I was surprised that I was the only core developer who paid for a unit.
I stand corrected. That was what the Avalon guy told me.
No tracking/shipping info yet.
Topic: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Batch #1 Ships - page 68. (Read 238907 times)
This is not actually true, I bought four Avalon units. (I didn't see any reason to whine about being snubbed in public, but since it's now being repeated as fact— I might was well correct it).
I stand corrected. That was what the Avalon guy told me.
No tracking/shipping info yet.
To someone that knows it, is it normal for a parcel shipped with a 100$ DHL service or so to take 2 weeks to reach the old continent from China?
Can't get a clue over it.
Can't get a clue over it.
Yeah, all these imaginary ASICs really are taking their time to arrive.
To someone that knows it, is it normal for a parcel shipped with a 100$ DHL service or so to take 2 weeks to reach the old continent from China?
Can't get a clue over it.
It shouldn't take two weeks. But customs is where most of the delay occurs. This issue should not be too big of an issue as DHL should pass it through customs as it is in transit.Can't get a clue over it.
I believe DHL Global Express is a time guaranteed delivery. Meaning it will take what it says on their website. Someone correct me if I am wrong about this.
To someone that knows it, is it normal for a parcel shipped with a 100$ DHL service or so to take 2 weeks to reach the old continent from China?
Can't get a clue over it.
Can't get a clue over it.
...back on topic.
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
Indeed.
I think were looking at silence until after the chinese new year guys.
If Avalon distributes binaries, they are under obligation to provide the corresponding source code. It's very clear and simple. Then later, they can change the source and provide new binaries for the next batch.
Agreed. And, if the source code is not packaged with the device, I assume Jeff will ask for it and hopefully make it available.
I was surprised that I was the only core developer who paid for a unit.
hmmmm, so where can I download a full distribution of Bitcoin's debug/build/configuration/gitian/test scripts? BlueMatt's github?
What a really bad choice of examples. Allow me to count the ways:(1) None of the bitcoin developers are accusing Avalon of making a license violation.
(2) Bitcoin itself is MIT licensed, so it wouldn't be an issue for Bitcoin proper, for better or worse.
(3) Our build process is entirely deterministic and you can git a bit-by-bit identical copy of the binaries by following the process.
And yes— license violations are rampant and seldom enforced. But the GPL(v3) is farily unambiguous about what is required, and Kano is unambiguous that they would actually enforce the license— so, I assume, would Luke-Jr (seeing that he is one of very few people I've ever seen actually enforce a BSD/MIT style license!).
hmmmm, so where can I download a full distribution of Bitcoin's debug/build/configuration/gitian/test scripts? BlueMatt's github?
Irrelevant.
I don't ask to antagonize the bitcoin developers, but to point out the wrongness of the argument that Avalon can't delete their debug/support code.
If Avalon distributes binaries, they are under obligation to provide the corresponding source code. It's very clear and simple. Then later, they can change the source and provide new binaries for the next batch.
They MUST NOT respond to the requests for source from those who get those devices with DIFFERENT (edited with code removed) source code to what they used.
hmmmm, so where can I download a full distribution of Bitcoin's debug/build/configuration/gitian/test scripts? BlueMatt's github?
I don't ask to antagonize the bitcoin developers, but to point out the wrongness of the argument that Avalon can't delete their debug/support code.
Deliberately breaking open source software by not providing all the necessary tools is a time honored tradition, especially with the professional implementation consultants who often work their way up to positions of authority in open source software projects. For an easily accessible example of this see the history of OpenERP&GnuHealth which is a good example of "open" software in action.
First unit goes to Jeff Garzik in honor for the work he has done for the bitcoin codebase being the only developer who ordered from us.
we also arranged to ship a unit to the Bitcoin Foundation, whom is going to do a demo.
The avalon team on the other hand is going to make sure the whole shipping process go smoothly. like handling DHL/EMS problem, and other custom issues.
cheers.
we also arranged to ship a unit to the Bitcoin Foundation, whom is going to do a demo.
The avalon team on the other hand is going to make sure the whole shipping process go smoothly. like handling DHL/EMS problem, and other custom issues.
cheers.
I was surprised that I was the only core developer who paid for a unit.
for the record, I do not know shipping method, nor have a tracking number
It's been 5 days. Jeff were you given any shipping information?
