Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-31 Thread Rocker
XavierGr wrote: And, as a point of interest, we're already using ~20-25% of the available RAM on the Cowon Coldfire-based players as it stands, binsize is not only important to the Archos players. We're also looking at players that only have 384kb of RAM, which makes binsize an even more

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This again is a false comparison. The WWW doesn't have resource restrictions in the same manner as Rockbox. Assume the internet became slower for everyone, the instant any website was put up. Were this the case there would

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Linus Nielsen Feltzing
Paul Louden wrote: That means less useful features should be considered critically even if they have small binsize costs, just because they're useful to only an exceptionally small group. They're a dilution of the total usefulness density. Let me chime in with my $0.02. I think that the

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Paul Louden
Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote: Let me chime in with my $0.02. I think that the binsize isn't *that* important for the battery life. If a feature adds 10Kbytes to the binary, it means 10Kbytes less buffering memory. That is hardly measurable at all, only a few frames of an MP3 file. Remember

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Daniel Stenberg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Paul Louden wrote: I'd also like to challenge anyone here to find three features that were actually rejected with binary size being the cause. And I also would like to remind you all that: it doesn't matter Each feature is taken on case by case so just shouting

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is also true if X is 'call the binsize card too often'. Thus, it doesn't matter if we agree on this X or not... I agree, but I think the goal of this thread is to clarify for some people exactly how important

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-29 Thread Paul Louden
Roy Wallace wrote: I agree, but I think the goal of this thread is to clarify for some people exactly how important binary size is, by coming to a compromise, a consensus, so as to avoid having the same argument repeatedly on a case by case basis. Since the original message in this wasn't

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Daniel Stenberg
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote: I think its time to have a proper discussion about adding settings Interesting discussion. Since I was gone during the better part of it, I'll just add my sparks to the flames: o I think referring to or assuming that discussions on IRC are good

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Rafaël Carré
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Paul Louden wrote: XavierGr wrote: Sorry but my memory doesn't help me much. Which are these 384kb of RAM targets? (I hope that you don't mean the iFP). Sansa Clip. The iFP has 1MB of RAM. The Sansa Clip has 2MB of RAM. I think an audio player (especially if it has

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Thomas Martitz
Jonathan Gordon schrieb: none of these have a working patch yet, and yes there will be argument if/when they ever are ready. Depends on you define as working. They all have a working patch, but if their committability is another question (and I quite like how my custom list patch works).

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Paul Louden
Thomas Martitz wrote: More then often binsize seems (to me) just to be brought up as a reason since it's the standard reason and sounds very much better than I won't use the feature, so it won't get in, especially not if I'd have to look at an option more in the setting. This sounds to me an

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Dominik Riebeling
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Thomas Martitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I pretty much agree with XavierGr in this discussion. Devs tend to evaluate new features only on their own using habbits. More then often binsize seems and people doing patches aren't doing them based on their habits? Do

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Paul Louden
Dominik Riebeling wrote: I don't say binsize isn't a valid reason. But it's kinda stressed very much Maybe it's stressed much lately. But as already has been said, Rockbox is much more feature complete than it was like two years ago, and we need to decide how much bells and whistles we

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Dominik Riebeling
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Jonathan Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a very high level of patch rot which is the same thing (some but why do we have this high level of patch rot? Because all patches in the tracker are crap or mediocre features? I don't think so. From my impression

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Dominik Riebeling
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:01 AM, alex wallis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry but I really have to disagree with you on this one, I wouldn't describe study mode or whatever it has been renamed to as mediocre or a useless feature. There will always be people that call a feature you consider

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Thomas Martitz
Paul Louden schrieb: It doesn't serve the community or this discussion to assume dishonesty in advance, and without any proof other than your personal feelings on the matter. Sorry if it sounded like that. I didn't wan to say you lie at all about binsize. And I wouldn't think you're not

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-28 Thread Paul Louden
Thomas Martitz wrote: Don't get me wrong. Binsize (and Ram usage even more imho) is very important and you should always take it into account before committing something, but the more the binsize is used as a rejection reason, the less believable it sounds at times. Well, which is it. Do you

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/27 Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Gordon wrote: And you've heard dozens of times it's not *just* bin increase that's a problem, but whether a feature's bin increase is worth the functionality it adds. There's a finite limit on how much can and should be added (though we've

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread pondlife
Hi Jonathan, 1. bin increase We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to think that a 32MB buffer is lots of memory; I think of it as the most important resource we have to keep battery life up. I don't know which device/setup you use normally, but perhaps it's

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Nils
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Jonathan Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. Settings bloat. Yes, we have lots of settings (168 in the e200 sim) but why is this bad? If you don't change a setting and are happy with the default then good for you, your config.cfg will be a lot smaller than

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/27 Nils [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm with pondlife on the advanced settings menu btw, hiding stuff just makes the whole issue worse IMHO. I didn't say it was a good idea... its just one (of hopefully many) idea.

