#37794 - GOD - Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:19 pm
Hi. I just finished soldering together an Xboo cable, and I went looking for some software to allow me to utilize it via Linux... unfortunately all I've been able to locate is windows software. I know there are emulators for linux that can run windows programs, but frankly... I don't want anything windows on my machine :) Anyone know of a working linux program for Xboo?
#37795 - Lord Graga - Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:21 pm
#37796 - GOD - Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:24 pm
Segmentation fault. Already tried it. According to the source it seems like it's just a GUI... linux apps tend to have commandline backends and GUI front-ends, I merely skimmed the documentation, but I guessed that it was just a front-end :\
Anyway, if it is full fleged working Xboo software... well, it segmentation faulted on me as soon as I unextracted it and tried to run it. Figures.
#37798 - Vince - Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:33 pm
Hello,
Harass the author for the source! There is no point in providing Linux software if there is no source with it and a free software-compliant license.
Then try recompiling it/running through a debugger.
Vince
_________________
Reclaim control of your F2A/F2AU with if2a !!
#37800 - Lord Graga - Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:18 pm
WntrMute has allready been harrassed about the source several times :)
#37807 - GOD - Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:31 pm
And still hasn't released the source? :(
I don't know what to do to get this to work on Linux. I tried running Xboo via my parent's lame windows machine (yes with a windows version of the software), and it didn't work... it didn't load the rom. I'm not sure if it's my Cable (which I managed to break - accidentally pulled off one of the wires, and can't get it back on), or if it's just the ROM, or even the OS. Bah!
#37821 - Vince - Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:53 am
| Quote: |
| WntrMute has allready been harrassed about the source several times :) |
I did not know this was WntrMute who wrote it. He seems to be away sometimes and does not respond for quite a long period (see the devkitarm/gcc3.4 thread for instance).
He should nevertheless still be asked for the source. I'm sure he understands that putting the source on the site can only but help people (and him btw as for stopping source requests:)
Vince
_________________
Reclaim control of your F2A/F2AU with if2a !!
#37827 - GOD - Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:53 pm
Well, how did he figure out how to create the software to interface with the Xboo cable? If you can provide me with the data he might have used I'll try and develop new software for it for linux... although it will have to wait until this summer - graduating in may, and I'm taking a massive load this semester so I can.
I don't really know where to begin to figure out how to load a rom onto the GBA, I'm fairly new to GBA development... any kind of real-world development really... kind of sad considering I'm graduatin - bah. Anyway, point me in the right direction and I'll give it a go. Why don't a whole bunch of us work together on it? If he won't release the code, why don't we try and figure out how to write our own?
#37829 - wintermute - Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:15 pm
and you people wonder why linux has such a dearth of gba development tools.
#37835 - Honkey Kong - Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:26 pm
First things first, did you try sudo'ing xcomms? Most people can't make it work without running in a root environment, due to the fact that it accesses the hardware directly.
Second, if you want to know how it works, instead of harassing people to release source when they have no obligation to, why not do a little research? The multiboot protocol is pretty well documented in Martin Korth's GBATek document, located here:
http://www.work.de/nocash/gbatek.htm
#37838 - GOD - Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:01 pm
| wintermute wrote: |
| and you people wonder why linux has such a dearth of gba development tools. |
Care to explain that one. There is no reason to be rude, I proposed developing an alternate version for linux so you wouldn't have to deal with people harassing you for code. There is no reason to make condescending remarks. Why not help me out instead?
| Honkey Kong wrote: |
| Second, if you want to know how it works, instead of harassing people to release source when they have no obligation to, why not do a little research? The multiboot protocol is pretty well documented in Martin Korth's GBATek document, located here: |
Firstly: no I haven't tried sudo'ing the command, and I shall. [Edit] that worked. Thanks Honkey Kong (great name, btw).
Secondly: I haven't harassed anyone to release any source. Instead, since I wanted to know how it works, I asked if anyone had information regarding its functionality so I wouldn't have to harass anybody for source. I would rather write it myself anyway... greater feeling of satisfaction.
As for the gbatek data sheet so generously provided by no$gba, I've already got that printed out. I haven't read it yet, though (did read the entire cowbite spec a few months ago). Hopefully reading the no$gba documentation will answer my questions regarding where to start.
