[nas-2000] Re: Custom vs. original firmware

  • From: "flipstar@xxxxxxx" <flipstar@xxxxxxx>
  • To: nas-2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:28:57 +0200

Hi Stefan,

Stefan Achatz schrieb:
> Hello,
> having a nas-2000 now for a couple of days i first updated it to the newest 
> official firmware FW2.3.2.IB.2.RS.1.
> Seeing that you, flipstar, are responsible for both, your customfirmware and 
> the example modules like the ssh-server 
> of the official firmware, i wanted to know whats the way in the future.
> Do you want to convince the raidsonic people to put your custom things like 
> ipkg support in the official firmware, or 
> even use the existing module format?

This is a very personal question.
But anyway since everybody is doing ego strips on their blogs here we go :-D
Im currently writing my diploma thesis for raidsonic. Afterwards I'll
work for the FH in Frankfurt so the time @raidsonic is limitted.

I think the next tinky firmware will support raidsonic packets.

My idea about the future of the firmware is that it should be open and
well maintained!!!
I'll continue with tinky specially because this gives me and
you/everybody the chance to add the things you miss.

You should never forget that companies and developers usually have
different ambitions.

> Or are you planning to stay with your custom firmware that renders the
> garantee invalid?

If tinky voids the warranty thats the prize for openness.
I hope that it will soon be possible to rewrite the bootloader via J-TAG.

Sorry that I can not really talk about what Im currently at but it will
be good (and open) for all of us thats for sure!



there is now a svnserver-package available for tinky and
tomorrow I'll add support for VOIP (linphonec).

Other related posts: