Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

about: Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack)
site?;

No, not their poor language. Failure to cut
the obsolete aint that. Poor organization aint that.
Lack of leaders to pull the whole thing together aint that.
Failure to evolve with a changing situation aint that.

"Poetry!?" laughing.... But you have a point.
You don't like my writing style. No problem.
Don't read it. Since you give no specific examples,
you leave me nothing else to say, nothing specific
to correct. Should I use smaller words or sentences
perhaps? I notice one of my sentences is 37 words,
with four commas. Yet it's not a run-on sentence.
It's just old-fashioned. I've seen 20th century
masters write sentences over a page long. Now we
chop paragraphs to six lines max, content be damned.

As I've recently written here, since 1988 there has been a
huge push to dumb down America. Now it's considered normal
critique to merely logically howl like a cat with a stepped
on tail. That is; no argument, no logic, just the logical
equiv of "I don't like it!" I call that shrieking.
Soundsgoodism and feelsgoodism and bombastic delivery
are considered evidence, if not proof.

I'll have none of it.

Thanks. I'll try to improve. But you might do best
to killfile me. I'll not conform & write like a sixth-grade
bimbo-wannabee on choochy-choochy Twitter-poo.

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Reading your posts.

You wanted corporate structures and some executive to tell
others what to do. Such things cost money. You tell us how
to make the money, e.g. from you.

-Wolfgang

 

Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;

In part, sure. Programs that I've written take
one part making the functions (say a game,) and
7 parts polishing for the end user and 2 parts
help.

Red herring argument. And a cop-out. Freeware is all over,
misleading documentation is not.

This being the case, logic dictates we look elsewhere.
Philosophic Clue: East not West, Buddha rather than Christ.
Intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

We both know this...after dozens of hours.
But what of the newbie?

Good thing Wikipedia etc etc doesn't think like that, eh?

And when did "We currently have a 8k limit on scripts"
become obsolete? 2008. My complaint is not that
the documentation is just a little off.

Try this, from: "CHDK firmware usage - CHDK Wiki" - quoting:

"However, CHDK has now been taken to a new level by a few of
the main developers. This is reflected in what is now being
called "Allbest's Build". Many new features have been added
so a special AllBest's Firmware Usage page [
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage/AllBest ]
has been appended to this Wiki. Please refer to that page
for the new Shutter, F-Stop, and ISO Override features; the
High-speed Tv, Av, ISO, and Focus Bracketing; RAW Merge
features (Sum & Avg); and dozens of other new and astounding
additions.

"Keep in mind too that this AllBest's Firmware Usage page [
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage/AllBest ] is
a work in progress, as the Allbest Build is currently
evolving and improving. (The information on that page is
also incomplete or sketchy in spots, as we have to depend on
online Russian to English translations. If you feel that you
can clarify some of the sections, your volunteering as a
Wiki editor will be greatly appreciated.) "
----end quote

Is one word of that, or ANY of those hyperlinks
still true today?

So along comes newbie and dumps 2 hours?
....20 hours into that for nothing?

So what the current haps? CHDK today?
All the excitement of discovery is gone,
which attracted the programers and hackers,
yet there is no access to CHDK for newbies,
nothing for the average savy *photographer*.

But I'm not hear for mere wailing and
fist shaking.

What's the easy solution?
Prolly not attempting to repair 3 years of
neglect.
Prolly writing a whole new CHDK site,
about 3 pages max dedicated to newbie
photographers snagging the latest.

ZAP.

Since it's inpenetratable, indeed, functional
only within it's own culture, how would an outsider
do that? Part of that culture seems to value
its exclusive nature. I say that because such
a remarkable and unique wall hardly seems like
the product of mere accedental neglect.
....as if cleaning up was frowned upon.

Indeed, and maybe.

Reciting out-of-context truisms looks
like excuse-making. But I think what is
needed over there is responsibility-taking.

Dude! I guess I'm not making myself clear.
I can't figure out what hell is going on!

What I predict is CHDK draining away like sand
due to attrition, a lack of re-population
because damn few peole want to spend hours and
hours (tens?) for a hack when they can buy a
camera with all those goodies with actual
physical buttons to match and an owner's
manual out in plain sight -- that doen't feel
the need to celibrate the Model T Ford.

It's the documentation, pal.
Most of it is obsolete. Way, way obsolete.
.....years obsolete.

That's what I've been saying.
If one has the Big Picture due to hours of
experience, yes you could.

When will somebody accept some responsibility?
Your baby can do no wrong? ...is perfect?
Is there any wonder it looks like that?

I think some of your comments will be helpful
for any newbies. But others only make sense to
you because you already see the big picture,
you know what to filter out and have the context
to assemble the remainder in a meaningful way.

example self-contradicting quote from:
CHDK firmware usage - CHDK Wiki
Jun 16, 2007 http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage
[The date is NOT in the document, as usual. --- It's from
Google. (How fly-by-night!)]

"Below are listed the MAIN features of CHDK, as originally
developed by GrAnd and other contributors. These are pretty
much "set in stone" and are the main backbone to what CHDK
is all about. Please keep in mind that CHDK is a fluid and
ever-evolving piece of programming. Several new Firmware
Usage sections were added below (in "Special Build"
categories) to reflect some of the changes that have since
been adapted to most everyone's newer builds of CHDK "
----end quote

Already I know enough (perhaps) to filter that.
But what would an unsuspecting utter newbie think?
If he didn't REALLY REALLY want it, he'd run
from it like a scalded cat.

Here's how I'd filter it:
"Below are listed the MAIN features of CHDK and are the main
backbone to what CHDK is all about. Please keep in mind that
CHDK is a fluid and ever-evolving piece of programming,
and these help documents have had many updates merely pasted
onto them. Most coherent documentation on these pages was
written in 2007 and 2008 and ceased around 2008. Several
new Firmware Usage sections were added below (in largely
obsolete "Special Build" categories) to pay homage to some
of the important historical authors that have long-since
been incorporated into the current builds of CHDK. It is
important to keep in mind that most of this is only valuable
from a historical perspective and needs to be deleted or
moved into a homage and history section by an expert."

But I'm just guessing, and I can't stress how
difficult this makes learning. Normally if one
can't understand, one can rely on the facts and
pound and punch one's brain until a fit is found.
Try that here, and chaos and pain is the result.

You suggest I edit it? Sorry, I can only guess.
Plus look at the obvious flaws I must (did) leave.

Again, I think what's needed is a whole new, short
Website dedicated to getting *photographers*
in and out with their download within an hour.
....A concise Canon CHDK download site.



The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Actually some non-coders _have_ worked on adding to the documentation in
specific areas, including me. But I have not edited other people's
documents, just added additional documentation.

 

Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;

A tip of my hat to you then.

The "feel of a place" is hard to describe.
It seems to me that editing other people's
documents would feel kinda extra weird there.
In Wikipedia, to do that there's a place to
shout out; "Hey I'm fixin to edit this part!
Any complaints?" Or "Here's why I changed
that." ...and then eventually the
shout-out fades into the dark archives.
If somebody objects, they can do a "revert"
back to the old, - just poke a button.

I help but think that the pages of obsolete
material are there for more than apathetic
neglect, but for a feeling or tradition or
some such that I can't put my finger on.




The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;

You seem to have corporate structures on the brain.
Seemingly, capitalistic corporate structures.
Many people use that context. But it is incomplete.
I said there needs an executive or leadership
function and implied a need for more of a hierarchical
structure. "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
None of that implies capitalistic corporate structures
where such things do tend to cost money...and which I
would NEVER suggest as a solution here.

My main example was Wikipedia.

I was thinking guidance and leadership not orders.
Again: Wikipedia. ...Who leads, not commands.
I also mentioned Microsoft's MVPs: unpaid volunteers;
....leaders in help forums.

leadership:
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
NOUN:
1. The position or office of a leader: ascended to the
leadership of the party.
2. Capacity or ability to lead: showed strong leadership
during her first term in office.
3. A group of leaders: met with the leadership of the
nation's top unions.
4. Guidance; direction: The business prospered under the
leadership of the new president.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_function
"The executive system is a theorized cognitive system in
psychology that controls and manages other cognitive
processes. It is responsible for processes that are
sometimes referred to as the executive function, executive
functions, supervisory attentional system, or cognitive
control. ...The concept is used by psychologists and
neuroscientists to describe a loosely defined collection of
brain processes that are responsible for planning, cognitive
flexibility, abstract thinking, rule acquisition, initiating
appropriate actions and inhibiting inappropriate actions,
and selecting relevant sensory information.[1]"....

