Installation / Removal > Apple - Installation/Removal

Tri-Booting help?

(1/1)

dwalk51:
I have finally gotten iPl and iBoy working on my iPod, and now I  have my sights set on RockBox.
But I'm running the ipl loader2.4, which is a problem, b/c it seems all the rockbox administrators always say, "we don't support loader2.4"

but seeing as it is, ALOT of people use it.

So it might help if Rockbox recognized this and helped newbs-who happen to be the majority of rockbox users- learn how to put it on their ipods and run it through loader2.4
Besides, why wouldn't rockbox want more users?

I have iboy installed, and it uses a loader.cfg file.
I hear that if I didn't use a loader.cfg file, I could just place it under my root and call it a day. but sadly I need to ask here for what line of text I need to add to it so that I can launch Rock Box, and where I need to place the files so that the new addition to the loader.cfg file works.
plz, all help is immensly appreciated.

Llorean:
As a note: You aren't making friends here by not reading our forum guidelines. The rules exist for a reason. This is your final warning regarding posting guidelines. Go and read them.

Firstly, we don't support Loader2.4 because we didn't write the software. You're free to use our Loader, and we have full installation instructions for it. You have to understand: Loader2 calls Rockbox. Until you've run Rockbox, you're in Loader2, software that we did not write. Your problem has NOTHING to do with Rockbox. Your problem is "How do I make Loader2 run another program". The fact that the other program is ours happens to be irrelevant, the whole problem exists within Loader2.

Secondly, Loader2.4 won't work with Rockbox because it doesn't properly initialize the coprocessor. We can't magically make your outdated loader not have bugs. Sorry, we're just not that good.

Third Loader2.X is NOT OUR SOFTWARE. If you need to know how to set up the .cfg to use it, ask those who wrote it. We cannot be responsible for it, because we can't know when changes occur in it or other things.

As well, because loader could initialize hardware differently, it CAN cause bugs in how Rockbox operates (see "Secondly" for those using the 2.4 edition of Loader). This is why we don't support it.

As I said, you're free to use the provided-by-Rockbox bootloader, but I don't see why we need to be responsible for someone else's software. They have their own support channels. It's their software. Their software needs a .cfg file, so you ask the people who WROTE the software how to write that CFG file, not the people who say "You don't need to use that software, and hey, we provide a functioning alternative which is the only official solution."

Nobody pays us to support Rockbox, and I see no reason why you expect any of us to try to be experts on software other than the software we provide, just so you don't have to talk to other support channels.

Chill:
Llorean

With respect, those are all perfectly good reasons why you personally, and the other devs, should not feel obliged to answer such questions.  However, can there really be such a big problem in letting people ask this type of question on these forums, where there are many experienced Rockbox users who might be able to help?  I'm not trying to question the importance of forum rules, but I do feel that such strict adherence might be stifling useful discussions on occasion.

Edit:  Ok I've just noticed that the same question has been asked a few times by the OP in several different threads.  I take it back.

Llorean:
Discussion of it is allowed, but questions will receive the response "It's not supported."

I've not deleted any posts about loader2, I've just always responded with a clear statement that it is not supported. You'll notice that in my explanation up there, I don't say "You can't talk about it here."

The point is that the official response is "It's not supported." And we also "strongly suggest you use the official bootloader."

This is because we do NOT want bug reports coming in that Rockbox doesn't work, only to find out that the bug report was because they installed the Loader2 and it prevented something from working properly.

The key is, we want it to be absolutely, one hundred percent, in no uncertain terms "Unsupported." But we don't ban discussion of it.

He in his post clearly wants both official support, and helping "newbs" set it up. We cannot officially support it, it's the other case, bootloader providers need to support loading whatever software they decide to let it load, it's a question of order of operations. And helping 'newbs' install with it would mean providing official instructions, a form of 'support'. We want 'newbs' as it were to be using the official Rockbox bootloader, that way they aren't getting unexpected crashes because they're using software that may not properly support Loading of Rockbox.

If you tried Loader2 and Rockbox, and Rockbox crashed every 30 seconds (something that's likely with 2.4), you would get a very negative opinion of Rockbox. Whereas if you installed the same version of Rockbox the official way, where it doesn't crash like that consistently, your opinion would be very different.

Loader2 users running Rockbox SHOULD be expert, or at least experienced users, who know the official install process, because we don't want a bug report unless you've loaded the official Rockbox bootloader and verified the bug happens there.

linuxstb:
Typing "loader2" into google gives me the documentation for Loader:

http://ipodlinux.org/Loader2

Searching that page for Rockbox gives me a line to put in a loader2 cfg file to load Rockbox:

http://www.ipodlinux.org/Loader2#Menu_Entries

But note that rockbox.ipod now lives in the /.rockbox/ directory on your ipod, not in the root.

I also agree with everything Llorean says - if you choose to use loader2 then don't report any bugs without confirming they occur with the official Rockbox bootloader.

Navigation

[0] Message Index