View Single Post
Estel's Avatar
Posts: 5,028 | Thanked: 8,613 times | Joined on Mar 2011
#299
Originally Posted by szopin View Post
It may be cheaper, but also totally fail for now. So while you might put 1$ at failed program, it is not an argument, tell me of a succesfull reveng program and how much it cost. With fully open base costs should decrease dramatically. Your argument is: it is so costly, noone ever done it, so lets build a device from scratch, which accidentaly also was never achieved by anyone in a satisfactory fashion... how can you compare price???
To be honest, I don't see any sensible argument, why creating device from scratch should be more fail, compared to Your ideas. At least, we have some predecessors (Open Pandora, Raspberry Pi, etc), while no one *ever* 100% reverse-engineered device like N900.

If, by some unbelievable miracle, You would have enough money to buy/reverse-engineer/whatever way open N900 "Stack" fully, it would be much better spent creating new device, running mainstream debian, archlinuxor whatsnot. For that money, probably 2 or 3 of them, in straight line

You're saying that developing own device is "we will bring You heaven" - to be honest, IMO ideas of fully opening N900/N9/whatever proprietary device You have in hand are even more unrealistic - basically, it just *won't* happen, ever. Probably, no matter how much time/money You spent on it.

don't get me wrong - as You probably noticed, I love N900. Yet, projects like CSSU/kernel-power are best we can achieve. There is no feasible way to go through/around closed hardware-specific bits. Ask any developer with brain and common sense. Period.

/Estel
__________________
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Estel For This Useful Post: