Rockbox Replaces Archos Firmware

bagder writes: "The guys in the Rockbox project have just released the first working firmware replacement for the Archos portable hard disk-based MP3-players. The software is all GPL. Every tiny bit was reverse engineered, disassembled and then re-written from scratch. You can go download your own firmware right now!"

Comments

That is a bunch of BS!!!

[SHEENmaster]

I can understand a corporation wanting to keep their source code to themselves.

I can understand a corporation wanting to keep their protocol documentation a secret from the public.

I can even understand that a corporation may not want people replacing their firmware.

But that is no &@$%ing excuse for reverse engineering to be illegal. If I buy a program, and it is delivered to me in binary format, I paid for it. They didn't give me the source code, but the binary is mine. Telling me that I can't read that binary myself, and that only my computer may read it is complete bullc*#$!!!!

The execs haven't slapped the DMCA on these guys yet, and I am glad for that. I think that we should start buying archos to fool around with. But if they do slap the DMCA around, I think that would be a call for a good ol' fashion boycott (or boston archos party :-). We need to stand up for our rights, and if they are denied, we need to fight back with the only weapon available to us, our own money.

What exactly is the big deal?

[ciurana]

I asked this myself before looking at the FAQ from the Rockbox site. Since the MP3 decoding is done in hardware, and (by the developers' own admission) Ogg Vorbis support is unlikely, I ask myself again: What's the big deal?

Maybe it's the engineer in me, trying to look for a practical value in such an effort, but I don't see the point in reverse engineering a perfectly working piece of machinery that has a well-defined purpose: To play MP3 files. Since the hardware is proprietary, what's the point in getting slightly better software for it, when it's likely that the vendor will release a patch themselves?

I believe that applying open source methods to software development must be done judiciously. The best times to do OSS is when the community at large will benefit greatly from the software produced, or when a vendor arbitrarily curtails some fundamental freedom in their software and we must find a workaround. I don't see either thing happening with this gadget. What's the advantage of going through all that trouble, when the alternative is probably a software patch or buying an iPod? Both options seem cheaper (time, $$) than hacking this little box. I honestly think that the developers could've made better use of their time.

Cheers!

E