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Matthias Mohr
Hi everybody, in general I agree to Jonathan, I personally really like to configure everything what's possible ;-) BUT: I usually only do it until I'm happy with the settings; from then on I only change a few ones. So we could consider about having an external tool (either a plugin or even

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/27 pondlife [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Jonathan, 1. bin increase We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to think that a 32MB buffer is lots of memory; I think of it as the most important resource we have to keep battery life up. I don't know which

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/27 Matthias Mohr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi everybody, in general I agree to Jonathan, I personally really like to configure everything what's possible ;-) BUT: I usually only do it until I'm happy with the settings; from then on I only change a few ones. So we could consider about

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
I'm with the people who are against having settings which are not (easily) configurable on the DAP itself. The furthest away from the core I would suggest is as a plugin. Hi. I'm afraid that this will probably look like i'm complaining hear. However, again as i've said before in other posts on

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/28 alex wallis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm with the people who are against having settings which are not (easily) configurable on the DAP itself. The furthest away from the core I would suggest is as a plugin. Hi. I'm afraid that this will probably look like i'm complaining hear. However,

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread pondlife
Hi Jonathan, off the top of my head, settings which should stay but dont need to be so high up are things like directory/playlist limits, show the title in the browser, disk and battery options, most of the display options... bassically anything which are set once options set once for you

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread T.J. Ross
However if they were accessible with the speech interface, I would have no objection at all to settings being turned into plugins. Does anyone no what happened to that particular gsoc project? I'm still alive :). School and interviews have been kicking my ass for the past month or so and I've

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Simon M.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, alex wallis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I'm afraid that this will probably look like i'm complaining hear. However, again as i've said before in other posts on other topics, with your above comment, if we have settings as a plugin, we run into the good old

RE: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Mark Ganson
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se Subject: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents) I think its time to have a proper discussion about adding settings (and to a lesser extent, adding features which may not be used by the vocal majority.) I'd like to keep

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
Mark Ganson wrote: I like Jonathan's test for a new feature: the burden should be upon those who don't want it to show why it shouldn't be added rather than upon the ones who want it to justify why it should be added. But the binsize question will ALWAYS come up, so those who think it

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread pondlife
I suggested moving the settings to a plugin a while ago on IRC, the major objections were: a) Voice isn't (yet) supported b) Requires a disk spinup (to load the plugin) each time you want to change a setting. Tom's work should resolve (a). For (b), I proposed that we allow the last-loaded

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
Does anyone no what happened to that particular gsoc project? I'm still alive :). School and interviews have been kicking my ass for the past month or so and I've had zero time for Rockbox related work. The patch on the tracker is horribly out of date too. I sent my most recent work to Daniel

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
there is a solution. I'd propose this: battery bench doesn't use the plugin buffer at all, but steals his 512bytes from the main ram. So, stop playback - start battery bench - start playback again. There's also other plugins doing this. HI. I see, so am I following you right, your proposing

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Thomas Martitz
alex wallis schrieb: HI. I see, so am I following you right, your proposing that battery bench should be altered so that it doesn't use the plugin buffer at all? is that right? or is that how it now works? sorry I just found your english slightly hard to follow. Also, when you talk about

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
As of now it uses the plugin buffer. Using the main ram would remove the limitation to be not able to run other plugins. As for the playback: No, in it's current form it starts with active playback and it doesn't stop it. In my proposal you would need to stop the playback (in order to steal

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread XavierGr
I'd propose this: battery bench doesn't use the plugin buffer at all, but steals his 512bytes from the main ram. So, stop playback - start battery bench - start playback again. There's also other plugins doing this. I assume those 512 shouldn't have a huge impact on the battery life. But

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
I'd propose this: battery bench doesn't use the plugin buffer at all, but steals his 512bytes from the main ram. So, stop playback - start battery bench - start playback again. There's also other plugins doing this. I assume those 512 shouldn't have a huge impact on the battery life. But this

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
alex wallis wrote: Hi. because, what happens if a user wants to change a setting that impacts on how music is played back they wouldn't be able to do it if settings was turned into a plugin and battery bench was left in its current state. They would therefor have to disable

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Dominik Riebeling
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Martitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd propose this: battery bench doesn't use the plugin buffer at all, but steals his 512bytes from the main ram. So, stop playback - start battery bench - start playback again. There's also other plugins doing this. I

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
alex wallis wrote: Hi. because, what happens if a user wants to change a setting that impacts on how music is played back they wouldn't be able to do it if settings was turned into a plugin and battery bench was left in its current state. They would therefor have to disable

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
alex wallis wrote: But you can almost certainly guarantee there wil be at least one person who say decides they want to change an album so it gets shuffled for example. Yes I no that would lead to an inaccurate battery test, but i'm sure you will find there is at least one person out there

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Dominik Riebeling
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Jonathan Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/10/27 Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For example, there's a legitimate argument that we could just compromise on the spacing value rather than making it accept a configurable string. Actually no, A simple strcat

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread XavierGr
Unfortunately Rockbox has become quite feature-phobic recenlty. This wasn't the case a couple of years ago, where if the new feature in question was implemented correctly, it was mostly accepted without any thorough debate. The result was many and sometimes unneeded settings. Do I have second

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
XavierGr wrote: will be rejected on the shrine of binsize and the doctrine of settings-bloat. Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and terms like this? And, as a point of interest, we're already using ~20-25% of the available RAM on the Cowon

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonas Häggqvist
Jonathan Gordon wrote: Put simply, my take on this issue is that I want more GNOME, and less KDE mentality. I may use 30 out of 200 settings. Now if we say that was cut in half, to 100 available settings, I might lose 10 settings. Would I miss them? Probably at first, but in my experience (from

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Karl Kurbjun
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Jonas Häggqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonathan Gordon wrote: Put simply, my take on this issue is that I want more GNOME, and less KDE mentality. I may use 30 out of 200 settings. Now if we say that was cut in half, to 100 available settings, I might

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread XavierGr
Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and terms like this? The phrase was a tongue in cheek, that's what the smiley was about in case someone was offended by it. I don't get where the problem is with that. And, as a point of interest, we're already using

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/28 Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: XavierGr wrote: will be rejected on the shrine of binsize and the doctrine of settings-bloat. Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and terms like this? apparently not... 3 messages back from you agreed that it

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
XavierGr wrote: The phrase was a tongue in cheek, that's what the smiley was about in case someone was offended by it. I don't get where the problem is with that. Tongue in cheek or not, it creates a tone different from reasoned discussion. That's my point: Let's keep this without the

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/28 Jonas Häggqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Gordon wrote: Put simply, my take on this issue is that I want more GNOME, and less KDE mentality. I may use 30 out of 200 settings. Now if we say that was cut in half, to 100 available settings, I might lose 10 settings. Would I miss

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread XavierGr
I completely agree with Jonas. I think that there is too much focus on what can be customized rather than basic usability. Making /sane/ defaults for users is not such a bad thing. Having the option of customizing something doesn't hinder focusing on usability. Sane defaults are good but

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonas Häggqvist
XavierGr wrote: Sane defaults are good but when hard-coded they can be very limiting. Sane, hardcoded defaults can also let you get on with your life, rather than waste your life configuring everything, and having unimportant configuration options get in the way of the actually important ones.

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
Jonathan Gordon wrote: 2008/10/28 Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: XavierGr wrote: will be rejected on the shrine of binsize and the doctrine of settings-bloat. Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and terms like this? apparently not... 3

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread alex wallis
how about bringing them back to a sane level like they used to be? another thing that adds nothing. study mode only got in because it was a drive-by-commit... oh and its still there... Sorry but I really have to disagree with you on this one, I wouldn't describe study mode or whatever it has

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread David Hall
alex wallis wrote: But you can almost certainly guarantee there will be at least one person who say decides they want to ... Making decisions based on the at least one (hypothetical) person criteria is a recipe for extremes.

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread XavierGr
Sorry but I really have to disagree with you on this one, I wouldn't describe study mode or whatever it has been renamed to as mediocre or a useless feature.i really like the feature, its particularly useful for moving around in large audio books especially if whoever rips them doesn't rip

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Jonathan Gordon
2008/10/28 Paul Louden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If they wouldn't make the cut, why are we even considering multifont? Why did we add conditional viewports? Why are we interested in positional list viewports and skinnable progress bar? none of these have a working patch yet, and yes there will be

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
XavierGr wrote: The whole discussion is summed up to: How to resolve preference conflicts and how aggressive should the rejection policy be. Well, in the case of skip length it solves the fact that, prior to its existence, it was physically impossible to accurately seek in files blindly.

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-27 Thread Paul Louden
Jonathan Gordon wrote: you're putting words in my mouth... and well thats another point, patches arent outright rejected untill they come up for discussion, there are left to rot in the tracker. Which word? You said we need to bring them back to sane standards. By definition of the words

discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-26 Thread Jonathan Gordon
I think its time to have a proper discussion about adding settings (and to a lesser extent, adding features which may not be used by the vocal majority.) I'd like to keep the two topics separate but I don't think it's really possible. This is being prompted by XavieGr's email and patch (FS#9455)

Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)

2008-10-26 Thread Paul Louden
Jonathan Gordon wrote: 1. bin increase Well, As civil as I'd like to be, I think everyone knows my views on this argument… Its nonsense. What's the point of the project if every time a red delta happens everyone complains? May as well close up shop here. And you've heard dozens of times it's