Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 1 hr, 2 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 13 hrs ago - more...
Mentalist Traceur |
2011-01-31
, 06:00
|
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#331
|
Originally Posted by WereCatf
Oi, the proper solution is reinstalling the FCam driver using apps. (meaning, uninstall all FCam using apps, then reinstall all FCam using apps.) Then reboot. No need to downgrade (depending on how much risk you want to take that something somewhere doesn't update right, I'm pretty sure you can skip the reboot. Alternatively on the really safe side, you can stick another reboot between the uninstall and reinstall),
 |
|
2011-01-31
, 09:55
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#332
|
Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur
Alright, thanks for the tip!
Oi, the proper solution is reinstalling the FCam driver using apps. (meaning, uninstall all FCam using apps, then reinstall all FCam using apps.) Then reboot. No need to downgrade (depending on how much risk you want to take that something somewhere doesn't update right, I'm pretty sure you can skip the reboot. Alternatively on the really safe side, you can stick another reboot between the uninstall and reinstall),
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
|
|
2011-01-31
, 14:25
|
|
Posts: 529 |
Thanked: 194 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ UK
|
#333
|
Originally Posted by Chrome
this is the problem i am having did you manage to get it sorted ¬
Could someone help me to create a boot option in multiboot for this kernel?
I place zImage-2.6.28-maemo46-wl1 in /boot/multiboot
and created 02-maemo46-wl1.item in /etc/multiboot.d/ with the following info:
ITEM_NAME="Maemo Kernel wl1"
ITEM_KERNEL="2.6.28-maemo46-wl1"
ITEM_MODULES=ext3
It shows in multiboot menu but when i load it i get:
Can't flash kernel, required files not find
Originally Posted by one1002
been trying for days now to get it like that but every time i install kernel 2.6.28.10power46-wl1 it overwrites kernel 2.6.28.10power46 any ideas were im going wrong
multiboot works..i can now multiboot :
1. maemo-kernel omap1
2. kernel 2.6.28.10power46
3. kernel 2.6.28.10power46-wl1 (packet injection!!!!!!!!!!!!yeahh!!)
4. NITDroid
__________________
Last edited by stevomanu; 2011-01-31 at 14:30.
|
|
2011-02-04
, 05:49
|
|
Posts: 124 |
Thanked: 105 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#334
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Wrong. Under capitalism, no one has the right to sell anything. That would require someone to be obligated to buy it. One has only the right to offer something for sale, which is not the same as the right to sell it.
Actually, no. There's NO moral difference, it's still stealing. By pirating software, you are taking away something that the owner legally has: The right to sell his craft.
Originally Posted by woody14619
Right, that would be fine in my book <G> Not stealing.
Suppose I walked into a book store with a hand scanner, picked up a book, scanned the whole thing in, and then left. Is that theft? They still have their original.
Originally Posted by woody14619
Of course they wouldn't retain their (commercial) value. There is nothing wrong with that. Value is governed by SUPPLY/DEMAND, NOTHING else - not the amount of skill or effort that went into producing something, nor it's beauty or performance.
What if I made a replicator, then walked into a museum and replicated all of Van Goghs works. Would the originals retain their value, as I stood outside making free identical replicas for everyone to take home with them?
Originally Posted by woody14619
Back to square one. It's not stealing, because there is nothing to steal.
Just because the result of a craft is a virtual item that can be easily replicated at little/no cost doesn't make it legal to steal it. Your "going home and making one just like it" analogy is also false, as it implies everyone is looking at his work, then going home and writing their own code to do something similar. That's not what's happening here. They're using his code, code he spend time and effort learning, working on, and debugging.
On a related note, it someone DID just look at his code, then went home and wrote their own, then that would be ok? What if they had a really good memory, and could replicate his code almost exactly, would that be ok too? Just how different would someone else's code have to be to not be considered "stealing"? Is your philosophy capable of providing a universal answer? I highly doubt it.