Lastly: There is no need to be rude and condescending (speaking mostly to wintermute), we are all here to learn and improve upon the GBA. If your (wintermute's) lude comment was in regards to my not knowing how to load a rom onto the GBA: I meant over the link port. I don't have the money for a flash cart, and was thrilled to learn of the Xboo cable... I constructed one this morning that retained the integrity of the GBA-Link cable I purchased so as not to waste any money (utilizing a female and male LPT connectors). If the comment was directed at any lack of knowledge on my part regarding the development process in light of my graduation status, well, excuse me for going to a bad school. I'm very sorry my school wasn't everything I expected it to be, in fact there isn't a day that goes by that I don't regret not being able to transfer somewhere else that has better facilities and professors. Instead of looking down your nose at me, why not help me learn and improve my position? I would really like to know what you meant by that comment, wintermute. Most uncalled for.
#37841 - Honkey Kong - Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:45 pm
Well, I'm glad you finally got it working. :)
As for the comment about harassing WinterMute for source, this really wasn't aimed at you, but more at the people who harass Linux software authors about their source code even if they don't feel like releasing it. Sure, I prefer to compile all the software on my Linux machine from source, but if someone chooses to keep their code to themselves, I'm not going to hound them for it, because what they decide to do with their code is their own business.
If the software does something that's undocumented, then sure, it would be great to have the source code, or at the least, a basic explanation of how it works. In the case of Xcomms, most of the information needed to write a similar program can be found in the GBATek documentation, and in various docs about parallel/serial I/O. All that's required is to put 2 and 2 together to write your own. Maybe the source to Vince's iF2A program could prove more useful at this point, as it can (I assume) be used to multiboot a GBA, as well as use it to write to a cartridge. ;)
#37861 - wintermute - Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:27 pm
| GOD wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: | | and you people wonder why linux has such a dearth of gba development tools. |
Care to explain that one. There is no reason to be rude, I proposed developing an alternate version for linux so you wouldn't have to deal with people harassing you for code. There is no reason to make condescending remarks. Why not help me out instead?
|
write an app for windows, people request bug fixes & features.
write an app for linux, people *demand* the source and encourage others to do the same. It's annoying and unnecessary.
sometimes it makes you wonder why anyone bothers trying to support linux at all.
Xboo Communicator has been an experiment in cross platform development, not intended for collaboration. For the most part it has shown that linux users who can't get things to work seem to have this idea that the entire fault lies with the coder and that they could fix it if only it were open source. With this app there have been 2 main problems - people who can't follow a wiring diagram and people who don't use sudo with apps that access the parallel port directly. The reaction from those users who couldn't figure that out has left me extremely unsympathetic to public demands for anything relating to linux.
Quite apart from whether it's actually legal to open source proprietary algorithms, it's my crossword puzzle & I'd prefer to finish it without interference :P
#37871 - MumblyJoe - Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:37 am
Yeah, get off WntrMutes back, he has been responsible for a lot of good things and "Demanding" anything from him is just plain silly.
_________________
www.hungrydeveloper.com
Version 2.0 now up - guaranteed at least 100% more pleasing!
#37880 - GOD - Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:23 am
| MumblyJoe wrote: |
| Yeah, get off WntrMutes back, he has been responsible for a lot of good things and "Demanding" anything from him is just plain silly. |
I never demanded a thing from him! I wasn't on his back in the first place! I merely responded to what appeared to me as a rather rude remark. I completely understand where he's coming from, though, and that was why I asked him for information regarding how he was able to develop his project (the hardware information Honkey Kong pointed me to, which I already had. was exactly what I was after - or so I'm optimistically assuming (still haven't had a chance to look at it))! I never asked him for the source. What I wanted was information on how to go about creating my own source, what type of information about the hardware should I look into, how should I go about extracting certain information from the GBA, etc. I didn't make explicit requests because I didn't know what to ask for. Still don't, quite frankly, but I'm sure the no$gba documentation will provide invaluable information - I know the CowByte Spec sheet did.
| wintermute wrote: |
| write an app for windows, people request bug fixes & features. |
On linux they will ask you for bug fixes and features too, in addition to that, however, they'll ask for the source so they can help you write those fixes and features - chances are you're a busy guy, and don't have the time to devote to everyones problems, so they try and aleviate some of your burdon by helping you deal with the issues turning up.
| wintermute wrote: |
| write an app for linux, people *demand* the source and encourage others to do the same. It's annoying and unnecessary. |
Not all linux users do that (granted, you didn't say all did). I'm fairly new to the linux scene as well, but most of the users I've run accross aren't demanding at all regarding closed source software... they tend to respect the importance of liscensing as it greatly protects the software released for linux, so when someone doesn't want to release their source - sure a few are probably a little annoyed - the majority of those who use the software are understanding. Perhaps I've just been lucky in whom I've run accross, though. Chances are, though, that the majority of source demanding linux users are recent windows converts who don't really understand the whole source code thing yet, and don't really appreciate what really goes into it all.
