arm-netbook February 2018

arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk

29 participants
40 discussions

Laptop LCD Touch Pad: Display KB Layout Idea
by Alexander Ross 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

On the laptops lcd touch pad. Here’s a idea for a feature. When leaning new keyboard layout. Say dovrak for example. The trouble is learning where the new keys are. For me at least, one could do with a constant reminder. What if the lcd touch pad displayed the current pressed keys? Maybe on a image of the keyboard, meaning some way of representing where the key you pressed is relative to other keys. So if its the wrong one you can see where the right one is. This info is only displayed while the keyboard is in use. When the touch pad is in use it switches to a relevant display for touch pad use. As for when the user is using not the touch pad nor the keyboard? What then? display keymap? If playing video display: video controls, time left, is internet speed fast enough for this stream? etc.

5 12

Re: [Arm-netbook] Logos
by John Luke Gibson 22 Sep '18

22 Sep '18

I would highly recommend avoiding any logos, without proper historical reference. One of the problems with traditional Linux icons, are that they are very un-iconic. It's better to be textually based, in my opinion, than to use disorienting imagery. At this point, most of the clay has already set so referencing/alluding-to other gnu projects [such as blender] wouldn't be detrimental, however ascii has a very richer history of use by "hacktivists". Referencing some historically relevant (to "hacktivism") ascii iconography either overtly or subtly, kindof more or less as a hat tip to communities which support said historical events will cause the logo a greater likelihood of being regarded as iconic. I wish I had specific examples, but possibly using cloister black font would be a subtle hat tip to anonymous for some individuals use of various letters in that font as copy-cat of L from Death Note. Another thing of note, would be that we need to be careful who we tip our hats to, to be careful of who in the future people might assume us to endorse. A font is innocuous enough, that it can be adapted later due to circumstance (should a need arise to disassociate) without damaging the recognize-ability of any logo. The universal and modular style of blender, is a good point to mimic. A solid dot in the center of the "O" would probably be a subtle enough correlation to the blender logo. This is the pattern of thinking we need in developing logos and "slogans". Thinking about what sounds catchy only correlates us with random corporate culture. We don't need to be entirely original as we have a history to fall back on. However originality might also help distinguish us from our predecessors, the last thing we want is to fail to distinguish ourselves from your neighborhood corporation. I would recommend Luke to contact Wenqing Yang a.k.a. "Yummei", using the notability of the project to attract their attention. I would like to point out that despite being a cultural figure (famous artist) in the hacktivist community they previously lauched a multi-million dollar successful indiegogo which caused them much heart ache (per their blog) over legal controversy with so-called partners and their personal admonishment that they failed to do enough. >From: Alexander Ross <maillist_arm-netbook(a)aross.me> >To: Linux on small ARM machines <arm-netbook(a)lists.phcomp.co.uk> >Cc: >Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:07:15 +0000 >Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] Logos >this all these efforts, got me to have a play around too. :) > > i was started having a go at one idea of letters inserting into each > other kinda like a module. > > I had put E and O in side the M. it then kinda looked like/spelled Meoo > like a cat. > So what about a darn cat logo? maybe a cat playing with a eoma68 card in > its paws? > > sry for the yet another internet cat image type of suggestion, never > thought id be making one heh.

9 18

Re: [Arm-netbook] Logos
by John Luke Gibson 21 Sep '18

21 Sep '18

> The idea about a dot in the "O" of EOMA made me think of fonts where the > dot is in the 0 (zero) to distinguish it from O (capital letter O) As we > all are somehow computer related I would find such a design confusing. If it was really to be in honor of the modularity and progress of blender, one would want to make the "O" not really in any particular font, but to look exactly the shape blender logo, except without the flay or the color scheme: a perfect solid-color circle within another perfect circle. It wouldn't theoretically be confusing because the mark you are thinking of is a hollow circle in an oval. Letter-o'es and zeroes can only sometimes be confusing because in some fonts they are both written as vertical ovals, not just the zero. I'm not sure on the required dimensions of a certification mark, however, the solid-shape flag-esque convention I've noticed among popular one's, often seems to detract from the continuity of the design on the objects that bear them, making them seem particularly foreign and like they don't belong. The vaporwave-esque color palate which most of them choose only add to this affect, as if they themselves are trying to distance themselves on some subconscious level from their endorsements. As a side effect to this, it makes them harder to trust. Any symbolism of any significant body, displays historical awareness.. It's what tells people whether they can trust it, before reading or attempting to judge it. Therein lies the axiom, there is no such thing as an original thought, so, if by means of arbitrary work dedicated to make more concise and thoroughly plastered an announcement of what historical or cultural event may have inspired such thoughts and such work, people will then engage in the arbitrarily difficult work of judging whether the project is sincere or not. In other words, if we don't display more than necessary effort in our symbol that can be recognized with several magnitudes less effort than it took to generate, then no highly-self-valuing person will have any sane reason to take us seriously, because if they took every slightly promising project, which failed to create a Sybil-certificate reputation in this manner, then they would never find a single valuable project in their lifetime (obviously this is an exaggeration).

3 2

Allwinner VPU kernel driver crowdfunding campaign
by Forest Crossman 29 May '18

29 May '18

I'm suprised this hasn't been posted here yet, considering its relevance to this project: https://bootlin.com/blog/allwinner-vpu-crowdfunding/ The engineers at Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) are running a crowdfunding campaign to complete the upstream kernel support for the CedarX Video Processing Unit (Allwinner hardware video decoder/encoder). If you're not familiar with Bootlin, they're the ones responsible for a lot of the other mainlining work that's already been done for Alwinner SoCs, so they have experience getting patches integrated upstream and with kernel development in general. They've already reached their funding goal--which includes support for MPEG-2, MPEG-4 part 2/H.263, and MPEG-4 part 10/H.264/AVC decoding on the A20 SoC--but they have a few stretch goals that include support for newer Allwinner SoCs, HEVC/H.265 decoding, and H.264 encoding. Anyways, if any of you want to help fund the development of Free Software, this looks like a pretty good opportunity to do so! For more information, see the Kickstarter campaign here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bootlin/allwinner-vpu-support-in-the-o…

3 2

Testing: GPIO
by Richard Wilbur 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

After looking at the schematics for the DS113 v2.7 2017-02-17 and the microdesktop v1.7 I feel the need to ask whether there are more up-to-date schematics available? Results of my sleuthing thus far attached.

6 55

OSHW git/pull?
by mike.valk＠gmail.com 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Interesting lecture: https://hackaday.com/2018/02/27/can-open-source-hardware-be-like-open-sourc…

1 0

Patent-Left
by Jean Flamelle 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

Disclaimer: this is a brainstorm of ideas on what is practical. I am a free culture advocate. I understand that without invention my own ideals have practical limitations. I don't believe that invention is impractical, however accomplishment without first inventing is. If any of what is said causes you to question OUR ideals, please meditate on and rationalize what was said: I HOPE YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Please avoid getting triggered, please don't start a flame, and please understand not every issue needs resolution immediately. Most ideas in this thread will need to be outrageous to be helpful. If everyone disregarded those ideas simply for being outrageous, they will never develop into less outrageous ideas. /end-disclaimer I was thinking about some of what Luke has said about certification law, and the only way I can rationalize it is to doubt this has been tested in court absent of patents-held. None of these standards organizations have problems owning patents, only free culture advocates do. Maybe some slight cognitive dissonance is involved (sorry to say so bluntly Luke), but, if these types of precedents are to be held up absent patents-held, that would mean an expansion of standard copyright I don't think many courts would be comfortable with. At the end of the day, if people can just copy the standard disregarding anyone present as a certification entity, there is no economic support to be had for anyone involved. It wouldn't agree with my morals if someone had to ask Luke's permission to make an EOMA card, but I know otherwise isn't practical yet. Enter Patent-Left. The hack-solution is to make the standard itself an "open patent license" that if anyone can follow, then they are assumed to possess the license with burden of proof falling on anyone wishing to prove they aren't following it. This is a hack, because, much like invariant sections in the GDFL, an author can arbitrarily refuse changes to any certain part(s) they choose. How do we capture the moral behind why patents exist, while still honoring free culture? *stop, meditate, write what you think, then keep reading* vvv *skip this if you careless about learning economics* vvv Perhaps, we can make rules about "contractual equity" so, if someone wants to sell what they make, they pick a currency "declare 'owning' an instance of the license" which only becomes valid after selling "equity" towards a right-to-cancel-the-license to a minimum number of I.D.-ed citizens of a country minting that currency at a minimum price (in technical terms, a minimum market cap per a minimum capita). Oh hell that's messy. Hard to believe that's less messy than the first hack. Let me list the problems with my own proposal. Economically: What/Who determines a fair market cap and a fair minimum capita for a given patentleft license? How do we establish sybil protection across cryptocurrency markets (what "should be" a "citizen" to them?)? Politically: How can a market cap fairly account for currency conversions? How can a person from a country minting a currency with a smaller market exert the same influence over a project as there larger market counterparts? How do people from countries without a national currency even participate, much less equally? How do we prevent citizens from countries with multi-currency systems from getting unfairly punishing or rewarding treatment (if only one currency is recognized, that's punishing, but, if all are recognized, that's rewarding, since there are drawbacks to multi-currency systems [including tangibly devaluing* all currencies involved compared to adopting any one as a single-currency] and those who can choose between currencies exert an influence over what currencies a project uses that others can't)? Is there any way legally possible anywhere to prevent people with multiple citizenships from being able to be counted as that many multiple people? Morally: We would be treating any one individual as not "good enough" to copy/modify a patent unless they have "this" many supporters who are at least "this" economically involved, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every other question easily answerable. While associating people with their nation's currencies prevents manipulating the value of currencies they have no stake in, using official documentation associates people with a nation that has chosen them rather than a nation they have chosen, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every political question here easily answerable (except that, if someone solves this "hard problem" only in the context of currencies rather than in general, they inherently give money as a concept extra utility, which bothers my personal ethic). If equity is transferable, that would allow individuals who haven't contributed to a project in no way to acquire leverage to make decisions about that project's direction, but, if equity isn't transferable, interest in judging the project from eventually dying (metaphorically and literally) and, while if trade-able then the right-to-cancel-the-license could be as fungible as whatever is traded despite conflicting interests, if not trade-able then there may be little way to gratify or enable those who strive to ensure interest in judging a project doesn't die (metaphorically and literally) (except that, even if a messy hack protects a project with trade-able equity towards right-to-cancel-the-license from conflicting interests, using money to enable without gratifying a receiver is a classic "hard problem" in economics which is the root cause and would bother my personal ethic to see ignored). * Tangible Value: a Bayesian sum* of the items on a Bayesian list** of all that a currency could buy which one could sue discrimination if denied sale, counting every item on that list as a fraction of an item divided by the number of currencies it's legally guaranteed a right-of-sale. * Bayesian sums treat all that is different as different regardless of how different. ** Bayesian lists treat any number of identical items as that many different items. ^^^ *end skip* ^^^ IMO, a clean solution: greatly motivates forming large/complex cooperatives while not requiring the participation of more than one individual; guarantees that trust in a project comes from authority on that project and authority on a project comes from research of that project; all while ensuring attention to a project is proportional to trust in that project. Please have some helpful input/feedback. Thank you in advance. If in doubt, post away anyway: I won't fault you!

