Topic: Kano vs Bitsyncom - page 3. (Read 15322 times)

Show one example of each of those 2 lies you posted ... one ... just one ... not two, not three ... just one of each.
Can't find them? Yes now you understand why I think you are a complete lying piece of shit

Basically all you are saying is that if you were in my situation you would be demanding Avalon to be giving you mining devices.

I haven't done that ... any where ... any time.

In the past (a year ago) I received an Icarus from ngzhang after helping xiangfu to solve the problems he had to get the Icarus code to work.
After I found out he was really sending it to me, I offered to buy (and paid full price) for a 2nd one, since he was giving me one.
Seemed fair that he would still make some money out of me ... and I could 'just' afford to buy the 2nd Icarus.
I've also bought a (full price) Icarus DevKit from him much later ... to get the jTag cable.

The (only) other person (so far) who has supplied me with a mining device is Tom from bASIC.
He sent me an MMQ which I said (before he sent it) that I'd pay for it with the results of the mining from the ASIC device he was going to send me (yeah I can't afford to buy stuff ) I have since pretty much completely rewritten the MMQ code in cgminer, so that it actually works (which the code didn't) and is second to none in performance and error handling. I've even again this week done more critical work on the MMQ driver (all that possible since I actually have one)

For the last 2 months I've been writing the basis of a new USB interface in cgminer (no doubt it will need more work and improvement in the future) so that when ASIC devices do finally appear, I can ensure that I can write a driver as quickly as possible so that when the devices are shipped, they will have cgminer support.
I've ensured that by already rewriting the MMQ and BFL FPGA drivers to use it.

Yes of course I will never begrudge receiving BTC for mining with the devices I am given - why would I?
I don't begrudge it coz I know I will spend a lot of time and effort (as I have over the last year and do almost every day) working on improving and supporting cgminer.

Even when the Avalon device first showed up, I was interested in helping that person with it - but oddly enough he was quite antagonistic about me helping ... which eventually I said I wouldn't any more (though I did).
It was indeed amusing to see the screen generated by my code to prove the performance of the Avalon.

This is what I've done and been doing.
Don't go telling me I have your crappy values and ideals - I don't; and anyone, including the clearly corrupt piece of shit Jeff Garzik, who thinks they want to say my ideals match their crappy, shit ideals can go fuck themselves.

Well if it were actually debug information the compiler would have stripped it out during the compile anyway - that's standard in most (if not all) modern compilers.

It's even more than that. Whatever source was used to create the binaries, that's the source that needs to be made available. There's no cleanup to do! In fact, doing some sort of cleanup would be in violation of the GPL, as then the sources wouldn't match the binaries they already shipped.

 
As someone's who has no vested interest either in Avalon or Kano, being that I never ordered an produce - and frankly think Kano's an ass - I have to say the following:

The fact that they haven't released the source in a timely manner and are violating GPL by withholding it (yes, I actually agree with Kano on this one)... should be raising alarm bells like crazy... You're talking about running a few scripts to remove debug related code. doing a test compile and publishing. That should literally take one coder a couple of hours tops... and that's if they have to manually locate everything they'd want to remove. If the code is at all decent they'd have it tagged already so it could be removed much more quickly.

This whole discussion indicates that something isn't right. I have a feeling I know what it is... but choose not to speculate here. Let me just opt out of ever being a customer of Avalon right now.

I would like to know as well, I am assuming they are in-route and held up for CNY.   Deadline mentioned is for Batch #1 being fully shipped.   

I hope they would release the code on a convenient date compared in an inconvenient date.   Do you need to state that now?   Again this bickering out the source code sounds like people are having hurt egos because they can't force a little company that is juggling many balls to do what they want, when they want.   

Since we're summing claims here, how about the claim that avalon is producing 12 units per day?
Where are they?

And what deadline are you talking about? Their deadline for releasing source? Where in their license agreement did it state they can prospone the release to a convenient date?

May i remind you that these kids actually payed some substantial monies to get the toy?

No, the deadline is March 1st and we are in the middle of February. 

They have not refused, they stated that they are not going too  and "no news is good news".

"They" did not purposefully mess up their own pre-order.  Obviously things could of been better and there were bugs in the ecommerce process.   

Again, they are choosing to spend their time resources on building and shipping unit over customer service with a self-admitted "small team"

Yes, there is no date and they have alluded to this in the newsletter.

Anymore mis-representations for us?  Just because you are not happy doesn't mean you can make stuff up.   Be honest.

WTF? I have order in first and second batch, and I'm disappointed too, because of poor communication with Avalon, but I'm reading that thread and realizing, people is more looks like a kids in a mart, whining "I want this toy and I want it now!!". What will you do as parent with that kid?

A fair point.

Because it's off topic. This is the "Kano vs Bitsyncom" thread, not the "Those by Whom I will not be Sodomised" thread.

They missed their deadline for a demo. They missed their deadline for an image release (which should have included source). They missed their deadline for 298 out of 300 units (sorry, shipping less than 1% of orders does not count). They refuse to keep those customers up to date. They claim to be open source but they keep delaying the source with poor excuses. They completely fucked up the batch #2 ordering. Again, they're not keeping batch #2 customers up to date. They don't even know when they will open batch #2 again for orders.

I think it's pretty reasonable for people to be annoyed at Avalon right now, and it's also pretty reasonable to be asking for them to release the source when they claim to be open source and use GPL software.

If you're a troll, I'm actually going to give you 4/10 because you managed to quite accurately imitate an Avalon fanboi.

All Avalon bashers will end up with no source code at all. And what will you do then? I guess - nothing, but whine here. Fuck off and return when they miss their deadline for release.

No, if you want to claim that he is demanding free hardware, then you should prove it.

Why? Modern societies are very accepting of that kind of thing these days.

Read back and you'll see there is no "leaps in logic".

Kano just "re-frames" his previous tune when it suits him and "re-spins" prior history when he starts to look bad in context.

As others have noted, he is pretty transparent about it. Now if you [nathan] want to aid him in a con, be my guest. You may find some who haven't read the previous posts but will support the re-spins of previous posts "written in a 'hard to understand' context".

Oh, it sounds like you have made a commitment. Lets see if you stick to that.

If only we could get you to tone down the sodomy comments. That would be almost respectable.

I've noticed a few leaps of logic in this thread. In particular:

"I'll support it if I get hardware" -> "I won't support it if I don't get hardware" -> "I expect to be expected to support it" -> "I expect to receive hardware"

Every leap is logically fallacious.

The only irony is that you can't read and think that because you can't read it's ok to make stupid comments

I've already stated I'll be the one who will help Xiangfu update (rewrite) the cgminer code to what it should be when he finally gets an Avalon ...
Yeah I know I'm only gonna do that coz Avalon gave me a free Avalon ... oh wait ... what? ... hmm ... now why would I do that ... they didn't give me anything ... damn you mean I didn't help him back at the beginning of Jan when he first asked me about the driver he was writing?
But yes with Xiangfu, I'll have no issue with helping him even though that will in effect be helping Avalon ... now if I could just find a way around that

j, people are only asking for sources here. Nobody is demanding that a free unit be sent to anyone.

Yes, historically devs have received hardware and provided support in return, but that doesn't mean that requests for source are requests for hardware (especially since multiple people want sources for different reasons). Someone saying "if I get hardware then I'll definitely support it" does not imply "I expect to get hardware [if code is released]".

Why must you make this claim? Are you trying to draw attention away from the fact that you are in the best position to request sources, yet you refuse to do so?

A license like the GPL is meaningless if it isn't actively enforced. You can "play nice" by politely requesting a speedy source release from your position as a customer. Saying "oh, give it 30 days" is not playing nice; that is essentially disregarding the violation.