Also loosely speaking, the adultish part of the personality,
verus the childish part of the personality.


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/executive+function
x·ec·u·tive function n.
The cognitive process that regulates an individual's ability
to organize thoughts and activities, prioritize tasks,
manage time efficiently, and make decisions. Impairment of
executive function is seen in a range of disorders,
including some pervasive developmental disorders and
....disabilities.

executive:
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
NOUN:
1. A person or group having administrative or managerial
authority in an organization.
4. Computer Science A set of coded instructions designed
to process and control other coded instructions.
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, relating to, capable of, or suited for carrying
out or executing: an advisory body lacking executive powers.
2. Having, characterized by, or relating to
administrative or managerial authority: the executive
director of a drama troupe; executive experience and skills.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

That's how I felt. When I found some documentation lacking I added more,
but I didn't think I should change what was already there.

It takes time to maintain documentation, and few people will do it for free.

 

Doug B. just volunteered.

-Wolfgang

 

Which says more about you.

You volunteer doing that for free? No? Then it's not a red
herring.

So you really volunteer? Fine!

Yes, there usually is no documentation AT ALL, especially for
unfinished software.

From a false position, any argument can be made.

You can tell other people what to do and how to do things if you
pay them. Seems you don't pay them ...

A newbie who hasn't been exposed to advertising, speeches and
general life for less than dozens of hours is still much too
young to hold a camera.

Fund drives (you?), volunteers (you?), ...

No, you just open your wide mouth. Everybody is a
better soccer trainer when half drunk in the pub than the guy
actually doing the job ...

How about putting your free time where your wide mouth is?

And when did you fix it instead of bitching?

[bitch bitch]

Find that out and fix the pages, dummy.

Newbies don't play with CHDK.

Of course there is access. It's just not prechewed.

Really? Where is your contibution?

Fine. You write one. Go ahead. You bitched for more than 3
pages now, you would have been ready if you'd have fixed
things instead.

.... like Wikipedia, where everyone can edit ...

By starting at the beginning.

They rate actions much higer than your words.

Excuses, excuses, go fix it already or stop bitching.

So you're too ... newbie to use forums. Fancy that.
You must still think tiny men carry the letters through "duh
intarnet".

Well, you pay someone or do it yourself, excuse maker.

Start reading, trying, asking *intelligent* questions.
Then you'll understand pretty soon.

Name such a camera.

Then update it, pal.

Using forums is as advanced as depressing and not jabbing the
shutter button. How do you even manage to find and use Usenet,
if you're so unexperienced? Not even *hours* of experience in the
internet and already here ...

Hey, what I did do back when I was not very experienced, was
to extend a 11 page manual to Unix, the Internet and
everything to a much more detailed 65 page manual. I didn't
wail that that should have been updated before, I just did
it. BTW, that was before the WWW.

Once you pay, for example.

You obviously need hours of experience more.

In a few days you should then be very experienced and update
the wiki.

Most people here get the big picture. No need to baby-talk.

How about reading the top of the page:

| The new User Manual is here:
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| → CHDK User Manual New ! - Has links to the old resources
|
| For offline viewing, and a printable manual, go to:-
| → CHDK UserGuide 2009 - In .pdf format. (Last update October 2010)
| ^^^^ ^^^^

I've underlined the important parts.

If you cannot read them, you really need lots of experience more.

"--GrAnd 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)"

So, simply reading the document shows you didn't read it, you
just bitched.

[snip]

I suggest you read the new user manual instead as directed

Start one.

You don't even find the facts and fit them to your world view.

-Wolfgang

 

[snip]

You want a cat herder. Then you need also willing cats.
That only works with money or respect. There are few enough
people who are able to code well enough to win respect and
even much fewer who'd not code but coordinate and lead.

So you need money.

Or a volunteer who just fixes things, and doesn't tell others
what to do.

