Thomas Martitz wrote:
I'm not convinced we need 4. 3) and 4) sound like they could be 1
category (I don't even think targets that would be under your 4) need
to be mentioned at all as classified target). And then we're at the
same classification we have now.
We might consider renaming the
PS: I suggest changing stable to complete or something else... If
you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable is
often = unusable...
Imo the following classifications would be best:
Complete - well, complete. This port offers everything Rockbox can offer.
Usable -
On 12.10.2009 12:51, Johannes Linke wrote:
PS: I suggest changing stable to complete or something else... If
you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable
is often = unusable...
Imo the following classifications would be best:
Complete - well, complete. This port
Thomas Martitz schrieb:
On 12.10.2009 12:51, Johannes Linke wrote:
PS: I suggest changing stable to complete or something else... If
you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable
is often = unusable...
Imo the following classifications would be best:
Complete - well,
On 12/10/2009 11:51, Johannes Linke wrote:
PS: I suggest changing stable to complete or something else... If
you see stable and usable, you think usable = unstable, but unstable
is often = unusable...
Imo the following classifications would be best:
Complete - well, complete. This port
What I particularly dislike in the current classification is the term
unusable, which sounds far too negative IMO. For example the Gigabeat
S is far from unusable once you get past the hurdle of getting Rockbox
onto it.
Just my two cents.
The S is basically unusable with the
4ad37204.2090...@googlemail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
I like Dave's suggestion=2C but maybe we are getting too hung up on the
implications of the words usable=2C unstable etc. An idea touted in
the
Rob Purchase wrote :
My suggestion would be:
Gold - top tier ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X
etc)
Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS,
etc)
Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2,
m:Robe 500,
Has anyone looked at how handhelds.org does (did) their grading system?
Quite elegant, IMHO.
http://handhelds.org/moin/moin.cgi/HpIpaqH4100
--soap
Le 12/10/2009 00:07, Dave Chapman a écrit :
Thoughts? Or am I going round in circles (apologies if I haven't read
all previous discussions on this issue...)
Interesting, I fully agree with your proposal.
The top-tier category would include targets where the OF is not needed
at all anymore.
Rafaël Carré wrote:
The top-tier category would include targets where the OF is not needed
at all anymore.
This is going to rule out some players forever (for example, we can
never support DRM and possibly some proprietary audio or video formats).
Maybe instead we should have a list of
On 12.10.2009 00:07, Dave Chapman wrote:
All,
I've been thinking a bit about the target classifications, and have
come to the conclusion that we now have a large number of ports, in a
wide variety of states of completion, that the current 3 categories is
not enough.
I would like to see the
Rafaël Carré wrote:
To me it would mean anything but video DSP, DRM crypto units and dock
connector (for devices plugged to iPods), does that sound correct ?
That's more or less fine. I'm not really able to think about the details
right now. It's just not good to say or even suggest that
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:28:15 -0500
Paul Louden paulthen...@gmail.com wrote:
Rafaël Carré wrote:
The top-tier category would include targets where the OF is not
needed at all anymore.
This is going to rule out some players forever (for example, we can
never support DRM and possibly
14 matches
Mail list logo