Incidentally, although you're unsympathetic regarding linux users... including documentation for windows in a supposed linux release is a bit odd... granted the release works, but I wouldn't have known to sudo the command due to restrictions imposed by the program using direct hardware access unless I came here and asked (or apparently hassled is the correct term) someone about it. Maybe replace the windows portion of the documentation released in the linux package with a simple: "If it segmentation faults, try running it sudo (or as root)."
Anyway, the program is great. It was quite a thrill to see my lame little test app running on the actual hardware... although, admittedly, the first thing I booted up was so dark I thought my rom didn't work. Of course, that's a fault of my own. Looks like I'll be looking into gamma correction before I complete my graduation project!
I'm writing a tetris clone for the gba as my "Seminar Project," the project Computer Science undergrads have to do to graduate. Why a tetris clone? Anything I write for the school becomes the property of the school, so I'm not about to hand over anything I might one day wish to develop into a serious project.
Ironically, the XBOO application I downloaded to my parent's windows machine won't load the same ROM (an unrelated program, I believe). No doubt because the ROM doesn't have the required header... any quick fixxes before I head off to the documentation? I remember reading something about a gbafix program... but I hate not knowing how something works :(
#37884 - wintermute - Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:59 am
| GOD wrote: |
Incidentally, although you're unsympathetic regarding linux users...
|
who demand source in public in annoying ways ...
| Quote: |
including documentation for windows in a supposed linux release is a bit odd... granted the release works, but I wouldn't have known to sudo the command due to restrictions imposed by the program using direct hardware access unless I came here and asked (or apparently hassled is the correct term) someone about it. Maybe replace the windows portion of the documentation released in the linux package with a simple: "If it segmentation faults, try running it sudo (or as root)."
|
the documentation hasn't really been updated other than with history in a while. Most people using the app already know how & generally speaking, the mention of userport implies root or sudo. I'm currently testing another option for linux which may allow it to run in userland.
| Quote: |
Ironically, the XBOO application I downloaded to my parent's windows machine won't load the same ROM (an unrelated program, I believe). No doubt because the ROM doesn't have the required header... any quick fixxes before I head off to the documentation? I remember reading something about a gbafix program... but I hate not knowing how something works :( |
hopefully you're using devkitARM and will find gbafix in the compiler's bin directory.
as a linux user, hopefully you already know how to use CVS.
| sourceforge docs wrote: |
Anonymous CVS Access
This project's SourceForge.net CVS repository can be checked out through anonymous (pserver) CVS with the following instruction set. The module you wish to check out must be specified as the modulename. When prompted for a password for anonymous, simply press the Enter key. To determine the names of the modules created by this project, you may examine their CVS repository via the provided web-based CVS repository viewer.
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/devkitpro login
cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/devkitpro co -P modulename
|
using libgba & examples/gba in place of modulename should give you some interesting things to play with.
#37888 - Vince - Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:48 am
Hello,
Interesting thread indeed. As for what has been said here are my 2cents words :
1. I stand strong on the point about Linux and the source. I see no point writing software for Linux and it not being free software compliant. Sorry for being that GPL-frantic but ask yourself why you are using Linux : is it for the hype or for the fact it gives you more freedom/power? Keep also in mind that it's because of this freedom that Linux is what it is now concerning development environment/tools.
2. Wintermute is right concerning the knowledge required with Linux. We are speaking here about development and HW/SW related projects. I'd say do your work first.
3. That being said, I nevertheless think that the source should be released. A segfaulting program IS a buggy program, this is not a point of discussion. This is the reason why I usually do not use any Linux binaries, especially when they are old as lots of things might have changed in between. A binary is, IMHO, only useful if always kept up to date (a static one might help here). We are having the problem atm with the old Mac port of f2a, the software if2a builds upon and that nobody can run anymore as a binary only. If there was no source, nbody would have been able to help and update the port.
That's it for the rant, I think it is important matter here.
Vince
PS: if2a source is not help here for the problem as it is the F2A linker firmware that does the multiboot protocol-related communication. if2a only says 'send that file via multiboot and run it' to the linker.
_________________
Reclaim control of your F2A/F2AU with if2a !!
