If a CF Driver was released by a 3rd party...

[big_raji]

If a CF Driver was a released by a 3rd party, and now that there is no contest out there to receive some cash for their work, what do you think would be the best way to distribute the driver in order to make EVERYBODY happy?

[L-3]

I don't see any problems with the developer charging outright for it (as long as it's reasonably priced). They'd definitely deserve it, they'd have enough purchases right out-of-the-gate to make it worth their while, and they'd be able to better control future upgrades, mods and support by having registered purchasers in their database. (If you give it away, people are going to have a boatload of complaints, want answers to their questions and requests that they feel they're entitled to just because they have a copy of the software.)

[Trp]

I'd rather it be open source, because if there are some bugs, a BUNCH of people would be able to work and fix them, instead of the developer, and i disagree with you totaly about only cracking shareware, one person who buys it can distribute it, its a driver for a palm, its not going to be a very big file (I am not saying its right, i am just saying that making it shareware or commercial wont change much.)

[big_raji]

Originally posted by Trp
and i disagree with you totaly about only cracking shareware, one person who buys it can distribute it, its a driver for a palm, its not going to be a very big file (I am not saying its right, i am just saying that making it shareware or commercial wont change much.)

I only really put that in there so that there's a choice to fit everyone's feelings on the subject.

Besides, I'm sure some people out there are completely aware of Palm cracking programs, but aren't aware of sites to download full version programs. I think cracks are more widely distributed than full programs, even if they are only small Palm programs.

[Trp]

Originally posted by big_raji
Besides, I'm sure some people out there are completely aware of Palm cracking programs, but aren't aware of sites to download full version programs. I think cracks are more widely distributed than full programs, even if they are only small Palm programs.

Good point, however IMHO most sites who will distribute Serial Numbers will also distribute (or at least link to a site that distributes) full versions. And personally i would want to try the program before i buy, especialy if its a driver, if it doesn't work with my specific device, there go my 10$ (which i think would be an O.K. price) especialy since so much people will be buying it ;)

[Stymyx]

I believe whoever develops this driver derserves to be paid for his/her work. But I also like the open source argument (open source means fast bug fixes!). I guess I'm torn over the best tack to take.

[big_raji]

I'm actually surprised at the number of people that would want the driver to be commercial-only.

[Stymyx]

Originally posted by big_raji
I'm actually surprised at the number of people that would want the driver to be commercial-only.
I can't believe as many people have chosen freeware as they have! As many people that have demanded a driver, I really don't think it should be free!

I finally voted for shareware.

[n2ifp]

Originally posted by Stymyx

I can't believe as many people have chosen freeware as they have! As many people that have demanded a driver, I really don't think it should be free!

Right, what incentive would the developer have? I guess many don't realize how much work and time is involved!

[reggae]

Originally posted by n2ifp


Right, what incentive would the developer have? I guess many don't realize how much work and time is involved!

agreed. a developer could charge as much as $30 for that driver and still not be compensated fairly.

[nextyoyoma]

I would rather it be open source...I would give at least a ten dollar donation to a developer who came up with this, though. I guess I really wouldn't mind it being shareware or commercial, but I really really think open source is neccessary. If a driver does come out, new devices will probably be made for the NX to work in the slot. What if the driver is not compatible with this device? On the other hand, an option for hardware/software developers to PURCHASE the source code would be a good solution if the driver became available commerically or in a shareware form. With the relative novelty of the NX handheld, it is inconceivable that a driver would, in one try, be able to recognize all devices. Again, I'd pay for this if it was commerical, and I'd donate if it wasn't.

[big_raji]

How many people do you think will actually donate to open source/freeware? I know that it very rarely even occurs to me...

