Rockbox Development > New Ports
RockboxPlayerV1 - Free/Open hardware audio player for Rockbox
casainho:
--- Quote from: BigBambi on February 21, 2008, 06:14:58 PM ---So if I add myself to the list I can talk!
You really need to look up community in a dictionary. Either you want opinions or you don't. It doesn't seem like you do. That is fine, but in that case this is NOT a rockbox player, it is a casainho player, and you should designate it as such.
--- End quote ---
I do want opinions as I did registered all opinions on the wiki page:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/RockboxPlayerWishlist
But some opinions looks like to me as requests, and as a new port of RB, Ports are made by people who want to port, they are not done on request.".
--- Quote from: Llorean on February 21, 2008, 06:21:04 PM ---And as a note, Rockbox still accepts feature requests. And we still work on things *we* don't need, because it would benefit other people. And we even actually *justify* why we reject things. By explaining what it would harm to do it that way, and why we think it's not beneficial to the project to accept that feature request.
--- End quote ---
The same *justify* why we reject things, you can read at the page for the RockboxPlayerV1. I don't do audio records but I was interested in listening people about that, for example.
And please, stop with this, you people looks like arrived now to the project! There was a lot of work done already by a few people - you just don't know that, you were not here on that time.
AlexP:
I have been here all along, and involved with rockbox for a lot longer than you have. I just haven't posted on this particular project before now. You may remember some conversations in IRC when I amongst others attempted to explain to you how rockbox works now, to help you with this design?
As a question, what have YOU actually done for this other than say what you want for the specs? It looks very much like you want to specify the DAP you want then let others do the work.
Anyway, whatever. You go ahead, and I hope you manage to persuade the skilled people you need to do your design for you. Good luck.
Llorean:
I've been with Rockbox for a very long time. I've been watching your thread here, but you seem to think that because I haven't spoken, I'm new to having interest. So far, I've had nothing that needed said, because someone else has said it first.
Ports to hardware are not done by request, because people who do not have the hardware can't work on it.
You still haven't addressed the important question: Do you actually want other people to spend money on this.
I'm going to say right now: You need to very, very clearly codify
1) What things you yourself have defined unwilling to change.
2) What people are allowed to comment on.
3) What makes someone "interested enough to listen to."
At the moment, I'm tempted to close this thread until you're willing to clearly define what this project is, and why other people cannot contribute ideas.
So far, you haven't made hardware. You've done very little real work on this beyond planning. And yet you're unwilling to let other people contribute to the design, because they haven't planned as much as you.
New Ports of the SOFTWARE don't happen for new hardware, because if bob tells me he wants me to work on the Vision M, I have to spend $300 to work on it.
New Hardware designs have never happened before, but if I'm going to say "I'm willing to bay $200 for a Rockbox player", I have to know it has a color screen. You don't seem to understand that it's an ENTIRELY different situation.
If you're unwilling to have useful discourse, I'm done with this thread. In the past, you've shown an unwillingness to follow forum guidelines, by starting multiple threads. Now you're showing an unwillingness to actually discuss things, simply telling long standing members of the community to go away because you will not listen to them.
Start acting like a reasonable human being, and explaining WHY an idea isn't worth including in the player, and decide whether this is YOUR project, or a ROCKBOX player with hardware to be defined by what the Rockbox community is most willing to spend money on.
casainho:
--- Quote from: Llorean on February 21, 2008, 06:44:44 PM ---I'm going to say right now: You need to very, very clearly codify
1) What thinks you yourself have defined unwilling to change.
2) What people are allowed to comment on.
3) What makes someone "interested enough to listen to."
--- End quote ---
1 - Good quality hardware audio player and recorder - no video player or game console;
2 - Everyone.
3 - Depends on what task I am focus on that time.
--- Quote from: Llorean on February 21, 2008, 06:44:44 PM ---explaining WHY an idea isn't worth including in the player
--- End quote ---
I did, again, you can read on RockboxPlayerV1.
--- Quote from: Llorean on February 21, 2008, 06:44:44 PM ---decide whether this is YOUR project, or a ROCKBOX player with hardware to be defined by what the Rockbox community is most willing to spend money on.
--- End quote ---
RockboxPlayer will be defined by people that identifies with the idea of Good quality hardware audio player and recorder - no video player or game console; - It will not be defined by a community is most willing to spend money on! - that kind of community have already a lot of options in market for that!! I would say that all players in the market are targeted for that kind of community.
cool_walking_:
The only reason I could find on RockboxPlayerV1 was "Fast display, good for peakmeters - for recording I assume". mborus also gave the reason of power usage.
I don't know about the speed of colour displays, but it seems plenty fast on my iPod. If those are the only reasons against a colour display, I personally think the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
I wouldn't have anything to do with the design, since I have no knowledge of that. I would be willing to learn (but I don't really know where to start... any links?) but I would probably slow you down.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version