Wikipedia doesn't produce software. Or documentation.

-Wolfgang

 

Doug

Get involved if you want the results you seek. I have been
writing commercial software for a very long time. It takes
work and dedication. Free and open source software is
for the most part is expensive for what it provides.

Take you for example, a camera that provides the features
you seek through CHDK would be less expensive to simply
buy if your time is worth anything. It would be backed by
manufacturers support and would be documented and
function as advertised.

Your rants on CHDK translate into something for nothing
with support. Disregarding for a moment the moral issues
of reverse engineering a commercial product, a lot more
could be accomplished by working with the camera
manufacturers to add special functionality. The astronomy
community saw these advantages when they partnered
with Canon for example.

Walter..

 

If it is free, how can it be "expensive"?

You have comprehensively missed the point. CHDK only works at all
because Canon already provided all the features CHDK offers, but chose
to disable some or all of them. All CHDK does is unlock features that
are already there.

So there is no "moral issue" at all, which is why Canon has raised no
major objections to CHDK. Indeed, CHDK may actually help Canon sell
more cameras because it enables advanced features that other brands
offer - particularly RAW capture.

I wonder how many people are deterred from buying Sigma lenses by
these alleged "moral issues"? Sigma has reverse engineered the
electronic interfaces of most of the major camera manufacturers.

Somehow, I doubt that a consideration of "moral issues" would play any
part in most people's buying decisions. They would be more likely to
be upset by camera manufacturers' attempts to render Sigma lenses
unusable on subsequent new camera releases.

 

A very good point.

That's basically true for every non-trivial software.

Interesting.
I concede that some commercial software (which can be FOSS) has
well thought out GUIs and good manuals, quick and knowledgeable
support and all that.

I concede that with a lot of FOSS you'll get manuals that aren't
always 100% up to date and too often manuals and GUIs and CLIs are
written with other developers in mind. (I'll give you the example
of 'par', a very powerful, but also very arcane text formatter ---
it's manual is centered around what each switch does internally,
when it should be centered around use cases or the effect. So it's
much trial and error. No, I don't know how to distangle that net.
And yes, the author knows how the documentation (and the program
design) is lacking by now.)

On the other hand, maintained FOSS software is fixed much faster,
especially when it comes to security bugs, and allows you to
bug-hunt[0], patch, recompile[1] yourself, should you feel like it.
Also, you routinely have support via email and/or IRC from the
developers themselves --- the guys and gals who know exactly what
is happening where --- not via some lackluster outsourced first
level support. And third parties can write patches for at least
some problems.

I also think that lots of free software would not have survived
as commercial software (too small market, too much work in
advertizing, marketing, selling), and often would not have been
written because there would have not been a sensible business case
for the limited projects often first envisioned by the single
or few developers initially working on the project. Think of
what the project was foir what we now know as the linux kernel
and how much money it would have cost to develop it commercially
(if you knew at the beginning what the target was).

It would be less expensive for Canon, too, since most the
heavy lifting is already done --- and Canon, having access to
the source code, could implement things faster, clearer and
better.

However, AFAIK, there *is* no camera that comes even close to
the features CHDK offers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not always given with commercial offerings.[2]
Especially with BETA software, like the CHDK for the OP's
camera.

I don't see any, sorry.
With reverse engineering and clean room design reimplementation
of the BIOS we got the IBM clones everyone is using today,
for example. Legally.

You assume willing camera manufacturers.
If they were willing, they'd at least give the specs CHDK must
reverse engineer for each camera to them --- after all, Canon
gets exta features for free and doesn't even have to support them
--- and gains at least some buyers because of CHDK.

The observed behaviour of camera manufacturers is that they are
not in the least positive towards CHDK (though not hostile enough
to make CHDK completely impossible), nor do they seem inclined to
add features like motion detection, scripting et al to their new
cameras.

How many 20Da's were made? Where were they distributed?
When was this?

-Wolfgang

[0] I'm currently investigating a segfault with mythtv (frontend)
that happens on debian-testing, but not on debian-stable.
I couldn't even begin to do that without open source.

[1] e.g. try a different library version than the executable was
linked against, optimize for your CPU, etc. Not something
the average user often needs, but certainly of interest to
the power user.