[xlr8]

I agree with nextyoyoma, whoever develops it should get a pool of money from donations then open source it, or even sell the source to other developers (if thats possible). I would pay but it would be good if multiple developers had it to keep prices down and bugs out

[rhart00]

I think "don't care who releases it as long as it works" needs to be one of the choices in the poll cause honestly i don't care who releases it. I just want some CF drivers! I don't care where they come from or how much i have to pay

[xlr8]

people will donate because the CF drivers are in such high demand

[nextyoyoma]

Originally posted by big_raji
How many people do you think will actually donate to open source/freeware? I know that it very rarely even occurs to me...

I dunno how many people would, and it rarely crosses my mind either, but in this case, I would donate it, because it's something I really really want. If I had to pay for it, that'd be fine too...my main point is, developers need to have the source for any drivers so that they can develop their own device-specific drivers if neccessary.

[dmale7]

I voted for commercial. I couldn't help thinking about the developer of the driver. I believe he/she would deserve every nickel he could get. We all have spent hundreds of dollars on hardware and software (most of which didn't warrant spending a dime.) What's 20, 30, 40 dollars more? Especially for something that would ultimately pay for itself in the way of cheaper memory.
Just my two cents.

[big_raji]

Hmmm, I'm surprised at the results so far. Lots of people have different opinions on this, and there's no real clear winner right now.

The reason I've put up this poll is that someone I know is interested in taking a shot at making a CF driver, but is interested in seeing how the Clie community would like it distributed.

I'm not saying he's made any progress of any sort, but he does have an extensive enough background for me to be confident that he can do it.

[nike33]

Frankly I have spent over 1100 bucks on my NX and NR, another 300 on software, and 800 on MS. At this point I have no problems spending for commercial CF drivers. Why I would not mind buying CF cards from Sony.

Lets face it, the 11mb RAM is an impediment. Having 2 functional slots only enhances an already fantastic machine.
.

[reggae]

I am dismayed at what people are confusing "i want it really bad" for "a high demand." the fact is that less than 500 people have singed the petition so how many would actually pay for it? let me join the realm of fantasy and say that 1000 would actually "donate." let me further my depth of dellusion and say that the average donation was $20. how long do you think you could employ a single developer (writing low-level code) for at $20000 taxable?

let me say that a single developer that charged at COMMERCIAL prices would STILL be doing it more for bragging rights and experience than for the money.

[oyakov]

reggae,

There are many more NX Clies out there than readers of Cliesource. What I mean, the demand for those drivers would be much greater than the amount of signatures under our petition.

[reggae]

like many new clie nx owners i was drawn to cliesource because of every thing i read about the quest for drivers during the first contest.

i think its safe to say that a majority of nx people interested in cf drivers would have searched the internet (like i did); heard about the now defunct contest (like i did); and made their way here to join the ranks (like i did).

i'm assuming of course that nx owning, cf driver seeking people have the same thought processes as me but i don't think its a dangerous assumption.

the fact is that the numbers i gave were much greater than the most popular (clie specific) downloads/purchases that you'll find on palmgear. and they still add up to beans for a developer to create a driver for a single device.

this too is why i have stated in other threads that our best bet is to hit up the manufactures (ie. sandisk and hitachi) for writing the drivers as they will be able to port the code to MANY systems for their products. they've done it for CE/PPC... they can do it for palm.

[Jypsy]

OK my 27.5 cents:

As an end user, and beginning developer, I think that this should be open source. (with the whole donation contest of course)
This is all about bragging rights, seeing who can do what sony didnt. With it being open source we can continue to support it after the author loses interest with supporting it and more people will have access to it. If its commercial it will be shared cracked, hacked and virii'ed. any other version could be pumped full of virii too, but People wouldnt fileshare it, they would just go to the real site and get it, which would be able to have AMAZING traffic, and through banner ads, popups or what have you, would make the money (possibly more) than the commercial version would earn them..

next, I fear that if it is commercial, it will be absurdly overpriced.
I would pay 10-20$ for a CF driver, but no more. It's worth it yes, but i could barely afford to pay for my clie itself. Most users feel the same way.
Shareware would just upset much of the clie populace, be it crippling or time restrict.....example: you have had your CF card in for 29.9 days and you have files installed on it like a MS, suddenly the 30 day trial expires, and you are up a creek! Either totally open or totally commercial is what i say.

