Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion

Setting limit volume on rockbox?

<< < (3/11) > >>

Llorean:
Yes, but here's the deal: The more very very very littles you add in, the bigger the binary gets.

It's already officially "too big" (rombox doesn't fit) and this is a feature that if included should go to all targets. How little the size is doesn't matter, if it increases the binary at all. You weigh that something is added vs how beneficial it really is, and to me this doesn't seem like something that benefits Rockbox as a whole. It makes the binary bigger for everyone who doesn't use it, makes it harder still to get Rombox down to a usable size, and benefits a very small number of people who for some reason can't be bothered to check their volume levels.

Genre9mp3:
I agree. We just weigh it differently.

I'm aware of the rombox problem, but this is something that needs to be handled in a different way otherwise we won't be able to add new features anymore.

Llorean:
I just don't want features that only provide seem to be beneficial to those who can't be bothered to pay attention to have a negative impact on everyone else's battery life.

A whole host of minor "safety" features could be added (more confirmations on things like file overwrites, automatic precut setting in the equalizer, etc, etc) each "very small" and each slightly decreasing the battery life of everyone who's willing to actually take care of those settings themselves.

Replacement firmware is not something to enter into lightly anyway, and I don't see all this fluff as being beneficial to a user who actually cares about what he's doing, meanwhile it does have a negative effect (albeit small, but cumulative) on all the users who have no use for such fluff.

So, that's why I put such a strong negative weight on what seems like such a minor feature. In the case of any small thing, it can be considered "minor" but at the same time, once it's in, it's *VERY* hard to remove it without huge amounts of objections, so it's better to say "Is this valuable enough to sacrifice something else for later?" and in my opinion it's very certainly not.

Genre9mp3:
Though I can clearly understand your point of view on this in general, I can't understand how an extra setting can decrease battery life.

Rincewind:
I don't think that the binary size killer argument should be applied to such a small feature.

perhaps this could be done with only 2 lines of code - just an "if statement" in the right place (plus the menu option to set it, which should be small with the new settings system, too).

recently the last.fm log got commited - I would call that feature a binary size waste.

Every serious software tries to protect users from damages to their health. Btw. I think that Jonathan Gordon's idea to set settings to always start at a default value when starting the player is more useful than an overall volume limit, because I want full volume when I use line-out and the accidential risk of full volume is only there when you start the player and don't know where it was when you shut it off the last time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page