#37889 - Torlus - Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:57 pm
| Vince wrote: |
Hello,
1. I stand strong on the point about Linux and the source. I see no point writing software solutions for Linux and it not being free software compliant. Sorry for being that GPL-frantic but ask yourself why you are using Linux : is it for the hype or for the fact it gives you more freedom/power? Keep also in mind that it's because of this freedom that Linux is what it is now concerning development environment/tools.
|
What do you mean? Have a look at IBM, Oracle, whoever bringing software solutions for Linux... Most of their software is closed-source, or not GPL-compliant. The question is : what would be Linux without all these entreprise solutions ? In the real world, people and companies use Linux for technical and financial reasons, not for the "hype" or whatever. For it's sake, as I'm pretty sure that an operating system used only by hobbyists and students won't have led to what Linux is at the moment.
_________________
GBA,GC,NGPC,GP32,FPGA,DS stuff at http://torlus.com/
#37892 - tepples - Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:11 pm
| Vince wrote: |
| 1. ... Sorry for being that GPL-frantic but ask yourself why you are using Linux : is it for the hype or for the fact it gives you more freedom/power? |
"C: It came with the computer." In the coming years, the price of PC hardware components will likely fall so far that a Windows XP Pro license costs just as much as the bare hardware. Sub300.com and Walmart.com are selling cheap hardware, either without an OS or with Linspire installed.
| Quote: |
| 3. That being said, I nevertheless think that the source should be released. A segfaulting program IS a buggy program |
Agreed. Polite feature request: Please have it detect and print "Permission denied" if it can't open the I/O.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#37893 - Vince - Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:19 pm
Hello,
You are right concerning entreprise acceptance of Linux. However, there are two points worth distinguishing here :
1. Closed-source applications only contribute to Linux _acceptance_ and _usage_ in the company world. This is mainly because Linux now stands, in terms of features, quite ahead of commercial Unix implementations. Such advance was acquired because of open-sourcing and has very little to do with these closed-source apps.
2. The real point is that companies understand the merits of open-source (not free software unfortunately:( in terms of how maintaining and contributing software as a group can leverage costs. This I don't deny at all and you are right about IBM for instance, which heavily contributes to Linux kernel development. Linux would never have achieved that maturity without them in such short period of time, that's true.
The thing is, hobbyist and commercial companies are different :) I can expect support from a company for its program, very unlikely from an individual on the long term (even more true as the software is free).
My point was that there was no reason to retain the source here : unless you are ashamed of something, I think it's far better to tell the users 'see the source and then explain me what's your problem' than 'it segfaults? it's because of you'
As for the proprietary algorithms, maybe but it's not clearly indicated on the site. Is wintermute bound by an NDA here? I thought he wrote the software with the GBA tech docs only ...
| Quote: |
| "C: It came with the computer." In the coming years, the price of PC hardware components will likely fall so far that a Windows XP Pro license costs just as much as the bare hardware. Sub300.com and Walmart.com are selling cheap hardware, either without an OS or with Linspire installed. |
I don't see your point here, tepples. Are you sayng you are using Linux because it came with your machine? That would be nice (for Linux to come with every machine). I'd nevertheless rather have people think about that in terms of freedom/power.
All in all, I think the important point is about choice. I am glad GNU exists and I am glad to contribute when I can because I have control over what my computer does. It also make me think about our freedom in generaI and when we have to trade it (I, for instance, trade my freedom to mend/modify my car in exchange for safety with the operations done by someone more qualified than I am).
I leave the choice to the others concerning what they want to use.
I may be unclear, feel free to reply for the debate to continue :)
Vince
_________________
Reclaim control of your F2A/F2AU with if2a !!
Last edited by Vince on Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
#37896 - wintermute - Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:39 pm
linux users == rah rah rah give me the source, argue, argue, rant, rant
not all of them by any means but unfortunately there's a vocal minority who *really* piss programmers off.
#37897 - tepples - Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:41 pm
| Vince wrote: |
| tepples wrote: | | "C: It came with the computer." In the coming years, the price of PC hardware components will likely fall so far that a Windows XP Pro license costs just as much as the bare hardware. Sub300.com and Walmart.com are selling cheap hardware, either without an OS or with Linspire installed. |
I don't see your point here, tepples. Are you sayng you are using Linux because it came with your machine? That would be nice (for Linux to come with every machine). I'd nevertheless rather have people think about that in terms of freedom/power. |
My computer specifically uses Windows, but during the Nintendo DS era, a GNU/Linux operating system will come pre-installed on many low-end machines intended for residential users who can't afford the Windows tax. People who buy those machines will in fact use Linux because it came pre-installed.
| Quote: |
| It also make me think about our freedom in generaI and when we have to trade it (I, for instance, trade my freedom to mend/modify my car in exchange for safety with the operations done by someone more qualified than I am). |
And that's the argument that PC manufacturers and Microsoft are going to use to get you to adopt un-Trusted Computing.
