Slashdot Mirror
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!"
I have some money to invest, and my friend told me to buy shares of LNUX. He says it is a visionary company with a great business model, and should be generating tons of revenue soon ($$$!!!).
He also told me they own this website, www.slashdot.com. He said there are lots of friendly people who can help me.
He said I should buy LNUX now because it is priced well, and should have great growth potential. In fact it is such a great price right now that I can buy over 100 shares! What do you all think?
Thanks in advance!
I can understand a corporation wanting to keep their source code to themselves.
:-). 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.
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
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
homo hos1kl241ba sdf
4;asdfkl;asdbkl;sdf
basd
f
asdfbl;
ba
fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mmmm, you know, I'd much rather spend 20 minutes or whatever transferring my mp3's to the archos using USB (and only the latest models use USB 2.0 and even then it's gonna cost you extra as most PCs out there don't have USB 2.0) than 20 seconds on the ipod... NOT.
I really want something that looks like a brick, feels like a brick and is probably about as easy to use as a command line prompt... NOT
And, I hate to say this but, which company bothered to produce the first windowing personal computer and who copied that, Hmm?. Which company was years ahead with palm based devices only to eventually be eclipsed by an inferior copy, Hmm? Which company is leading the way in video editing for the masses with easy to use and freely available software which everyone is now trying to copy (or even not bothering 'cos they know they can't do it as well), Hmm? I'll answer for you as your brain has probably siezed by now... Apple!
You PCphiles just can't accept a company that innovates can you? And as for the iPod being a copy, you show me another mp3 player that's the same size and costs less and I may take you seriously.
When will you anti-macophiles get the picture that cost isn't everything. Sometimes people want things that actually work and do what they're supposed to do?