Dual Boot not working?

[Llorean]

Then why not work on implementing this missing functionality rather than merely lamenting the lack of dual boot? It seems a much better end to pursue.

[zurvan2]

Then why not work on implementing this missing functionality rather than merely lamenting the lack of dual boot? It seems a much better end to pursue.

I appreciate that sentiment... I really do. I *Love* rockbox, but I don't have time to learn the codebase. (I am a software engineer, although I haven't coded in C for years)

I don't want to tell the developers what to do! But the statement above was that no one could possibly *want* dual boot to work, and that is just incorrect. There are now at least *three* whole users (heh) that want this functionality, according to this thread.

[Llorean]

Yes, but features only really get implemented by people who want them. My point was more "if you want access to feature X, since you're going to have to be the ones to do it, why not do it in this way"

[Phalangees]

I appreciate that sentiment... I really do. I *Love* rockbox, but I don't have time to learn the codebase. (I am a software engineer, although I haven't coded in C for years)

I don't want to tell the developers what to do! But the statement above was that no one could possibly *want* dual boot to work, and that is just incorrect. There are now at least *three* whole users (heh) that want this functionality, according to this thread.

You have to remember that the people developing rockbox are doing in for free on their free time and will implement features that they want to see. Unless you can do it yourself, the average user suggestion really doesn't have a ton of push. Believe me, if I could learn more C, I would make a ton of features, but like you, I don't have the time. It's a tough situation but there's no way in hell I'd complain for something not being implemented when you look at how many incredible features have been already.

I love you rockbox dev's  

[zurvan2]

I'm not complaining! Really!

I (and presumably the other requesting posters above) are merely expressing interest in a feature *that is on the roadmap* and countering arguments that the feature is not wanted.

That's it. No expectations, no demands, no complaints.

Now... I've been thinking more and more about this recently. I've never even worked in anything like this type of embedded device, but I have a modded XBox that runs XBMC, and it can "run" the regular dashboard kinda lika any other software. Would it be possible to simply "run" the original firmware as an application (maybe as a plugin) (and with no way back except rebooting)? I, for one, don't care about boot time for the original firmware since I'll usually use rockbox, so this would work for me, at least. Just a random idea.

[Llorean]

Being on the roadmap is still irrelevant: The people writing the roadmap, and the people making features on it, are all the same one group: "People interested in Rockbox."

It's kinda irrelevant that people are interested in it, so long as the situation stays that "The people who are interested in using it, aren't interested in writing it."

I'm not trying to be discouraging or anything, in fact I'd rather that this state encourage someone to implement the feature, but someone's gotta spend the time.