[2] Our analog-signal TV harddisk recorder has the tendency to stop
receiving when you switch channels and with a recording time
(advertized) of up to 400 hours, has only *8* slots for timer
recordings. Yes, you can do weekly repeats and Mo-Fr repeats
--- but you cannot give a name to the recordings before they
are recorded and naming recordings is a major PITA due to the
interface (switch through the whole alphabet letter by letter,
digit by digit, special char by special char (you can switch
between upper and lower case though) --- and don't press the
buttons on the remote control too fast. Never heard of an
on-screen keyboard, have they?) No chance for me to fix that
issue, even if I had all the time in the world.

 

Doug Bashford has detailed his cost/time benefit to using CHDK,
He has spent real time and paid utility costs for internet and is
yet to receive any benefit. That is very expensive.

I don't think so.

Actually that is not completely true.

Reverse engineering and republishing has plenty of moral and ethical
issues.

Saying that Canon has not yelled loud enough is hardly justification.

w..

 

Clearly you have something of a jaundiced view of CHDK because of your
involvement in writing other, presumably unrelated software. But
Canon not only hasn't yelled loudly. Effectively, Canon seems not to
have yelled at all.

Calling CHDK "reverse engineering" is rather emotive. It isn't like
Sigma reverse engineering the Canon EOS lens/camera interface in order
to make millions of bucks out of selling cheap lenses for Canon
(D)SLRs. I can see why that would upset Canon, and perhaps it should
upset other people too.

Things would be different if someone was making money out of CHDK. But
no-one is. Everyone gains, including Canon - because they get
improvements in the feature sets of various Canon PowerShot cameras
without having to pay for, or support them. Win/win.

As for Doug having spent a lot of time on CHDK, surely that is his
personal choice? People don't normally ascribe a cost to their time
spent pursuing a hobby.

Photography isn't my hobby, so I am reluctant to spend too much of my
time on CHDK and am definitely not a CHDK geek. But I'm happy to use
several of its features without feeling any need to spend a lot of
time finding out what else it can do. It makes me like my Canon
PowerShot even more than I already did, and makes it more likely that
I will replace it with another.

So what's not to like about CHDK?

 

My view of CHDK is clear. CHDK actually did have some interesting
original IP with the addition of some programmable sequence features.
I applaud them for that. I compare that project with the co-operation
that Canon has had with the astronomy community. CHDK has
reverse engineered Canon's software and left the changes looking
like an amateur hack

There is a difference? Someone breaks into your house and steals
your Beatles Butcher LP and someone else breaks in and steals
a laptop. I think they have committed the same crime.

Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
the camera trying to install CHDK and complains of noise in modified
feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

I guess that is why he is complaining about all the time he has wasted
on CHDK.

w..

 

Damning with faint praise, eh? Softening up your audience for ...

Perhaps that is because an amateur hack is precisely what CHDK is?
I see no claims by the CHDK community for anything else!

But no-one at CHDK has stolen anything. CHDK offers quite a lot but
takes absolutely nothing away. You are comparing two thefts of
physical items - a false analogy.

I compared, on the one hand, the CHDK community unlocking (on a
non-profit basis) features that are already present in Canon's
software but which are either disabled or hidden with, on the other
hand, Sigma reverse engineering the Canon EOS mount in order to make
millions of dollars in profit by selling cut-price lenses that operate
on Canon EOS cameras.

If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
disbenefits to anyone and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
them) then you are beyond help. There are none so blind as those that
will not see.

That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
people are thus affected, and how they are affected?

That was Doug's choice. We all make choices about how to spend our
leisure time. Some leisure activities prove to be more worthwhile
than others.

 

Except Canon.

The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
missing the ethics issues.


w..

 

On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
penny on development. Win/win.

See above. There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. In practice,
quite the opposite.

Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. Canon's
continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
what the CHDK developers are doing. It strongly suggests that CHDK is
to Canon's benefit.


Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):

That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
people are thus affected, and how they are affected?


(It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
reluctance to reply. After all, you made a serious allegation.)

 

How does that make it ethically correct?

That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
have been smoking.

I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
defending
against customers who are using a hacked product.

w..