Is this thread turning into Slashdot?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#37899 - TheMikaus - Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:22 pm
| wintermute wrote: |
linux users == rah rah rah give me the source, argue, argue, rant, rant
not all of them by any means but unfortunately there's a vocal minority who *really* piss programmers off. |
I think the main problem with your statement is that you generalize to linux users when you're really upset with only a minority of the population of linux users.
Other than that, it's your self written program. Do what you want with the source.
#37909 - Honkey Kong - Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:06 pm
I still don't see the point in this whole "all Linux software must be open source" argument, and I'm as much of a Linux zealot as anyone. If they want to keep their source code to themselves, what's the big deal? Do you protest every single Windows software author that doesn't write programs that bluescreen? Do you harass every Mac software author whose programs don't make you feel cooler and condescending?
It doesn't make any sense at all to harass a software author for their source. No matter what platform they write for, it's just plain rude. Now, if he wanted the program to be open-source, what would happen? Surprise Surprise! You'd have the source in your hands right now. If it's not open, quit crying, move on, and be thankful he even decided to write it in the first place, instead of trying to annoy him to the point where he doesn't even want to work on it at all.
Honestly, I'm surprised you guys are harping about this. With this being a development forum, you would think the members would have better things to do than whine because their overzealous philosophy doesn't agree with someone's decision to make ONE PROGRAM closed-source. And people wonder why companies are so reluctant to write software for Linux? This is the reason. So unless you're willing to give up your shallow-minded "I need source for everything, fuck trade secrets" mentality, don't bitch when you can't get a Linux driver for that new printer/scanner/video card/sound card/network adapter that you just bought. It's your fault these companies have no incentive to make native drivers or software.
#37922 - tepples - Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:08 pm
| Honkey Kong wrote: |
| I still don't see the point in this whole "all Linux software must be open source" argument, and I'm as much of a Linux zealot as anyone. If they want to keep their source code to themselves, what's the big deal? |
The difference is that unlike a GBA, a PC running Linux is most definitely not a fixed system. In fact, Linux is less "fixed" even than Windows, as Linux, BSD, and UNIX systems tend to keep less application binary interface (ABI) compatibility across different versions of the operating system product than Windows systems do. Making a program run on a different version of the operating system often requires a recompile, and unless the publisher is willing to purchase a compile farm with at least a specimen of each version of the operating system, it remains easier for the publisher to release source code so that end users can recompile the programs.
| Quote: |
| And people wonder why companies are so reluctant to write software for Linux? |
The question is actually "should we release it for Red Hat, or Debian, or FreeBSD, or a combination of the above?" There is no consistent *n?x ABI the way there is a Win32 ABI.
| Quote: |
| So unless you're willing to give up your shallow-minded "I need source for everything, fuck trade secrets" mentality, don't bitch when you can't get a Linux driver for that new printer/scanner/video card/sound card/network adapter that you just bought. It's your fault these companies have no incentive to make native drivers or software. |
Companies should not have to develop and publish free software. The SANE people would be happy if Microtek were to release only wire-level specifications for communicating with the company's scanners.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#37924 - GOD - Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:34 pm
| wintermute wrote: |
| Most people using the app already know how & generally speaking, the mention of userport implies root or sudo. I'm currently testing another option for linux which may allow it to run in userland. |
Generally know how to what?
The mention of "userport" in the documentation accompanying the Linux package was immediately preceded by instructions for a Windows system, which made me skip right over it in search of Linux instructions. It speaks of drivers being installed in two windows system directories, and the files to be installed are .SYS and .EXE files (two things you'll never see on a linux machine (to my knowledge anyway)). Since I'm unaware of what "userport" implies as I'm new to linux, seeing it preceeded by instructions for Windows made me assume it was completely unrelated. Incidentally, what does userport mean?
I grabbed a I/O howto the other night, and after skimming it briefly it may be of some service to you, since you say you're testing other options for linux. I hope it helps:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/IO-Port-Programming.html
| Vince wrote: |
| Sorry for being that GPL-frantic but ask yourself why you are using Linux : is it for the hype or for the fact it gives you more freedom/power? Keep also in mind that it's because of this freedom that Linux is what it is now concerning development environment/tools. |
Uhm, that was a bit peculiar... what hype? The only "hype" surrounding linux I'm aware of is regarding its superior security and cost. Both of which can be retained with closed source applications. You don't necessarily want the source for all your encryption algorythms being available to any old genius... especially the evil kind. The progress of Linux is due, in no small part, to the open-source nature of the operating system. In fact, if it wasn't for this facet Linux wouldn't be where it is today. That doesn't mean Linux should condemn closed-source applications, what it means is that Linux is superior to close-sourced operating systems as it is capable of catering to both the open and closed source communities seamlessly. If there is a problem with the closed source application running on an open source system it is due to an oversight of the author of the application, and in some cases the incompetence of the user. The problem with the segmentation fault is the perfect example: although it is the users fault for not knowing something of this nature should be run with root permissions, as it is accessing hardware, the application should inform the user of this if it is run without such permissions. Thus both the user and author are at fault - the user for not knowing their system, and the author for not having the foresight (or empathy) to aid the uninformed.