5 12

http://libre-riscv.org new domain
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

i've just set up a new domain in the past 36 hours, http://libre-riscv.org the first processor on it is the shakti m_class one. there's also a bugtracker http://bugs.libre-riscv.org which is in the process of being populated. i'll also set up mailman (if i can extract it from the clutches of apache2... i'm using nginx now on libre-riscv.org). l.

2 1

Error trying to edit rhombus-tech wiki
by Richard Wilbur 20 Feb '18

20 Feb '18

Trying to edit wiki page to add my name to list interested in pre-production board, et cetera. Is that page privileged? Sincerely, Richard

4 7

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer
by ronwirring＠Safe-mail.net 17 Feb '18

17 Feb '18

Regarding moderator approval. I ask you to display this email on the emailing list. Thereby enabling transparency and ensuring that subscribers get to know my arguments. Not doing so I will hold against you. > you seem to believe that you have the right to do whatever you want: you don't. > every time i have asked you to respect my authority you have ducked > or ignored the question. I think you are as happened before exaggerating, and misrepresenting what previous disputes we have had. About what follows I have not searched for documentation in previous posts and emails. Because I am not going to do the effort. First one. On another forum I made some critical posts about the pc card crowdfunding. I did so because it can be beneficial for the owner of a project to get more angles on his work and everyone should be scrutinized. My main critique was including the pc card laptop housing in a crowdfunding. My point of view was that for a one person enterprise that would be to big a task. It would require a frictionless course. It turned out I was right. No usable parts have been manufactured so far? Instead I would have concentrated on getting more people to buy the pc card. If lkcl wanted to shut me up or not, I do not know. He could not. It was not his forum. Lkcl accused me of sabotaging the crowdfunding. Said I could make the crowdfunding fail. An undocumented claim and heavily questionable, which I told him. Without being obligated to, I told lkcl I would stop further postings, should he want me to. I had made my points known. Second one. When posting emails on the arm netbook emailing list, I wanted to keep all previous posts unedited in my next post. Lkcl told me, that is not how it is done. And he explained how I should edit posts and importantly why I should edit. One argument was, he had to read a high number of emails and edited posts were time saving for him. I have to accept that my english writing skills are limited. My answer to him may have been unclear. The content of my answering post was, every email list member should decide for himself how to edit a post. But I accepted his arguments about editing posts and told him I would concur. Then lkcl misread my post. Believing I would not concur. Therefore lkcl told me, I had to make a specific declaration about complying to the rules about posting. Having done nothing wrong and perceiving lkcl's request as unnecessarily cornering, I wrote in a post, that he had misread my post and he could take any action he should want to. Then I got on the moderation approval list. To my knowledge from that point none of my postings have not complied to rules about posting. At some point, not on me request, I got off the moderator list. Third one. In a post I mentioned lkcl in third person. I was not aware it would be a rude action. Because I am addressing a bunch of people. When lkcl asked me to not do so, I explained why I had phrased the sentence like I did. To me the matter was insignificant. And I saw no reason to alter my phrasing. It resulted in lkcl escalating the matter to become relevant for the moderator approval list. Looking back on lkcl's outbursting tendencies I did not pay any attention to it. Even more because lkcl dances with profanities. Which I do not. All this in order to show that I do not do whatever I want. Some times I do not listen. I mentioned my free speech in a post. It resulted in several rubbish comments. I was not referring to any legal system. I wanted to state my point of view on free speech in a forum or on an emailing list. Lkcl, since you are in favor of straightening things out and not dodge, answer these questions about your emailing list: Should your emailing list aspire to grand the highest level of free speech? Do you adhere to the principle of equal matters must be dealt with equally? Do you adhere to the principle of proportionality? Because you own this emailing list, you can do whatever you want. I am not questioning that. The question is