Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Handhelds Open Source Operating Systems Software Hardware

Rockbox Developers Talk Open Source Firmware 179

Posted by timothy
from the be-thankful-for-their-hobby dept.
angry tapir writes "I recently caught up with some of the key developers of Rockbox: An open source firmware replacement for the stock firmware shipped on MP3 players. The project, which has been active for over a decade, currently supports products from more than half a dozen manufacturers, including Apple, Arhcos, iRiver and Toshiba. It involves extensive reverse engineering to figure out how the devices' stock firmwares operate, as well as the challenge of developing for greatly varied targets. You can read the interview here (or the full Q&As with the project's founder and some of the developers involved in it)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rockbox Developers Talk Open Source Firmware

Comments Filter:
  • by jabberw0k (62554) on Monday January 30, 2012 @08:28AM (#38863661) Homepage Journal

    "Firmware" is a word like "software," "hardware," or "clothing" -- you cannot have "one firmware" and there is no such thing as plural "firmwares." You cannot have "a software" or "a clothing" -- you have a piece of software (or: a program), a piece of clothing (or: a garment), a piece of firmware (a firmware set, a firmware package, etc.).

    Please correct the article here: "how the devices' stock firmwares operate" -- that should be "...stock firmware operates..." as the device has one set of firmware, composed perhaps of several programs or packages.

    I registered on their bug tracker but cannot decipher to whom or how I should report this grammar error as a documentation flaw -- any suggestions?

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.