Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

If ya don't know, the Canon CHDK (Firmware freeware
hack) supercharges Canon cameras, now DSLRs too!
It's way cool!

Except: too bad the website, from the average non-geek's
perspective is so painful to the point of useless.
But I'm a non-geek, not a technophobe.
Actually, way back when, I've coded for thousands of
hours. It's not like I think syntax is difficult.

I'm about to go crazy trying to figure this thing out.
Yes, I have an ADD learning disability, and trying to
unravel the spaghetti on the official unofficial sites
is impossible. They don't believe in editing anything
as this opensource thing evolves over seveal years.
The obsolete seems as valuable to them as the current,
if the number of words implies value.
They seemingly have no executive people in charge of
making anything coherent. Nothing is ever removed,
stuff is only added. Like a tire with more patch than tire.
(Thank goodness there is some strikout font here and there,
tho.) Sample two sentences:

QUOTING: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad
"***UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad***
"The complexity and time-line of your script is only limited by
your imagination and trying to keep your script under the 8K
character (8192 byte) limit. (See "starting out" section above
for script length limit; this might not be accurate any more)"
....end quote.

IOW, "This and that, but perhaps not, check over there,
and good chance that too will be laced with caveats,
cuz who the hell can keep track of this ball of endless
string? ...Why YOU the newbie learner can!"

That's not particularly bad, I quote it because it's typical
and concise. In another place they state that a whole
otherwise obsolete page is kept alive because two sentences
are not on this (the current) page. What? One page, marked
the Best, Latest Code! seems cool, one studies that
script, trying to figure it out for a looong time,
only to discover oops, that's obsolete, and NOW here's
the zoomzoom version! One informative intro tells me where
to get the latest (beta only) firmware for my cam...wow that's a
thread with over 1,000 replies!... mod after update and no firm
decisive place to look as we listen to one exciting tale of
coding and failure and fix after another. I crossed my
fingers & got one, I can only hope it's ok.
Did I mention it's like trying to find one unmarked
strand of spaghetti a plate of spaghetti that for my purposes
should only have that one strand on it?

To be fair, from appearances, if my camera's CHDK version
was not STILL languishing in BETA, then there does seem to be
a nifty pointing mechanism to the real builds that one might find
in less than an hour or so. And the German version has
been out for a long time, I could try Google-translate
on it I guess, but mention of that version is nil,.
...or buried in the ball of spaghetti ---
as with all things...WHO KNOWS?
To be fair, it's possible that this limbo status is not typical,
and is the most unfriendly, confusing place of all to be.

That's where I am now. After more than 12+ hours I'm
finding the best intervalometer to test, I'd like
to shoot 3fps, but default is one shot per 5 secs.
I think I'll come close. If it works. BETA, remember?
Everybody has time to squander, right? ...I mean invest.

The way it looks is, the build I found stopped development
( sx120is-100b-0.9.9-912-full )
over six months ago. One wonders if that's because somebody
had a crisis, or because it was good enough? ...and being
without leadership, nobody made the final push to take
it out of BETA and to the public? Six moths ago somebody
said it works. Supposedly not good enough, but what is
it missing, or whatever? --- as with all things...WHO KNOWS?
Should a newbie try it, why or why not?...WHO KNOWS?
Not this newbie.

Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

....and to the haughty troll with sockpuppets on
rec.photo.digital,
how DARE I "complain about freeware?" Just like this, pal.
The Internet runs on freeware, and it all gets reviewed. Dry up.
Your "ideas" are as stimulating as old, fading jock itch.
I review it because I care for it. Happy happy, it's free.
--Doug



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

Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

The "firmware" in my Canon FX is updated to the latest version early time I
load in a new roll of film.

Maybe this digital stuff isn't so great after all?

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:53:29 +0100, Peter Chant
wrote:

Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

The last time a manic moron like him tried to do that they had to close
down all editing on the whole site until the piece of **** idiot went away.
Because they can't even comprehend the "CHDK for Dummies" section they have
no clue what anything there means. Ergo, they CAN'T help. They can only
make things worse. In fact much of the convoluted references that you see
there now is due to people just like him.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:53:29 +0100, Peter Chant
wrote:

Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

The last time a manic moron like him tried to do that they had to close
down all editing on the whole site until the piece of **** idiot went away.
Because they can't even comprehend the "CHDK for Dummies" section they have
no clue what anything there means. Ergo, they CAN'T help. They can only
make things worse. In fact much of the convoluted references that you see
there now is due to people just like him.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:51:05 +0200, Mark L
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:53:29 +0100, Peter Chant
wrote:

Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so
they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

The last time a manic moron like him tried to do that they had to close
down all editing on the whole site until the piece of **** idiot went
away.
Because they can't even comprehend the "CHDK for Dummies" section they
have
no clue what anything there means. Ergo, they CAN'T help. They can only
make things worse. In fact much of the convoluted references that you see
there now is due to people just like him.



Watch your language. There are no enemies around.

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Peter Chant wrote:


Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

I wouldn't mind doing that at all.
But I think it's a "values" thing.
I really do think they cherish the old, obsolete
code...perhaps for sentimental reasons, - I can relate
to old code and baby pics etc.... .

Second, one would have to know far more than I do
about what's what. I'm such a newbie I don't
even know the terminology yet.

Last, as a writer, I hate having people edit my stuff!
I'd feel weird asking.

Perhaps they should put up a sign:
LOOK AT THIS MESS! ...Can anybody help?

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

(repaired truncated NG list..)

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Peter Chant wrote:


Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.

I wouldn't mind doing that at all.
But I think it's a "values" thing.
I really do think they cherish the old, obsolete
code...perhaps for sentimental reasons, - I can relate
to old code and baby pics etc.... .

Second, one would have to know far more than I do
about what's what. I'm such a newbie I don't
even know the terminology yet.

Last, as a writer, I hate having people edit my stuff!
I'd feel weird asking.

Perhaps they should put up a sign:
LOOK AT THIS MESS! ...Can anybody help?

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

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

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Doug Bashford wrote:




(repaired truncated NG list..)

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Peter Chant wrote:


Doug Bashford wrote:


Again, I think I'm going to like CHDK. My complaint is
not with that. It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time. Of course Wikipedia would have it nailed,
cuz communication is what they do. ...and they KNOW
communication is difficult.

Why not volenteer to help tidy up the website? CHDK is open souce so they
may amenable to help with tidying the website up.


Perhaps they should put up a sign:
LOOK AT THIS MESS! ...Can anybody help?

Here's the text from a few signs I ran into
at Wiki. While they request something different,
they do project an attitude to jump in and help,
and no "anything is good enough."

========wiki sign quotes:


This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality
standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page
may contain suggestions. (February 2011)


This is the **talk page** for discussing improvements to the
article.
* This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's
subject.
* Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
* Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes
(~~~~).
* New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.


Article policies
* No original research
* Neutral point of view
* Verifiability


Any sections with no replies in 1 week may be automatically
moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

========end quotes

One of the big difference between Wiki and the two
CHDK domains is the often unclean discussion is done
in the background...the general public never
sees it.

Also articles are graded. For examples "Dark Ages"
went from good to probation to delisted to now
it's in chaos after a major diambiguation and the
"loss" of the stalemated debate. (The Christians
want to "memory hole" the term "Dark Ages.")
Aticles are graded by at least two factors,
topic importance, and quality.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole





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

Doug Bashford wrote:

They don't believe in editing anything
as this opensource thing evolves over seveal years.

This is probably because they are all having fun coding and
noone wants the drudgery of cleaning up documentation.
(After all, they aren't paid.)

The obsolete seems as valuable to them as the current,
if the number of words implies value.

They don't.

They seemingly have no executive people in charge of
making anything coherent.

Anyone (you!) willing to pay for them?

QUOTING: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad
"***UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad***
"The complexity and time-line of your script is only limited by
your imagination and trying to keep your script under the 8K
character (8192 byte) limit. (See "starting out" section above
for script length limit; this might not be accurate any more)"
...end quote.

IOW, "This and that, but perhaps not, check over there,
and good chance that too will be laced with caveats,
cuz who the hell can keep track of this ball of endless
string? ...Why YOU the newbie learner can!"

Bah. It says "We currently have a 8k limit on scripts, but
we are working on improving/lifting that limit. See there if
we already managed, because we'll announce it there and there
is no guarantee someone will remember to fix that here."

That's not particularly bad, I quote it because it's typical
and concise. In another place they state that a whole
otherwise obsolete page is kept alive because two sentences
are not on this (the current) page. What?

It's a wiki. Go ahead and improve it.


One informative intro tells me where
to get the latest (beta only) firmware for my cam...wow that's a
thread with over 1,000 replies!... mod after update and no firm
decisive place to look as we listen to one exciting tale of
coding and failure and fix after another. I crossed my
fingers & got one, I can only hope it's ok.

Stupid. The clever thing's to go to the end, scan backwards
and see what failures the current beta has until you come to
the announcement of it. Failing that, check the first post,
maybe it's been edited for each beta.

Did I mention it's like trying to find one unmarked
strand of spaghetti a plate of spaghetti that for my purposes
should only have that one strand on it?

So pay someone for filtering the view. Other people need
other strands of spaghetti, don't forget that.

To be fair, from appearances, if my camera's CHDK version
was not STILL languishing in BETA,

Maybe you should help testing and/or coding and/or
documenting. It's a volunteer effort.

then there does seem to be
a nifty pointing mechanism to the real builds that one might find
in less than an hour or so.

I guess I could find the latest beta for your camera in less than
15 minutes, given the above algorithms.

The way it looks is, the build I found stopped development
( sx120is-100b-0.9.9-912-full )
over six months ago. One wonders if that's because somebody
had a crisis, or because it was good enough? ...and being
without leadership, nobody made the final push to take
it out of BETA and to the public? Six moths ago somebody
said it works. Supposedly not good enough, but what is
it missing, or whatever? --- as with all things...WHO KNOWS?
Should a newbie try it, why or why not?...WHO KNOWS?
Not this newbie.

In this case, BETA is not for you. Wait for someone to do a
commercially supported full release.

It's the two Web sites. They need to
take some clues from Wikipedia, which has strict
guidelines, rules, and "official" unofficial editors
and censors (leadership). Those sites may work fine
as software development sites, but their public interface,
the only part I see and comment on, sucks and they sucks
Big Time.

It's a wiki. Go ahead and improve it.

how DARE I "complain about freeware?"

Free (as in libre) and Open Source Software (FOSS). It's not
(only) free as in free beer. You (also) get the source and the
rights to use and modify as you please, except cutting these
rights from other parties.

The Internet runs on freeware,

FOSS.

-Wolfgang