USB HID parser
chuckr at telenix.org
Sat May 17 18:56:00 UTC 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:10:46 -0400
> Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> wrote:
>> After getting no response to any requests for any feedback (like
>> alpha test, but about either the protocol features, OR the
>> accessibility of the UI) I begin to wonder if there is really any
>> interest pool for this. Unless I get at least *some* feedback, I
> Migt I respectfully suggest that no response is because you did the
> "show and tell2 backwards?
> I think you would have gotten more responses if your mail had included
> a link to a place on the net where the tool could be downloaded.
> I'll use myself as an example: for my personal use, I use and test lots
> of usb devices on FreeBSD (what can I say - I am a gadget freak), so I
> am a bit interested.
> But asking for something in a mail is just so 90'es.
> I prefer to get my programs, source, and information off the net.
> Just my 20 eurocents (and written with a light twinkle of humor in my
>> will make it available, but no port. Geeze, it doesn't need one! If
> Any tool worth anything _deserves_ a port. And it helps with exposure,
> as has been said elsewere in this thread.
>> I'm beginning to wonder if I will have even one FreeBSDer who wants
>> it, Might get rid of a couple of Linux versions. I hate to admit
> I want it - butt _not_ in my mail, please. Put it up somehwere on the
> net and tell us about it.
>> that it works just as well on Windows, darn it. Maybe I could figure
>> out how to break it for Windows, what do you say?
> I don't care about windows one way or the other (I use it for work
> because Ihave to, not because I like or prefer it).
OK, let me cover all the suggestions. First, the name, fine, I renamed it to
uhidParser, and the current version is 0.2 (will hit 1.0 if I ever get any
feedback, else it's stay where it is). You can pic up a copy at:
Lastly, the port. I have, for a great long time, really felt very wrong, that
items that needed no adaptation (or 'porting') received ports. Once, I even saw
a one liner, truly simple C program get a port, merely to encourage a new
programmer (if I remember right, it converted DOS carriage returns to Unix
ones), and I just felt that such a truly simple thing was abuse of the port
project. That's my own belief. I don't try to push my beliefs upon you, do I?
So, please, don't try it push them on me. When I do a port of something, or
when I write something that needs some help in compiling for non-techies, then
I'll port it, but it's just too simple, it even includes it's own help info,
it's just making no real use of the ports tools to make a port of it. I went
ahead and gave you a URL, I agree there, but not on the port, not for a thing
I can't stop you from porting it, I know that, but I wish you wouldn't. It's
just not port material. OK, if you want to continue the argument, do it
privately, I won't respond publicly any more about it. No Flamefests, least not
because of me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-usb