Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

Doug Bashford wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Allen wrote:

but he seems to think that
CHDK is a vast, rich business,

Huh!? However did you reach THAT conclusion!?
Jumping eye-closed perhaps?

Reading your posts.

At that price as an average, how many D/Ls would they
have to sell to afford the executive people you think hey should have?

Suggest you read the whole thread, then see
if you can figure it out.

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

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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.


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.

(After all, they aren't paid.)

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.


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

They don't.

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


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

Anyone (you!) willing to pay for them?

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



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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed, and maybe.

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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


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.

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

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

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.

On 5/16/2011 4:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Doug 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.)

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.

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:54:33 -0700, SMS wrote:


On 5/16/2011 4:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Doug 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.)

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.

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.

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:50:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:


Doug Bashford wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Allen wrote:

but he seems to think that
CHDK is a vast, rich business,

Huh!? However did you reach THAT conclusion!?
Jumping eye-closed perhaps?

Reading your posts.

At that price as an average, how many D/Ls would they
have to sell to afford the executive people you think hey should have?

Suggest you read the whole thread, then see
if you can figure it out.

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

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.

...some executive to tell others what to do.

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.thefreedic...utive+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.

On 6/4/2011 2:10 PM, Doug Bashford wrote:

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:54:33 -0700, SMS wrote:


On 5/16/2011 4:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Doug 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

SMS wrote:

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

Doug B. just volunteered.

-Wolfgang

Doug Bashford wrote:

Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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.

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.

Which says more about you.

(After all, they aren't paid.)

Red herring argument.

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

And a cop-out.

So you really volunteer? Fine!

Freeware is all over,
misleading documentation is not.

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

This being the case, logic dictates we look elsewhere.

From a false position, any argument can be made.

Philosophic Clue: East not West, Buddha rather than Christ.
Intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

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

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

They don't.

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

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.

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

Anyone (you!) willing to pay for them?

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

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?

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."

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.

And when did you fix it instead of bitching?

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

Find that out and fix the pages, dummy.

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

Newbies don't play with CHDK.

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*.

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

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

Really? Where is your contibution?

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.

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.

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

Since it's inpenetratable, indeed, functional
only within it's own culture,

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

how would an outsider
do that?

By starting at the beginning.

Part of that culture seems to value
its exclusive nature.

They rate actions much higer than your words.

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.

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

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.

Indeed, and maybe.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Name such a camera.

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

Then update it, pal.

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.

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

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.

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

When will somebody accept some responsibility?

Once you pay, for example.

Your baby can do no wrong? ...is perfect?
Is there any wonder it looks like that?

You obviously need hours of experience more.

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

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.

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

example self-contradicting quote from:
CHDK firmware usage - CHDK Wiki
Jun 16, 2007 http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage
How about reading the top of the page:

| The new User Manual is he
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| → 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.

[The date is NOT in the document, as usual. --- It's from
Google. (How fly-by-night!)]

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

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

[snip]

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

I suggest you read the new user manual instead as directed

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.

Start one.

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

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

-Wolfgang

Doug Bashford wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:50:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

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.

You seem to have corporate structures on the brain.

[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.

My main example was Wikipedia.

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..