Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:58:18 AM Radek Polak wrote: On Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:44:54 PM Neil Jerram wrote: Ah, thanks, I understand your question now: what version of fsogsmd does QtMoko build with, and isn't that now rather out of date? But I'm afraid I don't know the answers. I was using FSO from git at the time when i was implementing FSO backend. I am quite sure FSO from wheezy will work unless FSO api changed. However for now it makes no sence to use any dbus modem middleware as default. QtMoko's modem library is very stable and works IMO very good. I dont see any benefits in using FSO or oFono right now. But still if you want to use FSO or oFono the support is in every QtMoko installation - just change export QTOPIA_PHONE=oFono or export QTOPIA_PHONE=Fso in /opt/qtmoko/qpe.env and QtMoko will use the dbus backend for telephony. Regards Radek This is getting off topic now :) I came into this discussion because I want to check the version of the gsm firmware, to see if it needs to be upgraded. The wiki has a page on doing this via FSO with dbus [1]. Is there a different method available ? The reason I wanted to do this is to see if there is a bug dealing with NITZ that may have been resolved, but I am not sure at what level in the stack it is. According to [2] the AT+CTZU command is supported. To do this I need to talk to the modem, but nothing is being returned ? I have tried chat [3] and cu [4] without success. Trying cu, I typed AT and get no response. Is this a Calypso firmware bug as described by Alex [5] ? [1] http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/GSM/Flashing [2] http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Hardware:AT_Commands [3] http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-September/067496.html [4] http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo_1973_and_Neo_FreeRunner_gsm_modem [5] http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-September/067509.html ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Adam Ward cay...@internode.on.net writes: On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:29:38 AM Radek Polak wrote: On Sunday, July 22, 2012 02:08:39 PM Simon Busch wrote: As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. Yes this is correct. My plan was to use FSO for GTA04. But when i got my GTA04, there was no work for this device done in FSO, so i rather added gta04 modem plugin based on qtopiaphonemodem framework and this now default. New GTA02 user here, I see the code in neocontrol.cpp pulls the library from http://activationrecord.net/radekp/pub/ I am guessing that at the time it was current. The debian package is now current, so I would expect it to be used instead ? I can't tell what you mean here. Which library / package? Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:01:23 AM Neil Jerram wrote: Adam Ward cay...@internode.on.net writes: On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:29:38 AM Radek Polak wrote: On Sunday, July 22, 2012 02:08:39 PM Simon Busch wrote: As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. Yes this is correct. My plan was to use FSO for GTA04. But when i got my GTA04, there was no work for this device done in FSO, so i rather added gta04 modem plugin based on qtopiaphonemodem framework and this now default. New GTA02 user here, I see the code in neocontrol.cpp pulls the library from http://activationrecord.net/radekp/pub/ I am guessing that at the time it was current. The debian package is now current, so I would expect it to be used instead ? I can't tell what you mean here. Which library / package? Neil I am looking at http://packages.debian.org/sid/armel/fso-gsmd/filelist which contains libfsogsm Looking again, I see the newer versions are in sid and wheezy which radek might not be building qtmoko with. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Adam Ward cay...@internode.on.net writes: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:01:23 AM Neil Jerram wrote: Adam Ward cay...@internode.on.net writes: On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:29:38 AM Radek Polak wrote: On Sunday, July 22, 2012 02:08:39 PM Simon Busch wrote: As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. Yes this is correct. My plan was to use FSO for GTA04. But when i got my GTA04, there was no work for this device done in FSO, so i rather added gta04 modem plugin based on qtopiaphonemodem framework and this now default. New GTA02 user here, I see the code in neocontrol.cpp pulls the library from http://activationrecord.net/radekp/pub/ I am guessing that at the time it was current. The debian package is now current, so I would expect it to be used instead ? I can't tell what you mean here. Which library / package? Neil I am looking at http://packages.debian.org/sid/armel/fso-gsmd/filelist which contains libfsogsm Looking again, I see the newer versions are in sid and wheezy which radek might not be building qtmoko with. Ah, thanks, I understand your question now: what version of fsogsmd does QtMoko build with, and isn't that now rather out of date? But I'm afraid I don't know the answers. Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:44:54 PM Neil Jerram wrote: Ah, thanks, I understand your question now: what version of fsogsmd does QtMoko build with, and isn't that now rather out of date? But I'm afraid I don't know the answers. I was using FSO from git at the time when i was implementing FSO backend. I am quite sure FSO from wheezy will work unless FSO api changed. However for now it makes no sence to use any dbus modem middleware as default. QtMoko's modem library is very stable and works IMO very good. I dont see any benefits in using FSO or oFono right now. But still if you want to use FSO or oFono the support is in every QtMoko installation - just change export QTOPIA_PHONE=oFono or export QTOPIA_PHONE=Fso in /opt/qtmoko/qpe.env and QtMoko will use the dbus backend for telephony. Regards Radek ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:29:38 AM Radek Polak wrote: On Sunday, July 22, 2012 02:08:39 PM Simon Busch wrote: As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. Yes this is correct. My plan was to use FSO for GTA04. But when i got my GTA04, there was no work for this device done in FSO, so i rather added gta04 modem plugin based on qtopiaphonemodem framework and this now default. New GTA02 user here, I see the code in neocontrol.cpp pulls the library from http://activationrecord.net/radekp/pub/ I am guessing that at the time it was current. The debian package is now current, so I would expect it to be used instead ? ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org writes: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 23:13 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead However I was told that adding support for AGPS and GTA02 UBX would not be straingtforward in gpsd. AGPS is very usefull to save/restore the AGPS data offline in order to speedup the fix. All that works on ogps. Hmm. I should probably concede here because I don't know any of the details or history. Technically, however, I'm surprised if there was no feasible way of doing this with gpsd. Regards, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 16:47 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org writes: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 23:13 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead However I was told that adding support for AGPS and GTA02 UBX would not be straingtforward in gpsd. AGPS is very usefull to save/restore the AGPS data offline in order to speedup the fix. All that works on ogps. Hmm. I should probably concede here because I don't know any of the details or history. Technically, however, I'm surprised if there was no feasible way of doing this with gpsd. yes there is, I'm trying to use the hooks right now(I already fixed the permissions for doing that). Denis. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On 08/03/2012 05:15 PM, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 16:47 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org writes: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 23:13 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead However I was told that adding support for AGPS and GTA02 UBX would not be straingtforward in gpsd. AGPS is very usefull to save/restore the AGPS data offline in order to speedup the fix. All that works on ogps. Hmm. I should probably concede here because I don't know any of the details or history. Technically, however, I'm surprised if there was no feasible way of doing this with gpsd. yes there is, I'm trying to use the hooks right now(I already fixed the permissions for doing that). Would you be so kind and point out how to hack A-GPS with gpsd or where to start. I have spend some time and found no way to do this with gpsd. Extra software was always needed. Especialy for heuristics which tells to GPS the current time and position and its precision. Jirka P. Denis. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 23:13 +0200, Neil Jerram wrote: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead However I was told that adding support for AGPS and GTA02 UBX would not be straingtforward in gpsd. AGPS is very usefull to save/restore the AGPS data offline in order to speedup the fix. All that works on ogps. Denis. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Dr. Michael Lauer mic...@vanille-media.de writes: Hi, Arguably those two paragraphs are already well satisfied by oFono. oFono probably now has the advantage in terms of maturity and deployment, is compilable by a standard C compiler, and has a recent version packaged in Debian. FSO is compilable with a standard C compiler as well. Every tarball release we did has been shipping C files. Ah sorry, my mistake. (I thought FSO was written in Vala now.) The following may sound pointlessly controversial, but I don't intend it that way; I think it may help the FSO developers to review and understand more precisely their objectives. Why is FSO still needed at all, given that oFono exists and appears to have the development mindshare and advantages noted above? Would your objectives be achieved more quickly or easily by switching to oFono and contributing any needed additions to that? Oh, FSO is so much more than oFono. If you want to compare, then compare oFono to fsogsmd alone. I agree that there is a difference in scale, but would draw the opposite conclusion. Probably one of the factors in oFono's success is that it concentrates on doing one thing well. I'm not sure any of the non-GSM FSO components have proved themselves yet. I could be seeing things wrong, but to pull out a couple of examples: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead - the Usage API, which I understand to be motivated mostly by power management, is being rendered unnecessary in many cases by the powering on/off being handled automatically in the kernel. As for the comparison between those two, well, fsogsmd was first, has (IMO, of course) a better architecture, a better API, and supports other modems. And there's no agenda of a company behind – some people may view that as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. I don't see why we should invest time in something we consider not being superior. But might it be less work overall to address those inferiorities in oFono? Regards, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 02:08:39 PM Simon Busch wrote: As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. Yes this is correct. My plan was to use FSO for GTA04. But when i got my GTA04, there was no work for this device done in FSO, so i rather added gta04 modem plugin based on qtopiaphonemodem framework and this now default. Btw qtmoko has very nice api for different telephony backends - it can currently use also oFono, google talk and voip as backends. It's very easy to use and it's very well documented [1]. Regards Radek [1] http://radekp.github.com/qtmoko/api/qtelephonyservice.html ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Simon Busch morp...