As for brownie points with the masses of clie users, I would say make it either freeware for a limited time (like for the first week in a "grand opening" style event) then go commercial, or make it completely open source, showing they are doing it for the betterment of the Clie community, (which may spur other developers to do the same thing, but if you gotta eat, hey you gotta eat!) This is not a solitare clone, its not a pdf reading or web clipping application, these are drivers we need to increase the benifits of our investments. so either way when this happens, I will donate at least 10$ or so, (as long as you can pay through paypal :) ) or ill buy it if it is reasonable.

Or here is another idea, keep the contest going, keep the donations going, until someone makes it. when they do. they get the prize! that should make it enough worth their while to open source or freeware it! or possibly charge 5$ for the source code to the freeware version................

Thanks
JP

[reggae]

jypsy... very valid points which could be used to argue the exact opposite.

first off, banner ad money has dried up... look at all the web developers out of work (especially in the san francisco bay area) and you'll know that internet advertising money is vapor.

secondly, a time restricted driver would not necessarily screw you as it could/would prevent you from writing (after a certain time) until registration but still allow you to read. and what's wrong with that? why wouldn't you pay for a fully functioning, working driver? if you can afford a $500-600 pda and a $200 microdrive you can CERTAINLY pay 40-50 for a driver that would greatly improve the functionality of your pda immeasurably.

open source would be a good idea to keep/make the driver up to date and relatively virus free, however the existing cf drivers for CE/PPC have managed to stay virus free and up to date for the past 3 years that i've owned a microdrive.

the fact that this is not a solitare clone and something that increases productivity is EXACTLY why a developer should profit from it... you and everyone else are going to profit from it's use...

if the contest could produce an API and at LEAST $10000, THEN i think we would have seen some takers.

but here we have a couple of hackers with hexeditors, oscilliscopes, and partially ripped code and where has it gotten us but back at sony's doorstep?

just my 26.5 cents.

[Jypsy]

yeah either way it works. all the arguments are valid and will be finally up to the developer(s) in the end! good luck!

[reggae]

having said all that, i have been going back and forth with whether i'm going to make the attempt at writing a driver... if i did, it'd probably be open source for no other reason than i have no experience writing that low-level. i'd need the help of the greater community as it'd be a learning experience (for me) all the way.

one of the things that i'm not seeing in all of this is a "sourceforge" or gnu style project with a CVS tree being set up.... this is another reason i don't think the demand is as great as i'd like to believe.

[hidden]

Is there any possibility that Sony could take legal action for selling such a driver that potentially undermines their memory stick business? I'm all for paying for the driver, but if Sony has some legal ground, would anonymously releasing the source be a better idea?

[reggae]

my guess is no... not only have the used a industry standard interface that drivers *could* be written, but their engineers essentially shot themselves in their legal foot. they basically challenged the community to create drivers when they told that one journalist the slot could be used if someone wrote the drivers.

just my opinion... i'm no lawyer.

[big_raji]

Originally posted by reggae
my guess is no... not only have the used a industry standard interface that drivers *could* be written, but their engineers essentially shot themselves in their legal foot. they basically challenged the community to create drivers when they told that one journalist the slot could be used if someone wrote the drivers.

just my opinion... i'm no lawyer.

I don't think that the statement of a single Sony engineer can be enforced as the legal standpoint of the entire company.

I think that Sony may have a case to stop a driver from being sold. I remember hearing that Compaq was trying to stop people from selling the service of modifying Ipaqs to run Linux. I don't remember the details of the story, because I was never really interested in it... This could be the same thing to a lesser degree.