Originally Posted by woody14619
That's different. I wouldn't "expect to get paid" unless a contract was created prior to me starting the work. Then, if my backer didn't pay, he'd be in breach of contract, legally and morally in the wrong.
Imagine you spent time learning how to draw exceptional images, and took the time to draw a stunning work, expecting to be paid for it. Then your backer doesn't pay, and you realize you spent lots of time and money doing this, and can't make another without selling that piece.
If you and I agreed that I would mow your lawn for x amount of money, I would be entitled to said money once I'm finished. But if I just come out of the blue and mow your lawn, I have no right to expect any payment, no matter how much work I put into it, and you are not obligated to pay me, even if you are happy with the work.
Originally Posted by woody14619
Artists who do art for art's sake will continue to make art. Programmers will continue to write software, for their own use, to adverise their skills, and to make money in related ways such as providing support or customised applications. To say that people wouldn't create "intellectual property" is ridiculous.
Isn't that stealing? How many other artists will take the time to make such images in the future? How likely is that artist to do anything art related in the future? How many beautiful pieces has the world missed out on because people were to cheap to spend a buck on a piece art?
Originally Posted by woody14619
How can it be wrong "technically"?? (Unless you screw it up??) Morally, sorry your opinion doesn't make it so, and legally... well "legally" has to do with who can afford the most lawyers (ehm ehm RIAA, MPAA... you didn't REALLY think all that money goes to the artists for their hard work, did you??
The bottom line is this: The only way copying software, music, images, or anything digital is not stealing is if the person that put the effort into that product has specifically given permission to do so, or if it's so old that it's declared "public domain" for lack of ownership (like very old books or music). Trying to justify stealing by saying it's "scene" or that it's not really theft because the owner still has their original is bogus. It's wrong, technically, morally, and in most places legally.
)...so that means nothing, really.
|
|
2011-02-04
, 08:14
|
|
Posts: 1,680 |
Thanked: 3,685 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
|
#335
|
Originally Posted by nman
Wrong. Under capitalism, no one has the right to sell anything. That would require someone to be obligated to buy it. One has only the right to offer something for sale, which is not the same as the right to sell it.
Right, that would be fine in my book <G> Not stealing.
Of course they wouldn't retain their (commercial) value. There is nothing wrong with that. Value is governed by SUPPLY/DEMAND, NOTHING else - not the amount of skill or effort that went into producing something, nor it's beauty or performance.
Back to square one. It's not stealing, because there is nothing to steal.
On a related note, it someone DID just look at his code, then went home and wrote their own, then that would be ok? What if they had a really good memory, and could replicate his code almost exactly, would that be ok too? Just how different would someone else's code have to be to not be considered "stealing"? Is your philosophy capable of providing a universal answer? I highly doubt it.
That's different. I wouldn't "expect to get paid" unless a contract was created prior to me starting the work. Then, if my backer didn't pay, he'd be in breach of contract, legally and morally in the wrong.
If you and I agreed that I would mow your lawn for x amount of money, I would be entitled to said money once I'm finished. But if I just come out of the blue and mow your lawn, I have no right to expect any payment, no matter how much work I put into it, and you are not obligated to pay me, even if you are happy with the work.
Artists who do art for art's sake will continue to make art. Programmers will continue to write software, for their own use, to adverise their skills, and to make money in related ways such as providing support or customised applications. To say that people wouldn't create "intellectual property" is ridiculous.
How can it be wrong "technically"?? (Unless you screw it up??) Morally, sorry your opinion doesn't make it so, and legally... well "legally" has to do with who can afford the most lawyers (ehm ehm RIAA, MPAA... you didn't REALLY think all that money goes to the artists for their hard work, did you??
Used pirated version, donated.
Just pay the man for his f**king hardwork. It will encourage him do more cool stuff.
Facts:
- This has been pushed upstream and so will trickle down for free anyway.