@gravedo.de writes: I would be really happy to hear what other people are thinking about the idea behind FSO since it was started back in 2008. What are your missing features? What do you like and what not? All of the details you've described sound to me like excellent and compelling things to work on. But your wider problem is that you're working in a vacuum, because there's no reasonably widely used phone distribution that uses FSO and that is also regularly and safely updated. That means you have no users for your incremental improvements. Obviously there's SHR, but from what I see on the mailing lists it seems to me that the development edge of SHR is a complete basket case: constantly broken and regressing in very basic functionality. I think you either need to change SHR's approach, or to find/create another compelling distribution (perhaps around Aurora) that uses FSO; otherwise all your planned improvements won't help anyone. I'm sorry to be so negative and unconstructive here, but it seems clear to me that SHR is your elephant in the room, and I don't think you should ignore that. Regards, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Am 22.07.2012 12:03, schrieb Neil Jerram: All of the details you've described sound to me like excellent and compelling things to work on. But your wider problem is that you're working in a vacuum, because there's no reasonably widely used phone distribution that uses FSO and that is also regularly and safely updated. That means you have no users for your incremental improvements. Obviously there's SHR, but from what I see on the mailing lists it seems to me that the development edge of SHR is a complete basket case: constantly broken and regressing in very basic functionality. I think you either need to change SHR's approach, or to find/create another compelling distribution (perhaps around Aurora) that uses FSO; otherwise all your planned improvements won't help anyone. I'm sorry to be so negative and unconstructive here, but it seems clear to me that SHR is your elephant in the room, and I don't think you should ignore that. You find excellent words to describe the current state our efforts to have a completely open sourced mobile telephony stack. There is no real development on the upper layers. I tried to get into this for a long time (remember mickeyl and I started aurora back in 2011) but came to the point that I don't have the time to do the real big thing anymore. It's frustrating to have nothing you can really use with the software you wrote. But finally I came to the point that I have fun developing just FSO and get everything into shape so others can pick up. I indicated already some months ago that I don't want to focus on a specific device anymore but just FSO and get it available in a good and stable state where possible. So if anyone has fun to pick up my work with FSO on a higher level just do. I will continue to develop the middleware in my spare free time and hope it's going into the right direction. Any btw. it must no be everytime suitable for a device like a phone. I started implementing HFP HF as I like the idea to have my phone lying next to my laptop while working a get a indication when a phone call comes in on my laptop where I can then answer the call directly without putting my fingers on the phone. regards, Simon -- Simon Busch - http://mm.gravedo.de/blog/ ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2012, 12:03:38 schrieb Neil Jerram: But your wider problem is that you're working in a vacuum, because there's no reasonably widely used phone distribution that uses FSO and that is also regularly and safely updated. That means you have no users for your incremental improvements. I think that's not true. There are users outside distributions using FSO for own applications, like me. Big thanks to Simon (and Mickey) Rico signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Neil Jerram n...@ossau.homelinux.netwrote: Simon Busch morp...@gravedo.de writes: I would be really happy to hear what other people are thinking about the idea behind FSO since it was started back in 2008. What are your missing features? What do you like and what not? All of the details you've described sound to me like excellent and compelling things to work on. But your wider problem is that you're working in a vacuum, because there's no reasonably widely used phone distribution that uses FSO and that is also regularly and safely updated. That means you have no users for your incremental improvements. Does QTMoko not use FSO now? If yet then Radek has a pretty usable upper layer out there now where end users can try out the improvements in FSO. Rakshat ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Am 22.07.2012 13:52, schrieb rakshat hooja: On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Neil Jerram n...@ossau.homelinux.netwrote: Simon Busch morp...@gravedo.de writes: I would be really happy to hear what other people are thinking about the idea behind FSO since it was started back in 2008. What are your missing features? What do you like and what not? All of the details you've described sound to me like excellent and compelling things to work on. But your wider problem is that you're working in a vacuum, because there's no reasonably widely used phone distribution that uses FSO and that is also regularly and safely updated. That means you have no users for your incremental improvements. Does QTMoko not use FSO now? If yet then Radek has a pretty usable upper layer out there now where end users can try out the improvements in FSO. As far as I know Qtmoko can use FSO but does not as default. regards, Simon -- Simon Busch - http://mm.gravedo.de/blog/ ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
