Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?

Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on
19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable
At Walmart (and other high volume stores) since
around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom.
About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be
done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.)
(As expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would
have bought the Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!
(Now, so is the CHDK for the "new" SX130.)
I wonder if this is because of the hackers themselves,
or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,)
I do feel ripped off. So unless this changes and they
get goal-oriented over there, unless you hear otherwise,
I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions based
on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.

....Or, have other people seen different results on
all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an
sx120 problem?

(Besides that, I have used, and reccomend the "Acid" freeware
which decides which CHDK version you need and automagically
downloads and unzippes them for you. (I used it to get
other stuff related to CHDK.) An elegant little utility!)

I posted the below 7 months ago!
in rec.photo.digital, about: Year Later, CHDK coming SOON for
Canon Ultra-Zoom SX120. - Motion Detection, Remote Shutter, Time
Lapse, etc;
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Crash! wrote:

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released in London, UK
19th August 2009. [today, rollback under $199 walmart,]

A year later I was disapointed the CHDK home page made no
mention of it on its Supported Cameras list. So for reasons
I've mentioned elsewhere (ISO 1600 photo qual) I was ready
to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 12X zoom, also about $200.
(In fact, I decided that before I ever heard of CHDK,
but then I checked it out.)

I was bummed, cuz I really wanted a Remote (wireless) shutter,
the Motion Detection shutter, and perhaps the Time Lapse movie
capibilities of CHDK in my new camera!

But I did a last google and discovered that CHDK
for SX120 devolopment is coming along nicely.

In the CHDK development forum for SX120
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php...,4284.390.html
I saw quotes like this:

============start quotes:
" I haven't tested SX120 CHDK exhaustively, but are there any
open issues? I haven't found any bugs, maybe apart from the
squished logo aspect ratio..."

" CHDK for SX120 on: 14 / August / 2010,
Thanks Whin. I did compile it OK and CHDK is running fine."

"on: 15 / August / 2010, I successfully installed the
sx120is-100b-0.9.9-912-full version of chdk on my camera a couple
of days ago and without any eggageration, it's the nicest thing
to expand the camera's possibilities into the RAW format. Still,
............snip

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:13:35 -0700, Crash! wrote:

Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on 19th August 2009.
It's been obsolete and unavailable At Walmart (and other high volume
stores) since around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom. About
then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,) because of CHDK,
and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was seemingly almost complete,
it seemed sure it would be done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.) (As
expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would have bought the
Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! (Now, so is the CHDK
for the "new" SX130.) I wonder if this is because of the hackers
themselves, or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,) I do feel ripped
off. So unless this changes and they get goal-oriented over there,
unless you hear otherwise, I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions
based on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.



So - you bought a camera that did not have features you wanted, hoping
that some third party would provide a hack to make it work for you. And
now you feel ripped off. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to buy a
camera with the features you wanted in the first place?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:13:35 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?


You actually feel "ripped off" because someone didn't do something for you
for free just because you demand it?

Only "goofballs" expect someone else to do something for them for free
while calling them names.


The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on
19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable
At Walmart (and other high volume stores) since
around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom.
About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be
done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.)
(As expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would
have bought the Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

Do note that the SX30 was released only 6 months ago and CHDK for that
model is now nearly 100% functional.

But then that depends on what you consider 100% to be. If 90% of all known
CHDK functions are enabled, does that mean that you don't have a working
version of CHDK? There's a feature written to allow you to stamp dates and
personalized notes into your final JPG photos. It was written 3 years ago.
It's never been added to the main trunk and was only available for 4 camera
models. Does this mean that every non-beta version of CHDK is now only 97%
functional because that feature was never added to all cameras?


But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!

*ALL* versions of CHDK for *ALL* supported cameras are in perpetual Beta,
you MORON.

Hence version numbers like: 0.9.9-1127. Nobody has yet ever felt the desire
to finally call it CHDK v1.0, for ANY camera.

Take for example the PTPCamGUI feature that was began about 3 years ago. To
enable tethered-shooting (control by PC) on those cameras where Canon was
no longer going to support that function anymore. CHDK PTPCam was written
for only 1 or 2 camera models back then, and it was highly experimental.

Less than 2 weeks ago it was finally introduced into the main trunk and is
now enabled on ALL camera models. Camera's sold 4-5 years ago just now
finally got that CHDK feature. Should all those people whine and complain
because CHDK wasn't finished for their cameras yet as well? Where all
owners of all camera models that didn't have this feature being ripped-off
for 3 years because it wasn't available on their particular model?


(Now, so is the CHDK for the "new" SX130.)
I wonder if this is because of the hackers themselves,
or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?


If CHDK hasn't been fully ported to your particular camera, that's YOUR
fault.

Time for you to hone-up your assembly skills!

I'll also pass along the word of what kind of ungrateful little asswipes
buy SX120's and then demand their camera is supported. Just for you. Let's
see if it gets "finished" faster, shall we?

Knowing that little ****heads like you might benefit from CHDK in any way
really makes it difficult for ANYONE to want to help on the project at all.

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,)

NOBODY from Canon has EVER been involved in the CHDK project. There's no
stupid "wink wink" about it.

I do feel ripped off.

Let me get this straight, because YOU buy a camera, and someone didn't do
something for you for FREE, which is clearly stated at the Wiki that there
are NO GUARANTEES about anything, this makes YOU feel ripped off?

So unless this changes and they
get goal-oriented over there, unless you hear otherwise,
I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions based
on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.

NOBODY has EVER suggested that they buy a particular camera on the HOPES
that CHDK might be available for it one day. Those are the beliefs of a
FOOL and a MORON.

Now unless your programming assembly skills are up to par, then go ahead!
Buy that latest camera! Help add another model to the ever growing list of
CHDK capable cameras.


...Or, have other people seen different results on
all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an
sx120 problem?

No, this is mostly a YOU problem. You think you are automatically entitled
to something to which you are not.


(Besides that, I have used, and reccomend the "Acid" freeware
which decides which CHDK version you need and automagically
downloads and unzippes them for you. (I used it to get
other stuff related to CHDK.) An elegant little utility!)


Yes, it was written to help the tomes of morons who couldn't figure out the
extremely simple installation process. Morons would be very impressed. They
always are impressed every time that something is made more idiot-friendly.


I posted the below 7 months ago!

In the CHDK development forum for SX120
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php...,4284.390.html
I saw quotes like this:

============start quotes:
" I haven't tested SX120 CHDK exhaustively, but are there any
open issues? I haven't found any bugs, maybe apart from the
squished logo aspect ratio..."

" CHDK for SX120 on: 14 / August / 2010,
Thanks Whin. I did compile it OK and CHDK is running fine."


Then what's the whole point of your post?

The only thing that's dead in this thread are your brain cells. There
should be a law passed to make it illegal for ungrateful morons like you to
be allowed to buy ANY camera.

"Crash" for a nym, how very à propos.

in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On 19 Apr 2011, ray wrote:


On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:13:35 -0700, Crash! wrote:

Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on 19th August 2009.
It's been obsolete and unavailable At Walmart (and other high volume
stores) since around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom. About
then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,) because of CHDK,
and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was seemingly almost complete,
it seemed sure it would be done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.) (As
expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would have bought the
Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! (Now, so is the CHDK
for the "new" SX130.) I wonder if this is because of the hackers
themselves, or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,) I do feel ripped
off. So unless this changes and they get goal-oriented over there,
unless you hear otherwise, I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions
based on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.



So - you bought a camera that did not have features you wanted, hoping
that some third party would provide a hack to make it work for you.

Yup. But the "hope" was more like an expectation, based
on what was being pitched at the time...although not
explicitly, I admit.

And now you feel ripped off.

I was gunna change that to "disappointed," ...forgot.

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to buy a
camera with the features you wanted in the first place?

Wrong question I think.
Only silly people and a few of the very rich make major
purchasing decisions based on simpleness. Wouldn't you agree?

Would it have been "better" to buy a camera with the
features I wanted in the first place?
....at $1,000+? Hell no.
Do you know of one cheaper? 10X, 10 oz or under?

Features I want in a car are wings, but I can't
afford those either. This concept is called
"simple economics." Value.

Better question: Why doesn't Canon stop playing games
and man-up to these features/abilities? ...support them.
.....Even Better question: ...and the rest of the camera
makers too? This is hardly rocket science.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:44:15 -0700, Crash! wrote:

in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On 19 Apr 2011, ray wrote:


On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:13:35 -0700, Crash! wrote:

Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on 19th August
2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable At Walmart (and other high
volume stores) since around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X
zoom. About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be done by Xmas..
(See my below repost.) (As expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I
would have bought the Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! (Now, so is the
CHDK for the "new" SX130.) I wonder if this is because of the hackers
themselves, or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or
whatever?

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,) I do feel ripped
off. So unless this changes and they get goal-oriented over there,
unless you hear otherwise, I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions
based on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.



So - you bought a camera that did not have features you wanted, hoping
that some third party would provide a hack to make it work for you.

Yup. But the "hope" was more like an expectation, based on what was
being pitched at the time...although not explicitly, I admit.

And now you feel ripped off.

I was gunna change that to "disappointed," ...forgot.

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to buy a camera with the features
you wanted in the first place?

Wrong question I think.
Only silly people and a few of the very rich make major purchasing
decisions based on simpleness. Wouldn't you agree?

Probably 'simple' was a bad choice of words - 'reasonable' would have
been better.


Would it have been "better" to buy a camera with the features I wanted
in the first place? ...at $1,000+? Hell no.
Do you know of one cheaper? 10X, 10 oz or under?

Since I don't know exactly what you want, no. But evidently you do since
you said: "if not for the chdk feature, I would have bought the panasonic
dmc-zx1 12x zoom".



Features I want in a car are wings, but I can't afford those either.
This concept is called "simple economics." Value.

There is a third party hack that adds wings to a car? I wasn't aware of
that!


Better question: Why doesn't Canon stop playing games and man-up to
these features/abilities? ...support them. ....Even Better question:
...and the rest of the camera makers too? This is hardly rocket
science.

Development costs, I expect. It would cost them something to take the 3rd
party stuff and integrate into their firmware - or it would cost them
something to add the functionality themselves. Evidently that is not
needed since folks still buy their equipment (well, some people do - I
don't). Perhaps if one maker would break things open by adding all the
bells and whistles, enough consumers would switch to their brand to
basically force everyone else to do the same - rather a 'chicken and egg'
question - isn't it.

For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me.
As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use in
the camera. Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade - I recall that
some distributions of nikon 3rd party improvements came that way in the
past - don't know if they still do - but I installed such on my wife's
coolpix 2100. However, I did not buy the camera with the expectation that
someone would add functionality.

On 19 Apr 2011 15:57:38 GMT, ray wrote:


For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me.
As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use in
the camera. Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade

Wrong. Then it would violate all warranties. And it would be much riskier
to permanently brick all cameras through some simple coding typo. As it
stands now it is a much more elegant solution for all parties concerned.
Canon (nor any other company) is allowed to steal all the design features
for their own camera firmware, that which was written by so many for free.
This would be a direct violation of the GNU GPL licensing under which CHDK
has been written and supported.

What they COULD do, however, is to make their own firmware an open-source
project so that anyone could author better firmware for their own cameras.
Not unlike computers where you can install any operating system on it that
you want. If a better OS becomes available then you simply install and use
it.

Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more intelligent.

Your comment just goes to prove that all these features should be available
on all cameras. Though DSLRs will never get them all because they are still
greatly crippled by slow and ancient mechanical mirror+shutter mechanisms
that make many of the best CHDK features completely impossible.