Yes Kano we know, enough already... wait till hardware materialises and then we'll see.
... and please do not quote a part of a post of mine where you have edited that quoted text ... you have edited a few of my posts ...
Come on. Don't be a prick.If I misunderstood you— that's fine. But if you're not actually demanding that they put the code on a website, and you're not claiming they're infringing by not giving it to you— then what the heck are you posting on this subject at all for? I certainly don't see any reason to continue to argue with you when you're just going to respond agreeing with me! This has gone way offtopic and has basically nothing to do with Avalon's release now— I would have split off your and my posts already but didn't lest I be accused of burying them.
Firstly, they have stated in this thread twice (and on their web site) that they will release the source code - but they still haven't.
Of course there is no license requirement for them to do that yet - but it is a concern IMO for them to state that they will and still have not done it.
The reason for the concern is again ... as I have already stated ... that they MUST already have the source code UNLESS they are shipping devices that do not work.
If they already have the source code (i.e. the shipped devices do work) then it is VERY disconcerting for them to say that they need to edit the source code before they will release it.
As soon as ANYONE who receives one of these shipped devices that already work, requests the source code, Avalon MUST supply the unedited code - that MUST already exist if the shipped devices do work.
I am also concerned about this due to what I consider to be an issue with the Open Source nature of the Icarus bitstream.
The Icarus bitstream, when it was originally made available, did not include all that was necessary to produce the bitstream.
I'm not sure if that was later changed or not.
Obviously, however, there was enough information in the source for others to make modified Icarus bitstream clones.
That, what I consider a shortfall, with the original Open Source Icarus bitstream, suggests to me that they might not be as gung ho about Open Source as they claim.
I'll be happy if they allay my concerns
I'm wondering why they haven't already done that.
There is also the issue of their blatant license violation of the tools provided with the Icarus DevKit as many also know.
Thus I will be keeping a VERY close eye on this issue that I have raised ... here with Avalon ... about editing the source and adhering to the cgminer GPL3 license.
Also, cgminer without source code has been released before - and it wasn't until we pointed out the license violation, that the source code was released.
Yohan did it with the Cairnsmore1
We are very much intent on not having the cgminer license violated ...
... and please do not quote a part of a post of mine where you have edited that quoted text ... you have edited a few of my posts ...
Come on. Don't be a prick.If I misunderstood you— that's fine. But if you're not actually demanding that they put the code on a website, and you're not claiming they're infringing by not giving it to you— then what the heck are you posting on this subject at all for? I certainly don't see any reason to continue to argue with you when you're just going to respond agreeing with me! This has gone way offtopic and has basically nothing to do with Avalon's release now— I would have split off your and my posts already but didn't lest I be accused of burying them.
Yet again gmaxwell you have misread what I wrote - but in this case it is VERY specific what I wrote.
Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding, especially since you claimed that they "are breaking the license doing that." and have been demanding they place the source on a public website. I don't know why I would have possibly thought that when you accused someone to be currently in violation of the GPL that you actually believed they were in violation. I'll try to assume less in the future. Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
Thanks for clearing it up— cheers!
Again as I explained, if they have working devices and have shipped them, then they must ALREADY have source for those shipped devices.
They MUST NOT respond to the requests for source from those who get those devices with DIFFERENT (edited with code removed) source code to what they used.
Where have I done the following:
Quote
been demanding they place the source on a public website.
... and please do not quote a part of a post of mine where you have edited that quoted text ... you have edited a few of my posts ...
Yet again gmaxwell you have misread what I wrote - but in this case it is VERY specific what I wrote.
Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding, especially since you claimed that they "are breaking the license doing that." and have been demanding they place the source on a public website. I don't know why I would have possibly thought that when you accused someone to be currently in violation of the GPL that you actually believed they were in violation. I'll try to assume less in the future. Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
Thanks for clearing it up— cheers!
Yet again gmaxwell you have misread what I wrote - but in this case it is VERY specific what I wrote.
Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding, especially since you claimed that they "are breaking the license doing that." and have been demanding they place the source on a public website. I don't know why I would have possibly thought that when you accused someone to be currently in violation of the GPL that you actually believed they were in violation. I'll try to assume less in the future. Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
Thanks for clearing it up— cheers!
...back on topic.
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
...lol
...back on topic.
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
where the fuck are we with customs/shipping?
Inb4 people get empty boxes delivered.
Jump to: