Andy Walls wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 01:01 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote: >> Andy, >> >> >> Andy Walls wrote: >> >>> Manu, >>> >>> Though I can't read much German, after looking at the jusst.de website I >>> can't help but think that you as well have financial interests driving >>> your actions. If so, then your statements display quite a bit of >>> hypocrisy. >> To your utter disappointment as i should say, i am not working for any >> vendor, but just get device support out to the community. > > Not to my disappointment. I'm glad to hear it. Someone who appears to > have an EE background without corporate bias can be an asset to the > community. > > >> The jusst.de domain is owned by Julian Scheel who runs Jusst >> Technologies, just happened to offer me hosting for me repositories for >> my work, using full ssh access, so that my workflow is easier. >> >> Not that i have anything to do with jusst.de otherwise. OTOH, i do have >> the patches at kernel.org >> >> Maybe Julian can comment on this to make things more clearer on the >> financial interests. > > Then what I perceived was wrong. My apologies. > > > >>> Manipulating (i.e. stalling) the timing of Multiproto being merged into >>> the v4l-dvb tree or kernel, for you or your employer's gain, would be >>> little different from the motivations you allege Steve of having. >> >> I am not manipulating any timing of multiproto being merged. In fact i >> had been away, for a few months due to certain reasons, that you are >> perfectly aware by now as far as i can understand. > > I was aware you were away. For what dates I do not know (I have emails > from you in May 2008). For what reasons, I do not know for sure (nor do > I feel is it my business). > > > >> So the points that >> you raise are quite baseless. > > Not entirely, there is a basis for the timing point. The pull requests > seemed to have come in short order when confronted with a competing > proposal. Yet the project had been ongoing for at least over a year (as > far as I can ascertain). Here's a gripe about delays from Jan 2008: > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx/msg28606.html > > There seemed to have been no other visible motivation for the pull > requests except competition. I got back on the beginning of September. >>> Since the major gripe I'm reading on the list "is that multiproto has >>> taken too long" and since it seems to me the only thing that shook it >>> loose was a competing proposal, please save the venom for when you >>> actually have some clear moral high-ground to stand on. I don't see it >>> from here. >> Crap, just read above. > > OK, then you do have some high ground. But you also had essentially a > monopoly position and now you have competition. That is not crap. > Monopoly, competition .. sounds nonsense to me. >>> As for the technical superiority of either API proposal; that probably >>> just doesn't matter. I've seen policy/political decisions force >>> suboptimal technical solutions at work time and time again. If you >>> really believe you have a superior product technically; then perhaps you >>> should work to make it superior politically as well. Mud-slinging can't >>> be a good long term strategy toward that end. >> >> I don't have to do any mud-slinging, just wrote the exact facts out here. > > No, you are mud slinging. Let's count the derogatory terms you use in > addressing your competition in the following quote: > > "No need for you to break the compliant devices in favour of your > mediocre cards. As i wrote just above, the STB0899 is not the only one > device using the said features. Also i can guarantee that the CX24116 > (HVR4000) is the most handicapped DVB-S2 device that you are basing the Conexant themselves mentions what their demodulators can do. (In fact, they stopped their satellite demodulator businesses and sold it to NXP, AFAIK) I don't know what you want to add more into it, what Conexant hasn't. Only basic 8PSK NBC mode of operation. The DVB-S2 specification and supported devices do a lot more than that. > DVB-S2 API on: and i can guarantee that what you do will be just be > broken as you have done for other devices in the past." > "Also i do not understand, why you have to make a lot of noise to port > the STB0899 drivers to your crap, when all your cards work as expected > by you with the multiproto tree. I don't see any reason why the STB0899 > has to be ported to the handicapped API of yours, handicapping the > STB0899 based devices." True it is. Regards, Manu _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb