arm-netbook

arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk

1082 discussions

Start a nNew thread

ppcnotebook
by ronwirring＠Safe-mail.net 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/en/ Do you know them? Are they credible? Thank you.

8 13

pre-2.7.5 JAE DC3 micro-hdmi connector test PCB success
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/ --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

5 6

Part sourcing
by mike.valk＠gmail.com 11 Sep '17

11 Sep '17

http://www.findchips.com/ We'll that's interesting. Doesn't beat the offline markets in Shenzhen I guess.

1 0

python coding help needed (sin, cosine, blah blah)
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 10 Sep '17

10 Sep '17

http://hands.com/~lkcl/foldable3dsandwich200/belts.py ok, i could use some algorithm help, here, if anyone's interested. the key function is add_bearing in class Belt. basically what i have done is create a class which completely specifies a belt path, by starting out with the angle that the belt is wrapped around so far, plus the position, plus the diameter of the bearing (a fake bearing initially). subsequent bearings need only be added specifying their position, radius, and whether the belt is to go on the INTERIOR or the EXTERIOR of the bearing. the swapping-from-interior-to-exterior is where i'm having difficulties. i've made a half-assed approximation so far, i will upload a quick video about it... https://youtu.be/AV5yRz6GPX0 the problem i have is that the flip-over between interior and exterior is a little bit too complicated for my tiny brain to handle. i know that it involves twin offsets. i think it might be possible to work out the first angle between the bearings, then pretend that there's another bearing added on the *other* side (in the opposite configuration), then work out the angle of *that* (fake) bearing to the one before it... anyway if anybody would like to have a go at tackling this i would be really grateful. l.

4 13

The Libre Guild of Program Changers [Formerly "Re: Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model:
by Jean Flamelle 06 Sep '17

06 Sep '17

So to kind of clarify on my original idea a bit. (finally found the words) Essentially, the point of libre software is that anyone can change it to do what they want the program to do, and, if someone doesn't have the know-how, they can ask someone else. That's the heart of the idea. There should be an organization not-unlike an artists' guild, where people can go to and commission customizations to libre software. The idea of a standards organization, was more meant as a certain standard expected of all guild members. Projects live mostly off of donations, but they can certified based on their members' respective statuses in the guild and their portfolio of commissioned mods they've accomplished. Supposedly major companies could commission a major modified fork from a project (like Blender or Gimp) and that there would be a certification mark the commissioning company could bear indicating that they supported as well as respected free software in this way. (i.e. not trying to convince the foundation to sign an NDA, close or obfuscate parts of the fork, or write any kind of exploitive or otherwise disreputable software.) And, if a company dedicates their own staffed developers to the effort, basically the mark would also indicate that those developers weren't disruptive and were respectful. On 5/31/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Neverminding the ridiculous length of that subject line.. > > I just thought an interesting thought. > > First, a little context, (I know how rms feels about blockchains) I > was investigating slock.it and thinking to myself "why don't they just > make a hardware standard like eoma instead of closing their > development and calling it open?" (Like, Pi-Top is [n]ever gonna > release those stl files) > (I realize that's a loaded 'just' cause it sounds easy, but is one of > the most difficult possible) > > Then, it dawned on me: Lulzbot doesn't do that.. Wait, Lulzbot > exclusively uses open software in their development.. Then *bam* like > a boulder (nothing to do with Lulzbot): GPL-violations, improper GUI > training, failing to extend using APIs/Addons, failing to > bugsmash/'track-issues', failing to participate in mailing-lists and > irc, failing to simply fork when development goals conflict, planned > esoteric-ism and/or planned obsolescence, failure to secure clientèle > data by using fully free systems (when relevant), failure to > participate-in and be-aware-of public conversations about the > underlining security of said systems (when relevant), failure to > disclose supplychain information/identities (when relevant), failure > at general transparency. > > All of these things traditionally go wrong with not only companies > that use open source, but companies in-general. > > Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards > organizations as well. >

4 4

[Formerly "Re: Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model:
by Jean Flamelle 05 Sep '17

05 Sep '17

On 5/31/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Neverminding the ridiculous length of that subject line.. > > I just thought an interesting thought. > > First, a little context, (I know how rms feels about blockchains) I > was investigating slock.it and thinking to myself "why don't they just > make a hardware standard like eoma instead of closing their > development and calling it open?" (Like, Pi-Top is [n]ever gonna > release those stl files) > (I realize that's a loaded 'just' cause it sounds easy, but is one of > the most difficult possible) > > Then, it dawned on me: Lulzbot doesn't do that.. Wait, Lulzbot > exclusively uses open software in their development.. Then *bam* like > a boulder (nothing to do with Lulzbot): GPL-violations, improper GUI > training, failing to extend using APIs/Addons, failing to > bugsmash/'track-issues', failing to participate in mailing-lists and > irc, failing to simply fork when development goals conflict, planned > esoteric-ism and/or planned obsolescence, failure to secure clientèle > data by using fully free systems (when relevant), failure to > participate-in and be-aware-of public conversations about the > underlining security of said systems (when relevant), failure to > disclose supplychain information/identities (when relevant), failure > at general transparency. > > All of these things traditionally go wrong with not only companies > that use open source, but companies in-general. > > Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards > organizations as well. >

1 0

physics analysis needed of belt-driven pulley system
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 29 Aug '17

29 Aug '17

some background: http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?177,767087,784083#msg-784083 and the same question here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352661/ can anyone help? basically - and i really should have done this before going ahead... *sigh*... - when you have a pulley system is the amount of force on the belt less, equal, or greater, under the same *print-head* acceleration conditions, compared to a *non* pulley system? l.

3 8

m
by Richard Wilbur 25 Aug '17

25 Aug '17

Sent from my iPhone

4 6

http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/news/
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

ok so i did a quick summary (despite the length) of the status so far... i hope there is light at the end of the tunnel.... --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

1 0

frickin funny
by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 15 Aug '17

15 Aug '17

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/78w8jy/pcmcia-once-defined-porta… i had no idea this article existed... i absolutely love the conclusion.... --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

7 7

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

arm-netbook