[nextyoyoma]

I think that argument is one that could eventually be defeated. First of all, the statement of the engineer is close to irrelevant...even before that statement, people were speculating that the slot could be used, especially since sony listed the slot in the specs as "standard CF slot" with an asterisk (*) and a note that it was only compatible with peg-whatever. So, that's no secret. Also, I think that the issue of "modifying" a device is kinda dumb...that's what customization is all about. Compaq may be fighting that battle, but i'm pretty sure they'll lose it. A driver for a CF slot isn't a big deal anyway...in fact, if they went with that argument, no one should be able to develop any drivers for any external devices that rely on some pre-installed component of the device (in this case, the CF slot), like drivers for memory stick devices, anything that fits into the hotsync/charge port....any third party software that in some way affects the operation of the device....in other words, it would limit expansion of a device to what it's manufacturer came up with. This would be like not being able to buy a new CD burner for your computer if they drivers are not readily avaible....ok, kinda strange analogy, but my point is, as long as you aren't DISTRIBUTING any software, any modifications you make to the hardware or software should be up to you, like if you decide to run linux on your computer....

Anyway, I know, rambling argument. I just don't know how to say this exactly, but I can't imagine there is much legal basis for prohibiting the production of drivers. When you buy a piece of equipment that requires drivers, you don't expect to have to buy them. SONY should make them publicly available, but since that isn't going to happen, it cannot be prohibited elsewhere...

[reggae]

the discussion was could sony legally prevent a driver from being distributed. believe it or not, an engineer _could_ be construed as an officer of the company and with a public statement about third party driver creation _before_ any prohibitive language was released to the press or otherwise on the issue... it really _does_ shoot their legal argument in the foot for preventing future distribution.

as for licensing, use of a memory stick device is a different story as sony would own the patents on the interface. which is why companies that use the interface pay licensing fees to sony. much like anything with the "compact disc" logo is licensed from sony and philips (matsu$hita). same thing with "vhs" and jvc. the difference with compact flash is that sony doesn't own the patents for it so they can't collect $hit for it's usage.

[Token User]

Originally posted by xlr8
I agree with nextyoyoma, whoever develops it should get a pool of money from donations then open source it, or even sell the source to other developers (if thats possible).A better option would be to licence the code to other developers, that way the integrity of the original design can be maintained, and the original developer will still get a cut of the profits for the effort they put into the code.

This is not a trivial task. I've been looking into it myself ... and the deeper you look, the greater the complexities. I know that as a developer, I am not going to put the amount of effort required into this for nothing but kudos from the community.

I am not Robin Hood :D

[pelaca]

Originally posted by nextyoyoma
I think that argument is one that could eventually be defeated. First of all, the statement of the engineer is close to irrelevant...even before that statement, people were speculating that the slot could be used, especially since sony listed the slot in the specs as "standard CF slot" with an asterisk (*) and a note that it was only compatible with peg-whatever.

Where you read on the spec "standard CF slot"??? I read the spec and only say "Communication Slot", and no asterisk...
If you are talking about the NZ spec where appears "Communication slot (CompactFlash® TYPE II)" and "Compatible with Sony's Wireless LAN card only", this machine is not released, and SONY can change the spec because the line "Preliminary specifications. All specifications subject to change without notice" at the bottom of the page...
I think SONY start a legal war with the developer, not because they can win, because the developer lose a lot of money and time with that.

[reggae]

Agreed token. As a developer I looked into it also and without a published API the task is absolutely daunting.

[Token User]

Originally posted by pelaca


Where you read on the spec "standard CF slot"??? I read the spec and only say "Communication Slot", and no asterisk...
If you are talking about the NZ spec where appears "Communication slot (CompactFlash® TYPE II)" and "Compatible with Sony's Wireless LAN card only", this machine is not released, and SONY can change the spec because the line "Preliminary specifications. All specifications subject to change without notice" at the bottom of the page...
I think SONY start a legal war with the developer, not because they can win, because the developer lose a lot of money and time with that.