should you do whatever you want? How you manage your email list tells a tale about you. If your answer to my 3 questions are no, then I have misread you as a person and you do not have to unsubscribe me. I do it myself. When I wrote 'Has lkcl' you managed to infringe on all 3 principles. There are no strong reasons, other than your vanity, to prohibit such phrasing. I cannot write third person. You write profanities, masked or not. If using third person is an infraction, it is a minor. Calling in the moderator approval list is an overreaction. Part 2. Lkcl has thrown into the air that I may be infringing on one or more laws and maybe a license or certification. I have no overview on this matter. > do you, ron wirring, accept that i am the SOLE EXCLUSIVE Copyright > Holder of the EOMA68 Standard? > please answer simply yes or no. I am not going to answer yes or no until I know what I am answering yes or no to. First I want to say, I have never read the standards. I have no idea about the purchase agreement. Which laws apply. Which certification. Which licenses. The reason is the pc card is to me no more important than buying a mixer. If I get a pc card, fine. If not, it was a nice initiative. Lkcl will probably blame me for this approach. Does not matter. I am not going to put an effort into getting knowledgeable on these matters for an item which may not get shipped and due to what it costs. In wanting to make the asus eeepc accept pc cards I can have done a lot of infringements not knowing it. Lkcl suddenly shouting about trademarks and copyright came as a surprise to me. When this is sorted out, what stands is I have no intention infringing on anything. This is my look on it. I have no use for the pc card. Maybe it can run a freedombox. Then I thought I would like to have an asus eeepc which accepts pc cards. Lkcl was firmly against it. Costs could spiral. I appreciated the warning. The computer could catch fire. An important warning. But I planned to power it by power supply and a power bank via usb and not at the same time. I soon found out the task was to difficult for me. I stopped further steps. I do not remember any posts about trademarks, copyright or certification. I thought getting a pc card was like getting a raspberry pi. You can use it like you want. Then one person on this email list said, I think we can make it. And I restarted the matter. Again lkcl stated his objections. I noticed lkcl would participate in making the computer secure. On that I thanked him, because he already has enough to do. Now it is about infringements. Am I not allowed to make a pc card housing? Is this what it is about? Then why would you participate? You demanded to get to approve the battery hardware setup. On which I agreed. So did picugins, what more are you asking for? Can you display the law text in question I am infringing on? > also if you do not answer "yes" i will NOT grant you permission, AS > IS MY RIGHT UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW, to utilise the word "EOMA68" in ANY > way, shape or form. I do not have any intention on utilizing the word eoma68. What exactly are you referring to? That I will put an eoma68 sticker on the computer? That I may not publish a picture of the computer and a text saying, this is a computer which accepts eoma68 pc cards? Is that it? If so no problem. I will not. Explain what you are asking for? You should have anticipated someone would want to do their own pc card housing. On your website you should make a page displaying what you can and cannot do in regards to a pc card housing. It should show what law texts are into play. Show certifications. > within 72 hours We do not know if the pc card gets shipped. We do not know if the asus eeepc housing will be made. Why not make it 24 hours? > Don't make enemies where you don't have to, Luke. I'm just sayin'. Lkcl is not my enemy. He does not snide. You do not doubt lkcl goes a long way to achieve his goal. You know he will not skip his principles. On communicating however. > forced to simply unsubscribe you from this list Why unsubscribe? Can't you disable my option to post? It would be a less extensive action. The emails are public in the archive anyway. > do you wish me to terminate this project Who here does not understand your frustration? What does it have to do with what I am doing? Next time you are accusing me from nowhere and misrepresenting what I have done previously I will not answer this lengthy. I will know you are doing it on purpose. > arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook(a)lists.phcomp.co.uk > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to arm-netbook(a)files.phcomp.co.uk

8 24

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

arm-netbook February 2018