are testament to the fact that DRM is technically unworkable.
So, although DRM concerns me, ultimately I don't think it has much of a chance to survive. I don't think there's any reason to panic. But, nevertheless, we must stay educated and aware, and become involved to whatever extent we can. Make people aware of the problem, support the advocates, and continue to make your feelings known (especially to your congresscritters).
But don't panic. These things won't bring about "the end" of anything, but they may bring some changes. Change is really the only constant thing in our lives and we can deal with that.
~ray
9
Archos forum / Archos Bad Quality ?
« on: February 10, 2006, 01:36:45 pm »
IMO, Archos has good design ideas but terrible quality (SW & HW).
I bought an Archos Jukebox FM (HDD-based MP3 player) a few years back. The firmware sucked, was rife with bugs, and they never released a single update (I eventually switched to the great OSS firmware called Rockbox).
The HW has also had many problems; luckily I'm handy with a soldering iron and I've been able to keep it running for quite a while.
If that weren't bad enough, their support is awful. They've never responded to a single email I've sent them. Plus, they do dishonest things such as this: I've heard from several Rockbox users who have sent their units back to repair a HW problem only to have Archos refuse to fix it because they claim "Rockbox broke it". Pure, unadulterated, BS.
I'll never buy another one of their products.
~ray
I bought an Archos Jukebox FM (HDD-based MP3 player) a few years back. The firmware sucked, was rife with bugs, and they never released a single update (I eventually switched to the great OSS firmware called Rockbox).
The HW has also had many problems; luckily I'm handy with a soldering iron and I've been able to keep it running for quite a while.
If that weren't bad enough, their support is awful. They've never responded to a single email I've sent them. Plus, they do dishonest things such as this: I've heard from several Rockbox users who have sent their units back to repair a HW problem only to have Archos refuse to fix it because they claim "Rockbox broke it". Pure, unadulterated, BS.
I'll never buy another one of their products.
~ray
10
General Discussion / Is This The End?
« on: February 10, 2006, 01:26:22 pm »
I don't think this is going to be "the end" of anything. It really doesn't matter if Linux goes v3 or not: it's still under the GPL, and that's irrevocable: the cat's out of the bag and it can't be put back in.
I do think that this situation has the potential to result in a Linux fork. The devs appear to be split over this issue and I can see the v3 supporters forking and going their own way with it (under v3). I'm not at all convinced that this would be a bad thing overall.
Re the automatic conversion question: as I understand it, some folks distributed a copy of the GPL boilerplate that said "GPLv2 or later", without really noticing or thinking about the implications. These would automatically convert without taking some action. It may be possible to change the license now to say "GPLv2 only" and avoid the automatic conversion later, but I'm not sure of this: if *any* version is out in the wild that says "GPLv2 or later", then that version would still automatically convert; I think.
On the other side of the same coin, I'm not sure that someone can re-distribute code marked as "GPLv2 only" under v3, even if they fork it. I suspect they can, but I'm not sure (since GPL allows dual-licensing, there's no contradiction in having two versions with different licenses). At the very least, I believe it will be possible to release a project with mixed v2 and v3 licenses. Ugly and confusing, but possible.
Lastly, I'll say that I think Linus is wrong on this issue. Someone who releases their code under GPLv3 is not "forcing their own morality" on anyone else; no one is forced to use GPL'ed code. The whole point of the GPL is that the code and the terms are there; use them if you choose, write your own if you don't. The GPL is about protecting the *author's* work and ensuring that it is used only as she sees fit. I and many others believe that most DRM is morally wrong. I don't happen to believe that true moralty is subjective; therefore I don't believe in the concept of "my morality" vs. "your morality". Therefore, I have no problem forbidding someone from using my code in a way that is immoral. Frankly, Linus' position on this makes me wonder if he hasn't fallen under the influence of some of his more influancial "users" (and that alone would be a pretty good reason to fork). Personally, I don't give a damn if TiVo were to find themselves in a pickle as a result of Linux going v3 and forbidding DRM. That's their problem and they knew the risks going in. (I find their actions to be morally questionable anyway, so perhaps they should be in a pickle.)
~ray
I do think that this situation has the potential to result in a Linux fork. The devs appear to be split over this issue and I can see the v3 supporters forking and going their own way with it (under v3). I'm not at all convinced that this would be a bad thing overall.
Re the automatic conversion question: as I understand it, some folks distributed a copy of the GPL boilerplate that said "GPLv2 or later", without really noticing or thinking about the implications. These would automatically convert without taking some action. It may be possible to change the license now to say "GPLv2 only" and avoid the automatic conversion later, but I'm not sure of this: if *any* version is out in the wild that says "GPLv2 or later", then that version would still automatically convert; I think.
On the other side of the same coin, I'm not sure that someone can re-distribute code marked as "GPLv2 only" under v3, even if they fork it. I suspect they can, but I'm not sure (since GPL allows dual-licensing, there's no contradiction in having two versions with different licenses). At the very least, I believe it will be possible to release a project with mixed v2 and v3 licenses. Ugly and confusing, but possible.
Lastly, I'll say that I think Linus is wrong on this issue. Someone who releases their code under GPLv3 is not "forcing their own morality" on anyone else; no one is forced to use GPL'ed code. The whole point of the GPL is that the code and the terms are there; use them if you choose, write your own if you don't. The GPL is about protecting the *author's* work and ensuring that it is used only as she sees fit. I and many others believe that most DRM is morally wrong. I don't happen to believe that true moralty is subjective; therefore I don't believe in the concept of "my morality" vs. "your morality". Therefore, I have no problem forbidding someone from using my code in a way that is immoral. Frankly, Linus' position on this makes me wonder if he hasn't fallen under the influence of some of his more influancial "users" (and that alone would be a pretty good reason to fork). Personally, I don't give a damn if TiVo were to find themselves in a pickle as a result of Linux going v3 and forbidding DRM. That's their problem and they knew the risks going in. (I find their actions to be morally questionable anyway, so perhaps they should be in a pickle.)
~ray
11
Software / Kde-pim/pi 2.1.0 Available!
« on: February 06, 2006, 03:01:50 pm »Quote
QuoteYou need to install kmicrokdelibs as well.
~ray
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
Installed it already and lib are available, OPMail is okay....maybe I remove and install it again to have a try
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
Hmm... I don't what's going on then. Which ROM are you running?
Re reinstall: If you didn't get any errors when you installed it that probably won't make any difference. But it doesn't hurt to try.
~ray
12
Software / Kde-pim/pi 2.1.0 Available!
« on: February 05, 2006, 12:23:14 pm »
You need to install kmicrokdelibs as well.
~ray
~ray
13
Site Suggestions, Requests, and Updates / Dreamhost.com
« on: February 02, 2006, 01:16:40 pm »
I have to second that. I used them for my personal stuff and I've been very happy.
~ray
~ray
14
Deals and Great Z Buys / Good Buy For Cf Based Ethernet?
« on: December 29, 2005, 10:56:35 am »
I have a Hawking 10/100 card and it works great. I haven't noticed any unusual power problems with it. I bought it off of MicroCenter's return table and I think I paid ~$30. Froogle shows some for ~$39.
~ray
~ray
15
C1000/3x00 Hardware / Nevermind. It's Been Fixed.
« on: December 18, 2005, 03:58:54 pm »Quote
... gave me the ability to install programs to a native ext2/3 partition without the performance hit of a loop device being implemented....I question the theoretical "performance hit" of these two scenarios, as well as whether their reliability is suspect.
... A bit of performance would also be gained if Extended partitions were not our forced solution for the two most heavily used partitions on the actual drive, (the ext2 drive that programs will run off of and the Swap Drive.). The same can be said about reliability that is said about performance. It’s not optimal as it is – not in the least. ...[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
As for extended partitions, I would think that any extra work to access these would be done at mount time. Once they are mounted and the drivers know the addresses of the partitions I would expect there to be zero performance impact. Why do you think differently?
As for loopback, the magic that takes place there is done in software and in RAM: I would expect that there are no additional device interactions that take place. I'd bet that any performance impact would be hard to measure, much less sense on a human level. Again, why do you think differently?
I think the same could be said about swap files vs. swap partitions. (In fact, I would not be surprised to find that loopback is used to implement a swap file.) I doubt you'd really experience any difference in performance.
And lastly, I see no reason for there to be any kind of reliability hit with either of these. If they work, they work. What would make them any less reliable than other solutions?
The one thing about your set-up that would bother me is the two "vestigal" partitions. They do no harm except wasting some space, but it's somewhat ugly to have to keep them. I would expect though that this can be fixed easily if it truly is only scripts that control initialization. OTOH, if Sharp stuck something boneheaded in their proprietary code, you'll probably be living with this for a while.
Anyway, glad to see you got your system working. Good luck with it.
~ray