Closed source applications shouldn't be discouraged, their integration with linux will only aid the growth of the Operating System as more and more commercial applications will start to recognize it as a viable target, and will begin porting their software to a thriving market. They need only be informed of how to go about doing so appropriately.
There is a very valid reason why this program is closed source, which wintermute mentioned, and I shall address shortly.
| Vince wrote: |
| ... A binary is, IMHO, only useful if always kept up to date (a static one might help here). |
There is a static binary. The only reason it segmentation faults is because it was run with the wrong permissions, although it should handle such instances elegantly (considering nobody in their right mind is logged in as root for every day tasks, let alone development). It worked flawlessly when run sudo.
| Vince wrote: |
My point was that there was no reason to retain the source here : unless you are ashamed of something, I think it's far better to tell the users 'see the source and then explain me what's your problem' than 'it segfaults? it's because of you'
As for the proprietary algorithms, maybe but it's not clearly indicated on the site. Is wintermute bound by an NDA here? I thought he wrote the software with the GBA tech docs only ... |
It is closed source, frankly, because it would be illigal to make it open. Why? One of the better features of the software:
" Fix GBA header automatically inserts logo and calculates complement check."
If you pass a ROM to your GBA that doesn't have the appropriate header (the copywrighted logo Nintendo has imposed to ensure nobody steals their games) the Xcomm will automatically insert the logo, and make the necessary corrections so your code will run on the hardware without changing the binary! Only if you've selected the option, of course. If this were to be open source software, wintermute would have to remove this feature, as the Nintendo logo is quite proprietary, making it available to the general public would land wintermute in a wolrd of trouble. Personally, I don't want to see that feature removed, so keep it closed source. As for people keeping source closed out of shame, I'd say the opposite is more likely: they would keep source closed out of pride, as they wouldn't want their elegant routines, algorythms, and logic stolen. Also, saying "see the source" can be just as unhelpful to someone as "it's your fault." Not everyone on linux is a programmer, so telling someone who has never coded in their life to "see the source, and then explain what your problem is" would probably cause more problems than it would solve. I was generalizing about Linux as a whole in the last example, obviously if someone is using this program they are probably interesting in programming in some respect. However, you've probably noticed that a great deal of the users on this forum are new to development, and as such programming as well, so telling them to "see the source..." could be just as detrimental as saying it to someone who has just switched to Linux from Windows, and is having trouble with some proprietary software. In either case, saying "see the source" isn't the correct way of dealing with the issue, the correct response would be "see the documentation." Unfortunately, in the case of Xcomm the documentation didn't address the issue. All that is needed in documentation would be one line stating that it must be run with root permissions. Even then, it still shouldn't segmentation fault, instead it should exit elegantly with a message to the standard error stream saying that it needs to be run with root permissions. I think you're being unjust, Vince. Not everything demands source.
| theMikaus wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: | | linux users == rah rah rah give me the source, argue, argue, rant, rant not all of them by any means but unfortunately there's a vocal minority who *really* piss programmers off. |
I think the main problem with your statement is that you generalize to linux users when you're really upset with only a minority of the population of linux users. |
TheMikaus: he didn't generalize at all there, in fact he made it a point to not generalize! "...not all of them by any means but unfortunately there's a vocal minority..." I was very pleased to see wintermute make this corrective clarification. Kudos, wintermute.