1. CF is a pin compatible "bastardisation" of PCMCIA.
2. CF type I and type II are an industry standard designed to support plug and play.
3. The fact that the WLAN card will work in a standard CF slot on a laptop (via a PCMCIA sled), and the availability of STANDARD CF type II cellular (Japanese markets only - pity) and analogue modem solutions (kudos for the translation btw) indicate that the "Commuication Slot" does in fact adhere to CF type II standards.

The problem lies wth the underlying driver. It has been written to support a restricted number of profiles - wifi, and modem. No support for ATA/IDE interfaces was provided ... and we can assume that in the PalmOs, there was no support included for VFS interrupts polling a CF slot for the CF driver to then access the ATA interface and return data.

So, there ar einfact two issues at stake here - the driver not supporting the ATA/IDE CF interface spec, and the Sony version of PalmOS not redirecting VFS calls to poll both the MS and CF slots.

But, that does not mean that the slot is not a CF slot. It means that the software was not included to access the slot and even if it did, the driver for the slow wouldn't know what to do with it anyway (and in theory, that can be fixed via a patch) ... but its not going to be a pretty solution, and could seriously screw with the OS in a bad way.

[nextyoyoma]

Token is correct, of course...perhaps I remembered wrong about the standard cf slot thing, but I thought I saw that a good while ago, before I got my NX. It wasn't on the NZ, that wasn't announced yet...anyway, my point was that the slot itself is a normal CF slot, it just doesn't have the software to support it that we need.

[big_raji]

Well, looks like there are a few software developers seriously looking at the feasibility of developing a driver. Some people are starting to ask how much a CF driver should cost, etc...

[pelaca]

Originally posted by Token User


1. CF is a pin compatible "bastardisation" of PCMCIA.
2. CF type I and type II are an industry standard designed to support plug and play.
3. The fact that the WLAN card will work in a standard CF slot on a laptop (via a PCMCIA sled), and the availability of STANDARD CF type II cellular (Japanese markets only - pity) and analogue modem solutions (kudos for the translation btw) indicate that the "Commuication Slot" does in fact adhere to CF type II standards.

The problem lies wth the underlying driver. It has been written to support a restricted number of profiles - wifi, and modem. No support for ATA/IDE interfaces was provided ... and we can assume that in the PalmOs, there was no support included for VFS interrupts polling a CF slot for the CF driver to then access the ATA interface and return data.

So, there ar einfact two issues at stake here - the driver not supporting the ATA/IDE CF interface spec, and the Sony version of PalmOS not redirecting VFS calls to poll both the MS and CF slots.

But, that does not mean that the slot is not a CF slot. It means that the software was not included to access the slot and even if it did, the driver for the slow wouldn't know what to do with it anyway (and in theory, that can be fixed via a patch) ... but its not going to be a pretty solution, and could seriously screw with the OS in a bad way.

I agree with you...
but I want to correct the post of nextyoyoma because is not true... Sony never put the words "CF compatible" or "CF standard" on the NX specs... I the NZ case we have to wait because is not released yet and may be Sony changes the specs as claim on the bottom of the specs page...

[pelaca]

Originally posted by nextyoyoma
Token is correct, of course...perhaps I remembered wrong about the standard cf slot thing, but I thought I saw that a good while ago, before I got my NX. It wasn't on the NZ, that wasn't announced yet...anyway, my point was that the slot itself is a normal CF slot, it just doesn't have the software to support it that we need.

I can tell you Sony never says "CF standard" or "CompactFLash" on the specs of the NX... and on the NZ case you can read on the specs page:

Communication slot (CompactFlash® TYPE II)3

3 Compatible with Sony's Wireless LAN card only.

Preliminary specifications. All specifications subject to change without notice

I'm not saying the slot is not a CF standard... but we can't use false arguments for say Sony is a bad guy...
I'm not happy with the Sony user and developer support... and specialy with Sony for release the analog modem drivers only on Japan and "F U C K I N G Me" because I can't read Japanese... r e a l l y s u c k s...