- The source is available, you could have patched, compiled and deb'ified your own copy at any time.
- Only the early adopters have payed AND they chose how much!
Why shouldn't a man receive financial remuneration for his earned skills?
Maybe you are going to code an even better packet injection driver and release it outright...No? I thought not.
__________________
N900: One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vi_ For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-02-04
, 08:32
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 80 times |
Joined on May 2010
|
#336
|
@ lxp, since you are in the Euro-zone, are you able to give an IBAN/BIC/etc. codes to send you cash directly? Save giving Paypal their undeserved cut.
|
|
2011-02-04
, 14:07
|
|
Posts: 124 |
Thanked: 105 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#337
|
Originally Posted by vi_
LOL, I donated and got my driver a while ago. thanks tho.
Used pirated version, donated.
Just pay the man for his f**king hardwork. It will encourage him do more cool stuff.
|
|
2011-02-04
, 14:30
|
|
Posts: 5 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2011
|
#338
|
Originally Posted by stevomanu
here's how i did it:
this is the problem i am having did you manage to get it sorted ¬
been trying for days now to get it like that but every time i install kernel 2.6.28.10power46-wl1 it overwrites kernel 2.6.28.10power46 any ideas were im going wrong
- Install wl1 using this method ->
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...062#post914062
(credit goes to HtheB)
- Install power 46 using this method ->
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=12
(credit goes to miyo.fayad)
- Got to etc/multiboot.d, there is an item "01-Maemo-kernel-power46".. change the numbering to 02
##if u reboot now, u will have guru error for kernel power46-wl1 becoz the kernel power46 overwrite the wl1 files
- Go to pc, extract file kernel-power-modules_2.6.28-maemo46-wl1_armel.deb using 7zip
- copy folder "2.6.28.10power46-wl1" in kernel-power-modules_2.6.28-maemo46-wl1_armel/lib/modules/
- go to lib/modules on ur phone, paste and replace the folder "2.6.28.10power46-wl1"
- reboot
then u will have
1. omap (stock kernel)
2. power46-wl1 kernel
3. power46 kernel
5. backup menu
hope this helps
| The Following User Says Thank You to bleu_huh For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-02-04
, 20:08
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#339
|
Originally Posted by nman
Way to pick semantics. My point was that the creator gets to offer his work for the price of their choosing. By pirating, you remove that right by paying nothing.
Wrong. Under capitalism, no one has the right to sell anything.
Originally Posted by nman
I'd bet that book stores and the author or the work would say otherwise. In fact, Google had just this issue with scanning books, was taken to court over it, and would have lost (which is why they settled for a huge fine out of court). Legally, it is stealing.
Right, that would be fine in my book <G> Not stealing.
Originally Posted by nman
And that's where you're wrong. If you were right, hookers would be free. They're not. They're paid for their work, since they technically sell no tangible product outside of "beauty or performance".
Value is governed by SUPPLY/DEMAND, NOTHING else - not the amount of skill or effort that went into producing something, nor it's beauty or performance.
Value can be influenced by supply and demand, but neither is the predictor or creator of value. Value is place by the creator of a good, and the market reacts accordingly. If the value is too low, there's a run on the supply until demand is met or supply is exhausted, which then drives up the value in resale. If the value is to high, pent up demand exists and a market for a competitor is formed.
At no point does supply and demand itself set the value. Nor at any time does those in the demand side get to choose the value of the supply. Their choice is weather or not to purchase from the supply for the cost set by the one offering the good. Simply taking the good without paying any cost for an item that has a value set on it is called theft.
In this particular case, the author has asked people to pay what they see as a fair value, which is somewhat risky. But in any case, taking and using that code for free is still theft, since if you value it enough to use it, it clearly has value to you, for which you did not pay.
For me, the value of the driver is negligible. I'll probably never actually use packet injection, and the other enhancements are pretty minor. For me, that means I paid a token amount for the privilege of having the driver in the event I do need it later.
Originally Posted by nman
Except the work put into creating it.
Back to square one. It's not stealing, because there is nothing to steal.
Originally Posted by nman
Actually... My philosophy is quite well understood. There are even terms for it. Including terms like "reverse engineering" and "patent". This isn't "my philosophy", by the way. It and other philosphies of trade were documented long ago by several people who's names you may have heard, including Hume, Smith, Marx, and the like. This particular philosophy was documented by Hume and Smith, and is the predominant form we today call Capitalism.
On a related note, it someone DID just look at his code, then went home and wrote their own, then that would be ok? What if they had a really good memory, and could replicate his code almost exactly, would that be ok too? Just how different would someone else's code have to be to not be considered "stealing"? Is your philosophy capable of providing a universal answer? I highly doubt it.
Reproducing a non-unique idea would be quite acceptable. In fact, in doing so you would then be able to offer that product for a price you found reasonable (including for free). Had someone created an alternative module and offered it for free, so be it. A good example being Sygic, OVI maps, and the flurry of open source mappers here. Nobody is screaming that people using Navit or modRana is stealing from Syigic.
Reproducing a unique work, where the idea had not been conceived of before, and more importantly that you would have not come up with yourself, is slightly different. That's where the concept of patents come in. And reproducing an exact duplicate of someones work (even from memory) is also wrong. The concept of copyright is derived from this.
Originally Posted by nman
Perhaps you missed the entire point of the thread... In this case, the author was under contract, and the contractor did breach that contract. It would have been very difficult to recover anything from the contractor though, so instead the author ask if people would be willing to pay something for his work to help compensate for his time in exchange for releasing it.
That's different. I wouldn't "expect to get paid" unless a contract was created prior to me starting the work.
Understand, he was under no obligation to release it. But he did because people here were willing to help compensate him for it. Then people started offering copies of his work for free, and made disparaging remarks against him for attempting to get money for his work. That's the stem of this entire debate. The fact that you don't know that shows you're not even paying attention to whats happening in this thread.
Originally Posted by nman
And how exactly do artists eat? If people don't pay for beauty or work as you stated above, how would artists make a living? How would programmers making "customized applications" make money? After making sad application, it's intangible and there for free, isn't it? Your whole premise is contradicted by your own statement here, since you're talking about someone paying for a custom application, or providing support, which are both forms of work.
Artists who do art for art's sake will continue to make art. Programmers will continue to write software, for their own use, to adverise their skills, and to make money in related ways such as providing support or customised applications. To say that people wouldn't create "intellectual property" is ridiculous.
Maybe it's not "my philosophy" that need questioning here, but yours. You just detailed two instances of where someone should be paid for their work. Why is it ok to pay for work sometimes, and not at others? How do you decide which work is valid and should be paid for and which isn't? It's clearly not the tangibility of the goods (as you've already stated), since there is nothing tangible when it comes to support or programs (no matter how custom they are).
Originally Posted by nman
So by your definition, murder isn't wrong as long as you murder people that you think it's ok to kill, and that can't afford lawyers (or at least who's surviving relatives can't afford them). Nice morals and legal system you have there. Remind me to never visit you.
How can it be wrong "technically"?? (Unless you screw it up??) Morally, sorry your opinion doesn't make it so, and legally... well "legally" has to do with who can afford the most lawyers
|
|
2011-02-04
, 20:30
|
|
Posts: 1,522 |
Thanked: 392 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ São Paulo, Brazil
|
#340
|
Not paying for a service is different from stealing a physical object, and both are different from copying a number.
__________________
NOKIA N900: IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND
How to use HotspotShield in the N900
Google Voice from outside the US + Free international calls: LEARN HOW HERE!!!
NOKIA N900: IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND
How to use HotspotShield in the N900
Google Voice from outside the US + Free international calls: LEARN HOW HERE!!!
 |
| Tags |
| driver, injection, wl1251 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:44.