Honkey Kong: you don't see the point in this whole "all Linux software must be open source" argument because there isn't one! It would be devestatingly foolish to require everything released on Linux to be open source, it would completely turn off the business market to the wonderful Operating System. If anything, closed source programms should be welcomed with open arms to encourage more ports - specifically games, since every user I speak to has only stayed on Windows because they need their games. Closed source shouldn't become the new defacto in Linux, which would never happen anyway, but it shouldn't be shunned either.
| Honkey Kong wrote: |
| Honestly, I'm surprised you guys are harping about this. With this being a development forum, you would think the members would have better things to do than whine because their overzealous philosophy doesn't agree with someone's decision to make ONE PROGRAM closed-source. |
I've only seen one person harping over the source for the program being released, watch your pluralization ;)
Last edited by GOD on Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:50 pm; edited 2 times in total
#37925 - GOD - Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:40 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Companies should not have to develop and publish free software. The SANE people would be happy if Microtek were to release only wire-level specifications for communicating with the company's scanners. |
Absolutely. Speaking of which, tepples, where can I find documentation on how to write software for hardware I happen to have wire-level specifications for? I've always wondered and wanted to know, but never had the time to find out. This is something I expected my school to teach me, but alas, here I am at graduation, and the majority of the other graduating students' projects are fucking websites (front and back ends)! How disgusting!
#37927 - tepples - Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:52 pm
| The user with the username GOD wrote: |
It is closed source, frankly, because it would be illigal to make it open. Why? One of the better features of the software:
" Fix GBA header automatically inserts logo and calculates complement check."
If you pass a ROM to your GBA that doesn't have the appropriate header (the copywrighted logo Nintendo has imposed to ensure nobody steals their games) the Xcomm will automatically insert the logo, and make the necessary corrections so your code will run on the hardware without changing the binary! Only if you've selected the option, of course. If this were to be open source software, wintermute would have to remove this feature, as the Nintendo logo is quite proprietary, making it available to the general public would land wintermute in a wolrd of trouble. |
Not necessarily. The 156-byte magic cookie is probably not copyrightable, especially given the appellate decisions in Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control Components. Both cases have been discussed on this forum; use the search button. If you're concerned about somebody bringing a nuisance lawsuit against you specifically, then just have your program call gbafix, which already comes with devkitARM.
| Quote: |
| Speaking of which, tepples, where can I find documentation on how to write software for hardware I happen to have wire-level specifications for? I've always wondered and wanted to know, but never had the time to find out. |
If you've managed to coax documentation out of a manufacturer, there are multiple options for getting it turned into a driver. Either search for information about Linux driver programming either on Google or in a bookstore, or just send a copy of the documentation in question to the maintainer of a driver subsystem, such as the SANE project if the peripheral is a scanner.
| Quote: |
| and the majority of the other graduating students' projects are fucking websites (front and back ends)! |
I hope you're not referring to erotica here. Ecch :-?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#37928 - GOD - Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:27 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| ... then just have your program call gbafix, which already comes with devkitARM. |
I just tried using gbafix to patch the test ROM I used to see if my Xboo cable worked from Linux (which it did) to try and get it to load using the Windows XBOO.COM program. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and I'm left to assume I don't know how to use gbafix. I don't have time to find out right now, either. In fact, I'm barely going to have time to finish this post!
| tepples wrote: |
| ... Either search for information about Linux driver programming either on Google or in a bookstore... |
I've actually managed to acquire a copy of the O'Rielly book on the subject. Though I wouldn't like to limit my knowledge of driver creation soley to Linux. Ideally I'd be creating my own hardware, and writing cross-platform drivers for it. Any suggestions on how to go about that endeavor? *curses his crappy school* Wow, how's that for ironic? Typed that in and my alarm goes off - time to go take an exam! I'll finish this later.
| tepples wrote: |
| ... or just send a copy of the documentation in question to the maintainer of a driver subsystem, such as the SANE project if the peripheral is a scanner. |
That would completely defeat the purpose of acquiring the documentation to learn how to develop drivers for hardware...
| tepples wrote: |
| Quote: | | and the majority of the other graduating students' projects are fucking websites (front and back ends)! |
I hope you're not referring to erotica here. Ecch :-? |
Haha, no I wasn't. It was meant to be taken in the "un-fucking-believeable" context. Sorry for my poor grammar. Product of the American education system, what can I say?
Last edited by GOD on Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
#37929 - TheMikaus - Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:39 pm
| GOD wrote: |
TheMikaus: he didn't generalize at all there, in fact he made it a point to not generalize! "...not all of them by any means but unfortunately there's a vocal minority..." I was very pleased to see wintermute make this corrective clarification. Kudos, wintermute.
|
| wintermute wrote: |
GOD wrote:
Incidentally, although you're unsympathetic regarding linux users...
who demand source in public in annoying ways ...
|
That's very general actually.
| wintermute wrote: |
| write an app for linux, people *demand* the source and encourage others to do the same. It's annoying and unnecessary. |
is also very general "people" (fixed the quote. I had it as "linux people" sorry)
I agree that he qualified it in the post afterwards with what he said.
But if I said "Women suck. Not all, just a minority." to a lady. I'm sure she would take offense anyway.
Not a big deal either way. Sorry for the misconstruction of wintermute's statement.
#37930 - Vince - Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:03 pm
Hello back,
This thread is hot ! Thanks to all of you for posting your feedback concerning the topic :)
All your aguments are good here. I nevertheless still hold on my point here. Why? Because I value freedom more than anything else.
Think about the following about closed-source :
1. Security issues
For security-related work, closed source is unacceptable. Think about all the security holes in IE that are known and that Microsoft will deliberately not fix. At a smaller scale, all the adware/spyware inside Windows programs are a consequence of that. If these programs were open-source (_AND_, let me stress the point, accompanied by a free-sfotware license), everybody would be using the adware-free version. If only open-source, at least people would decide on their own about whether to use them or not. You cannot trust a non open program. Call it paranoia, I call it caution.
2. Support
When the software supplier decides to stop supporting the program, you cannot do anything. Why would you buy a new version if the previous suits your needs?
3. New architectures
You cannot port the program to new architectures/machines. You have to wait for the program writer to do it. You have to surrender your freedom here (again).
4. Learning
I see no point in spending time learning how to use a new program if everything in it is going to change whenever the software company wants it (to make people buy the new version for instance). I invested time in learning the tools I use and I know this a good investment. I, for instance, have been using the Mozilla products for 5 years now. Excellent value. I can use them on all architectures I have to work with (thanks to point 3.) and know they won't disappear because the Mozilla foundation goes to bankruptcy :)
Ok, these are the points I think about immediately. I then think my observation about the hype still stands here : why are you providing a program for Linux? To be cool? If it is closed source, then I might just use Windows instead, it's simplier, hassle-free and generally more intuitive (of course, I have to surrender my freedom there, pay the license, accept the EULA, etc).
I use Linux by choice, because of that freedom. Please do not take it as if I'm saying your program is not efficient or good or fast, etc. I know you achieved great things in this community and lots of people are glad and use your work. I'm saying your XBooo program simply takes my freedom away. If I need to build a cable, then I may use your program once or twice but in the long term, I will look for a GPL equivalent or write one.
So, to sum it up:
1. I am are talking about freedom here, not mere technical details (source code available or whatever). I don't want the source of a program if I'm not able to freely modify it, copy it and redistribute it to my friends.
2. I want people to make the closed source/open source choice knowing the odds and ends of the question. There is absolutely no bad in using closed-source software as long as you know you are surrending your freedom.
There is also the question about HW/SW freedom ...
Vince
PS: As for the Nintendo header, IANAL but to me, including copyrighted material in a program without a license/agreement from copyright holder is breaking the law, be the work be closed-source or not. Moreover, tepples is probably right here.
_________________
Reclaim control of your F2A/F2AU with if2a !!
#37934 - GOD - Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:48 pm
| TheMikaus wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: | GOD wrote:
Incidentally, although you're unsympathetic regarding linux users...
who demand source in public in annoying ways ...
|
That's very general actually.
|
Not at all. He isn't saying all Linux users demand source, he was saying he's only unsympathetic towards Linux "users who demand source in public in annoying ways..."
I'll come back to the rest of what was said tonight, I have to study for an exam.
#37937 - TheMikaus - Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:58 pm
| GOD wrote: |
| TheMikaus wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: | GOD wrote:
Incidentally, although you're unsympathetic regarding linux users...
who demand source in public in annoying ways ...
|
That's very general actually.
|
Not at all. He isn't saying all Linux users demand source, he was saying he's only unsympathetic towards Linux "users who demand source in public in annoying ways..."
I'll come back to the rest of what was said tonight, I have to study for an exam. |
oh. alrighty then. Again, sorry for misconstructing his statements.
Edit:
Well.. it depends. Because it could be "linux users who do this" meaning only those that do this or could mean "linux users, who do this" which would be a definition instead of a conditional.
But I think you're right, I think it's the conditional.
#38239 - wintermute - Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:04 pm
| Vince wrote: |
Hello back,
[snip]
|
Couldn't care less for your arguments regarding open source etc. For various reasons I can't open source it, continual harassment will make no difference.
You value freedom? It appears you don't hold mine in very high regard.
| Quote: |
PS: As for the Nintendo header, IANAL but to me, including copyrighted material in a program without a license/agreement from copyright holder is breaking the law, be the work be closed-source or not. Moreover, tepples is probably right here. |
The Nintendo logo is trademarked, not copyrighted. Including a trademarked logo within a binary file is irrelevant since it is not displayed.
Anyway - I've updated the linux build with an error message.
http://www.devkit.tk