[Arm-netbook] One issue with the EOMA68 Wikipedia

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Mike Leimon <leimon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> I took a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry and saw what I thought was an
> error and I will fix the problem if you can confirm that I understand the
> situation correctly.
>
> The wikipedia article says the following:
>
> """
>
> There are two different physical profiles of EOMA68 (based around the legacy
> PCMCIA classifications):[2]
>
> 54 mm × 85.6 mm; 5mm variant (Type II)
> 54 mm × 85.6 mm; 3.3mm variant (Type I)
>
> Type I is reserved for up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output; Type II is
> reserved for up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type
> I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a
> module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from
> being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any
> possible confusion about interoperability.

 type I 3.3mm.... no!  that's wrong!  well spotted.  i believe i added
that in a hurry without checking.

> """
>
> However, as I understand things, the second part of the article is incorrect
> and should probably be as follows:
>
> """
>
> Type II is reserved for up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output; Type I is
> reserved for up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type
> I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a
> module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from
> being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any
> possible confusion about interoperability.

 yep well done for spotting that, please somebody feel free to make
the correction.  sooner is better.... before yet _another_ person goes
and claims "authoritatively" that they're in a position to make
factually misleading statements about EOMA68.... *sigh*....


>
> """
>
> Please respond and let me know if I am understanding this issue correctly
> and if so, I'll make this correction to the article after I am back home
> from work for the day.
>
> I'm not sure about any other issues with the article but, when I get a
> chance I'll try to take a closer look at it (maybe some time tomorrow).

 it's not the article itself: it's the fact that... well.... take a
look at the wikipedia COI noticeboard, if you dare.  we have several
people "chipping in" who know "wikipedia rules" but have absolutely
f***-all knowledge of what EOMA68 is actually about.  they're
therefore trying to "clean up" the page... but are substituting
factually completely WRONG information in its place.