Tony -
... and what's the quantities you want to buy. I think if we could
buy their whole company, the openness should not be an issue anyway.
But before that happens, ...
FANTASTIC!
Tony, your explanation settles this topic once and for all...
Way to go!
Wolfgang
On Feb 16, 2008, at
Am Fr 15. Februar 2008 schrieb Brandon Kruse:
In that case it is not an open phone or platform.
It's a philosophical question, where open has it's limits. E.g. you probably
consider a plain vanilla x86 GNU/linux desktop system to be pretty much true
open. However i guess you have no idea at
In that case it is not an open phone or platform. It is well worth the
investigation to go fully open somehow IMO.
But I guess we could be like olpc and have a MOSTLY open platform
(wifi chip is not, as you could have guessed)
Brandon Kruse (bkruse)
On Feb
On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:49 PM, joerg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Fr 15. Februar 2008 schrieb Brandon Kruse:
In that case it is not an open phone or platform.
It's a philosophical question, where open has it's limits. E.g.
you probably
consider a plain vanilla x86 GNU/linux desktop system to
On Friday February 15 2008 13:54:27 Brandon Kruse wrote:
In that case it is not an open phone or platform. It is well worth the
investigation to go fully open somehow IMO.
But I guess we could be like olpc and have a MOSTLY open platform
(wifi chip is not, as you could have guessed)
Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
Next we discovered that those reflashing tools had further issues: for
example, they would only allow loading cryptographically signed firmware
into the chipset flash memory.
I don't see why the cryptographic-signing requirement is a problem. Sure
it would be nice if
On Feb 8, 2008 3:51 PM, enaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Earl schrieb:
I think he had the right intentions about this idea, however it would
require vast CPU resources or a coprocessor dedicated to firware/driver
layer managment. This is unlikley to happen, However trying to
I see the concern of using up all the CPU time and wasting power. It
would be great if we could have binary patches as downloads with
software an architecture that could update all the firmware.
It would be even better if we had enough information about the chips in
concern that we could
On Feb 9, 2008 4:11 PM, Jeremiah Flerchinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On another note, access to low level GPS functions could be fairly
interesting. Imagine gathering data from a local weather station and
using it to better calculate atmospheric effects and improve accuracy.
I used to hack
Med vennlig hilsen / Kind regards
Tore Dalaker
Rosenkrantzvegen 19
N-4353 Klepp Stasjon
+4798024965
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
Dear Community,
Some of our chips or chipsets contain proprietary firmware in flash memory.
For example, in GTA02 these include the Wi-Fi, GPS, and
On Feb 7, 2008 8:32 PM, Wolfgang Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He suggested we treat any chipset with proprietary firmware as a black-
box, a circuit. He suggested we ignore the firmware inside. If the
firmware is buggy and the vendor needs the ability to update the
firmware, we instead ask
I think he had the right intentions about this idea, however it would require
vast CPU resources or a coprocessor dedicated to firware/driver layer
managment. This is unlikley to happen, However trying to unlock the virtual
lips of companies would be a huge step forward. Not to play devils
On Friday 08 February 2008 08:46, Lally Singh wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 8:32 PM, Wolfgang Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He suggested we treat any chipset with proprietary firmware as a black-
box, a circuit. He suggested we ignore the firmware inside. If the
firmware is buggy and the vendor
Due to regulatory requirements over wireless frequencies, power and
modulation i can't see it being possible for the low level software that
controls the RF transmitters being Open Source.
Moving the software that modulates the transmitted RF and demodulates
the received RF onto the user space
Christopher Earl schrieb:
I think he had the right intentions about this idea, however it would require
vast CPU resources or a coprocessor dedicated to firware/driver layer
managment. This is unlikley to happen, However trying to unlock the virtual
lips of companies would be a huge step
I like the idea of having total control over my electronic devices -
especially if they are able to collect everything about my life like a
mobile phone. Thats why I'm currently living without any mobil.
If I am able to look into what runs on my device, I can trust that
stuff. so I'm one
Hi Wolfgang,
Thanks for sharing this with the community.
Le vendredi 08 février 2008 à 09:32 +0800, Wolfgang Spraul a écrit :
Then we ran into problems when bugs were found in the firmware, and we
wanted to update handsets out in the field.
The vendors would give us firmware updates and
+1
Software by its nature is easier to fix than hardware or even
firmware; this approach does the Right Thing: vendors win
because the firmware layer just got a whole lot easier to write
and the rest of the world wins because we get as much control
as legally permissible of our hardware.
On
+1 Good and smart decision from my point of view.
On Feb 8, 2008 11:58 AM, Paul Jimenez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Software by its nature is easier to fix than hardware or even
firmware; this approach does the Right Thing: vendors win
because the firmware layer just got a whole lot easier
19 matches
Mail list logo