Perhaps one day all non-DSLR cameras might get these features, when
corporate bean-counters are no longer a corporation's primary camera
designers.

Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more intelligent.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:25:08 -0500, ken d wrote:

On 19 Apr 2011 15:57:38 GMT, ray wrote:


For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me.
As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use
in the camera. Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade

Wrong. Then it would violate all warranties. And it would be much
riskier to permanently brick all cameras through some simple coding
typo. As it stands now it is a much more elegant solution for all
parties concerned. Canon (nor any other company) is allowed to steal all
the design features for their own camera firmware, that which was
written by so many for free. This would be a direct violation of the GNU
GPL licensing under which CHDK has been written and supported.

You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps
you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the
impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products
as long as the source is made available.



What they COULD do, however, is to make their own firmware an
open-source project so that anyone could author better firmware for
their own cameras. Not unlike computers where you can install any
operating system on it that you want. If a better OS becomes available
then you simply install and use it.

Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more
intelligent.

Your comment just goes to prove that all these features should be
available on all cameras. Though DSLRs will never get them all because
they are still greatly crippled by slow and ancient mechanical
mirror+shutter mechanisms that make many of the best CHDK features
completely impossible.

Perhaps one day all non-DSLR cameras might get these features, when
corporate bean-counters are no longer a corporation's primary camera
designers.

Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more
intelligent.

about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, ken d wrote:


On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:13:35 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?


You actually feel "ripped off" because someone didn't do something for you
for free just because you demand it?

Paste

*-Straw man
*-~~~~~~~~~
*-The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's
*-position so that it can be attacked more easily,
*-then to knock down that misrepresented position,
*-then to conclude that the original position has been
*-demolished.
*- ------------ It is a fallacy because it fails to
*-deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

Typically a highly Evil, Weak, or Silly straw man is
constructed, vilified, beat on, feared, or scorned,
then with much fanfare and bombast, publicly
destroyed in a blazing pyre. My Hero.

end Paste.

Without it, there would be no Talk Shows Limbaugh&Co.


Only "goofballs" expect someone else to do something for them for free
while calling them names.

Oh brother. slowly shaking head, rolling eyes



The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on
19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable
At Walmart (and other high volume stores) since
around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom.
About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be
done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.)
(As expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would
have bought the Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

Do note that the SX30 was released only 6 months ago and CHDK for that
model is now nearly 100% functional.

But then that depends on what you consider 100% to be. If 90% of all known
CHDK functions are enabled, does that mean that you don't have a working
version of CHDK? There's a feature written to allow you to stamp dates and
personalized notes into your final JPG photos. It was written 3 years ago.
It's never been added to the main trunk and was only available for 4 camera
models. Does this mean that every non-beta version of CHDK is now only 97%
functional because that feature was never added to all cameras?


But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!

*ALL* versions of CHDK for *ALL* supported cameras are in perpetual Beta,
you MORON.

Hence version numbers like: 0.9.9-1127. Nobody has yet ever felt the desire
to finally call it CHDK v1.0, for ANY camera.

Take for example the PTPCamGUI feature that was began about 3 years ago. To
enable tethered-shooting (control by PC) on those cameras where Canon was
no longer going to support that function anymore. CHDK PTPCam was written
for only 1 or 2 camera models back then, and it was highly experimental.

Less than 2 weeks ago it was finally introduced into the main trunk and is
now enabled on ALL camera models. Camera's sold 4-5 years ago just now
finally got that CHDK feature. Should all those people whine and complain
because CHDK wasn't finished for their cameras yet as well? Where all
owners of all camera models that didn't have this feature being ripped-off
for 3 years because it wasn't available on their particular model?


(Now, so is the CHDK for the "new" SX130.)
I wonder if this is because of the hackers themselves,
or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?


If CHDK hasn't been fully ported to your particular camera, that's YOUR
fault.

Time for you to hone-up your assembly skills!

