Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Latest Rockbox not working on Nano
mitchelln:
--- Quote from: BigBambi on November 05, 2007, 10:49:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: mitchelln on November 05, 2007, 09:22:44 AM ---I don't understand this. Why can't there be a release with the clock set lower to help us out? You know, be nice to each other instead of arguing? I ran Rockbox all the time for months without problems before.
--- End quote ---
This has been answered many times. Principally it is if we cover up the issue rather than fix it properly it will not get fixed. The problem is not thought to be caused by the increase in clock rate, just exposed by it. I know it is inconvenient for some users, but rockbox hasn't officially been released, and if everyone just ignores the problem it won't get fixed.
--- End quote ---
I understand, but I also believe you cannot leave it totally broken for many weeks like this. It renders Rockbox completely unusable on affected Nano's. Surely some middle ground can be found here? Perhaps a config item? Just saying "Someone needs to post their Nano to a developer" isn't going to get us far. Like I say, I used Rockbox for many months without problems.
AlexP:
--- Quote from: mitchelln on November 05, 2007, 11:09:17 AM ---Just saying "Someone needs to post their Nano to a developer" isn't going to get us far.
--- End quote ---
Just in the same way that putting it back to how it was isn't going to get us very far.
You can edit the code and build your own one to reduce the clock speeds if you really want. I don't know whether a config item would work, but I'm pretty sure it is unlikely to happen either way.
I do sympathise with you, and I'm not the one who takes any decision either way, I'm just explaining the position and the reasons behind it to you.
mitchelln:
--- Quote from: BigBambi on November 05, 2007, 11:18:28 AM ---
--- Quote from: mitchelln on November 05, 2007, 11:09:17 AM ---Just saying "Someone needs to post their Nano to a developer" isn't going to get us far.
--- End quote ---
Just in the same way that putting it back to how it was isn't going to get us very far.
You can edit the code and build your own one to reduce the clock speeds if you really want. I don't know whether a config item would work, but I'm pretty sure it is unlikely to happen either way.
I do sympathise with you, and I'm not the one who takes any decision either way, I'm just explaining the position and the reasons behind it to you.
--- End quote ---
I think you guys are coming at this from a very technogeek angle. Most people won't have the means or skillset to do their own custom builds. So they will just not use Rockbox. This is not good for the project.
Is there any technical reason why this could not be a config item? It could default to the lower clock rate when booting up, then read the config item and switch to the higher speed if it's been set. If it fails you merely then have to mount the disk and change the setting back. The lucky people with tolerant Nano's could then choose to use the higher rate and the people like me can still use Rockbox. A practical solution to a technical problem IMHO. At least every Nano owner could then benefit from Rockbox.
I was pretty upset when I thought I'd lost the use of it after I upgraded today. Rockbox is too cool to allow politics to lock out loads of potential users surely.
Just explaining my position ;)
GodEater:
--- Quote from: mitchelln on November 05, 2007, 11:30:31 AM ---I think you guys are coming at this from a very technogeek angle. Most people won't have the means or skillset to do their own custom builds. So they will just not use Rockbox. This is not good for the project.
--- End quote ---
How is it not good for the project ? As has been stated many times - Rockbox is not a product looking for users - it's a project written by some nice people who happen to share that work with the rest of the world for no charge whatsoever. No-one is owed a build that just happens to work for them at the expensive of fixing this the right way.
--- Quote ---I was pretty upset when I thought I'd lost the use of it after I upgraded today. Rockbox is too cool to allow politics to lock out loads of potential users surely.
--- End quote ---
It's not politics - it's about doing things properly.
mitchelln:
--- Quote from: GodEater on November 05, 2007, 11:54:55 AM ---How is it not good for the project ? As has been stated many times - Rockbox is not a product looking for users - it's a project written by some nice people who happen to share that work with the rest of the world for no charge whatsoever. No-one is owed a build that just happens to work for them at the expensive of fixing this the right way.
--- End quote ---
What a strange attitude. I would have thought you would have liked as many people as possible to enjoy Rockbox. It's a great project. It might also encourage loads of new people to contribute if they like it. I don't expect that much and I certainly don't demand anything. Nothing has happened on this problem for weeks and I am suggesting a practical work around that will make a lot of people very happy. Surely this is a good thing?
So what about this config idea of mine? Possible or not possible at a technical level? ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version