I'll also pass along the word of what kind of ungrateful little asswipes
buy SX120's and then demand their camera is supported. Just for you. Let's
see if it gets "finished" faster, shall we?

Knowing that little ****heads like you might benefit from CHDK in any way
really makes it difficult for ANYONE to want to help on the project at all.

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,)

NOBODY from Canon has EVER been involved in the CHDK project. There's no
stupid "wink wink" about it.

I do feel ripped off.

Let me get this straight, because YOU buy a camera, and someone didn't do
something for you for FREE, which is clearly stated at the Wiki that there
are NO GUARANTEES about anything, this makes YOU feel ripped off?

So unless this changes and they
get goal-oriented over there, unless you hear otherwise,
I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions based
on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.

NOBODY has EVER suggested that they buy a particular camera on the HOPES
that CHDK might be available for it one day. Those are the beliefs of a
FOOL and a MORON.

Now unless your programming assembly skills are up to par, then go ahead!
Buy that latest camera! Help add another model to the ever growing list of
CHDK capable cameras.


...Or, have other people seen different results on
all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an
sx120 problem?

No, this is mostly a YOU problem. You think you are automatically entitled
to something to which you are not.


(Besides that, I have used, and reccomend the "Acid" freeware
which decides which CHDK version you need and automagically
downloads and unzippes them for you. (I used it to get
other stuff related to CHDK.) An elegant little utility!)


Yes, it was written to help the tomes of morons who couldn't figure out the
extremely simple installation process. Morons would be very impressed. They
always are impressed every time that something is made more idiot-friendly.


I posted the below 7 months ago!

In the CHDK development forum for SX120
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php...,4284.390.html
I saw quotes like this:

============start quotes:
" I haven't tested SX120 CHDK exhaustively, but are there any
open issues? I haven't found any bugs, maybe apart from the
squished logo aspect ratio..."

" CHDK for SX120 on: 14 / August / 2010,
Thanks Whin. I did compile it OK and CHDK is running fine."


Then what's the whole point of your post?

Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?

The only thing that's dead in this thread are your brain cells. There
should be a law passed to make it illegal for ungrateful morons like you to
be allowed to buy ANY camera.

Damn, I'll bet that feels good!

Wouldn't you agree that the only thing with
more feelsgoodism than rightous indignation
is righteous indignation that can be used to
justify a whipping or a lynching?
Of course, the ULTIMATE feelsgoodism is a lynch mob!
Wouldn't you agree?

Can I suggest you abstain from parenthood?

On 19 Apr 2011 17:44:19 GMT, ray wrote:


You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps
you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the
impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products
as long as the source is made available.


And therein lies the problem. No corporation will release their own tweaked
source-code back into the community from which they have taken it. They
exist, subsist, and survive on a "ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE"
principle.

[Not unlike the author of SDM who only takes from the CHDK project
programmers and feature-inventors and never gives back one thing. He only
he still survives today because he's still not selling his parasitic
version.]

This "ME & MINE" foundation of corporations makes them quite incapable of
participating in or directly benefiting from any open-source project as a
useful member of a worldwide community. All that we can do is try to fix
and improve what their idiotic "ME & MINE" bean-counters have failed to
provide to everyone in the first place.

On 19 Apr 2011 17:44:19 GMT, ray wrote:


You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps
you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the
impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products
as long as the source is made available.


And therein lies the problem. No corporation will release their own tweaked
source-code back into the community from which they have taken it. They
exist, subsist, and survive on a "ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE"
principle.

[Not unlike the author of SDM who only takes from the CHDK project
programmers and feature-inventors and never gives back one thing. He only
survives today because he's still not selling his parasitic version.]

This "ME & MINE" foundation of corporations makes them quite incapable of
participating in or directly benefiting from any open-source project as a
useful member of a worldwide community. All that we can do is try to fix
and improve what their idiotic "ME & MINE" bean-counters have failed to
provide to everyone in the first place.