Poll: Delet the values from the speedpatch?
Poll Options
Delet the values from the speedpatch?

Reply
Thread Tools
Ken-Young's Avatar
Posts: 387 | Thanked: 1,700 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Cambridge, MA, USA
#2931
Can we all at least agree that "script-a-brick" is a wonderful tag?
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ken-Young For This Useful Post:
Posts: 856 | Thanked: 1,681 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Aleppo ,Syria
#2932
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Is it fair to silently overclock people's devices without telling them? Is it fair to make changes that affect several peoples devices, telling them you're doing one thing when you're in fact not, but doing another entirely?

I am in fact noting that some of what's being done does work. Enabling SR2 (and SR1) can save lots of battery. Doing so in ways that are known to cause some people's devices to go into reboot loops is not. And not being able to explain what you're doing, and what effect it's having (or claiming effects that are counter to or not related to what you're doing) is also not good.

And no, it's not fair. But then it's not about being fair.
omg man !! did you bothered your self checking the first post before posting some b*llshit ?

Originally Posted by MYSELF
PART4 : FAQS

1-)
Q-) I cannot change max frequency with qcpu or any other gui cpu freq changer!!!!

A-) To change the max cpu frequency you need to edit the max freq at :
/usr/share/kernel-power-settings/overclock with any text editor ex:
Code:

sudo gainroot
apt-get install leafpad
leafpad /usr/share/kernel-power-settings/overclock

and then change the maxfreq to anything you want down than save and quit
IMPORTANT !!! IF YOU HAVE AN UNSTABLE N900
IT'S RECOMMENDED TO DISABLE VDD1 ... CHANGE IT TO 0
IF YOU WANT TO OVERCLOCK MORE THAN 805
AS BATTERYPATCH MAXFREQ IS 805

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Nice assumption you're making there. You're assuming that no other package, in any repository, anywhere, is modifying or creating a .bashrc or .profile. (There are a few that do...) You're also assuming the owner didn't make their own changes.
eh you think am assuming this ?
well first i'm not assuming that no other package is creating or modifying .bashrc and .profile
and i'm not assuming the owner didn't make their own changes

well i will explain *harder*
when a user installed speedpatch (script version)
the installation required create/untar .profile and .bashrc to /home/user
though i mentioned that he has to backup his custom (if any exists)


Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
And tell me how, exactly, the backed up ones have speedpatch changes? Oh, right.. because you're not doing it right. You see, the right way to do this is to have a script that *injects* what you need into the files. Then on an uninstall, you can use another script (or sed/awk) to remove those lines.
when a user installed speedpatch (script version)
the script didn't include backing up (backing up was mentioned as post)
... now when he installs the one from the repository (it backs up .profile and .bashrc) the ones which are extracted from the script version (the ones that has speedpatch modifications)

so when uninstall (if i configured prerm to restore the backed up)
it will cause xterm message to appear !

i see no problems may be caused for noob users nor for power users as they will restore their backup if they had one


Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Instead you copy files into a backup file, without checking to see if they already exist. So if someone re-configures their speedpatch (which you tell them to do if they update the kernel) it copies the speedpatch version over top of their existing backup, causing an issue on restore. It also obliterates their backup in the process. So much for not making permanent changes...
and what the h*ll has kernel update to do with speedpatch !!?
it's batterypatch who needs to be reinstalled (but not any one after KP49)
and as i said before
noob users will have no problem with it
power users will deal with their backed up .profile and .bashrc well


Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
I would say this is funny, but it's not. You're WRONG.

From the script "cpu_normal", part of the deb in the repository (where most will probably get it from):

Code:
if [ "`dbus-send --system --print-reply --dest=com.nokia.csd.Call /com/nokia/csd/call/1 com.nokia.csd.Call.Instance.GetStatus | tail -1 | sed 's/.* //'`" != "0" ]; then
...
kernel-config load overclock-call
else
...
kernel-config load overclock
fi
You're parsing the value here and using overclock-call (7X0-850) when it's not 0. GetStatus returns 0 for not in a call, 1-5 for call ringing, 8 for ongoing call, and >8 while the call is hanging up. The code as it stands right now, is overclocking for the duration of the call, because it's 8 (not 0) for the duration of the call. Don't believe me? Open an xterm, place a call (or answer it) and run that command.

The fact that you don't know that is sad. The fact that your putting other people's devices in danger because you're severely overclocking them for the duration of a call when you think it's not... that's worse.

**** ------------------------------------------------------------- ****



I'm sure they do, since you're severely overclocking the device. This also explains why some people get random reboots when people try to call them with your patches installed. Their systems can't handle SR1 enabled at 720Mhz, and you're running it at that every time the phone is about to ring!
why don't you ssh your phone and see your self what happens
oh and cancel startup script
and launch dbus-scripts in debug mode

you will see that underclock profile will be loaded during a call



Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Yes, but you leave it enabled in KP 43-44-45-49, and all <K42, where it is still unstable! Try reading what I write...
really !! ? well is their any official KP version that is >42
the one in extras is 42 the one in devel is 49 !! + i have never heard of KP v43 !


Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Again... This isn't about you and just your device. This is something going on to several people's devices. It's fine to say "it may not work on your device", just like the KP overclock stuff says. But you're not saying that. You're saying this is safe for all devices, when what you're doing has historically been proven to not be stable on all devices.
again i say to you their is a package (batterypatch-for-unstable) that can please you
and if that doesn't work on a *user* phone
then normally he won't use it

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
WHERE ARE YOU TELLING PEOPLE YOU ARE OVERCLOCKING THEIR DEVICES?[/SIZE][/B]
here

Originally Posted by MYSELF
IMPORTANT !!! IF YOU HAVE AN UNSTABLE N900
IT'S RECOMMENDED TO DISABLE VDD1 ... CHANGE IT TO 0
IF YOU WANT TO OVERCLOCK MORE THAN 805
AS BATTERYPATCH MAXFREQ IS 805
+ any one with a been brain sized can understand that overclock profile OVERCLOCKS HIS DEVICE


Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Except for the things you already mentioned, like it changing the default kernel config
i have already explained this point

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
.... Oh... And overclocking your device without telling you.
already posted at 1st post

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
And on speed patch: removing any .profile and .bashrc file the user or any other app may have created, and not restoring those at uninstall, and overwriting their backups on a reconfig...
already mentioned (backed up are *.bak) + no restore on uninstall because
power users know how to when need to and noob users will have no problems with it

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
I call those permanent changes. I also call overclocking the device for the duration of every call to (750-850), and the heat/wear/damage that can potentially cause, a permanent change. One that I'll note one last time, you NEVER warn the user about, anywhere.

i call this miss *noticing from you* from 1st post and ssh your phone to check the call OC

i'll note one last time that i have warn the users about many times + 1st post proves in FAQS section

PS: waiting you to pick up something new about speedpatch and batterypatch

PS2: what happened with those tests seker_94?

Thank you

Last edited by karam; 2012-01-26 at 16:19.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to karam For This Useful Post:
Posts: 195 | Thanked: 96 times | Joined on May 2011
#2933
just in time
my tests are finished now
here's what it did
reflashed n900 > installed kernel power > reboot > installed transmission > nokia panorama from ovi store > tor status applet
NO SPEEDPATCH > reboot

test test test test test test
test test test test test test
test test test test test test

transmission not very usable
nokia panorama lags when processing image
tor scrolling log menu lags
lol

WITH SPEEDPATCH
installed speedpatch > reboot twice

transmission lags are half they were
nokia panorama almost no lags when processing image
tor log menu scroll no any more lol

@woody14619
after my tests i see speedpatch is good
for batterypatch i'm still not very sure
testing batterypatch next weak
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Seker_94 For This Useful Post:
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#2934
Originally Posted by karam View Post
omg man !! did you bothered your self checking the first post before posting some b*llshit ?
You mean the one that you edit almost daily? Yes... I did. You note there that you load a profile called overclock about 3-pages down in the first post. But it's not highlighted, just in plane simple text, and most people won't read that far simply because of all the technical crap and jargon you have before it.

Line one of that top post should read, in clear bright bold letters "BatteryPatch uses kernel Overclocking, and overclocks your device." The same warning should be in the description of the package.

We're not talking about the potential to overclock (like KP, which has such warnings), or that you can change settings to enable overclock, like other apps that overclock (which all have said warning). There's no clear and concise notice that you're overclocking their device (as witnessed by at least one person posting that it was not obvious to them.)

There's also no notice at all that you're enabling a very unstable, still in testing setting (SR1), that may cause system instability. There's also no indicator that you're overclocking with min frequency set >700Mhz, which is beyond bogus, even for a short time, yet alone a full call.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
eh you think am assuming this ?
I do... Your deb package replaces existing files, after renaming the originals as a "backup". If another package sets a variable in .profile (like say SET MAADE_ENV=N900), your postinst moves that to a backup file and replaces the .profile with your settings. Now any package that put stuff into the .profile the right way will cease to function. And if they uninstall speedpatch, it doesn't restore the backup, leaving that application still broken! THAT'S A PERMANENT SYSTEM CHANGE, why can't you understand that simple fact?

Originally Posted by karam View Post
well i will explain *harder*
It's not *harder* that you need to explain it. The way you're doing this is simply wrong. Period. When dealing with shared resource files (like .profile) you can't just replace them with your content. You must inject the content, and remove it when you're done. Look at deb files from any other debian-based distro system and you'll see them doing that.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
so when uninstall (if i configured prerm to restore the backed up)
it will cause xterm message to appear !
YES! Because you're doing it WRONG! I told you why you were getting that message. In fact, I can show you exactly how to reproduce that message:
  • Edit your .profile and add a simple line: SET FOO=1
  • Now run the package reconfigure command. The .profile with SET FOO is moved to .profile.speedpatch and your package profile is put into .profile.
  • Now run that reconfigure again. SET FOO is now completely GONE. And if you were to restore during uninstall, you'd get a copy of your package's .profile, which is what's generating the error you were seeing!

The solution here is not to just not restore the files. The solution is to FIX YOUR DAMN STUPID INSTALLER SCRIPT so that you don't over-write an existing backup file! Minimally, all you would have to do is this:

Code:
if [ ! -e /home/user/.profile.speedpatch.bak ]; then
mv /home/user/.profile /home/user/.profile.speedpatch.bak 
fi
See those two red lines? That's all you have to add to accomplish the ability to restore the original file. If a backup pre-exists on the users system, don't overwrite it. Basic scripting rules. Done... two lines, but that's apparently too hard for you to figure out?

The correct way to do this, is to inject your script block into the .profile in postinst, like this:

Code:
echo "#Next X lines are from SPEEDPATCH" >> /home/user/.profile
echo "echo $$ >/dev/cgroup/.....  " >> /home/user/.profile
...
Then in your prerm, you can use sed to find your tag (SPEEDPATCH) and remove that line and the X below it from .profile. Done. It's that freaking simple. You could even use grep to remove them, since they all contain the word speedpatch! Like this:

Code:
cp /home/user/.profile /home/user/.profile.sp.uninst
grep -v -i speedpatch </home/user/.profile.sp.un >/home/user/.profile
Is that so complex? Clearly too much you to understand and fix, I mean this is tough scripting code... not nearly as easy as scripting an entire system to add in cgroups, right? Instead, you'd rather break other people's installs by replacing the .profile with your own stuff, to hell with anyone else.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
noob users will have no problem with it
power users will deal with their backed up .profile and .bashrc well
Because noob users will totally know if any package they've already installed has a .profile change? Nope. And they will have a problem with it, because YOUR PACKAGE DOESN'T RESTORE THE BACKUP FILES ON UNINSTALL!

Want to see an example of a noob who's system broke because of your speedpatch? There's lots of them in threads you've already read. Trish02 for example.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
why don't you ssh your phone and see your self what happens
I DID... You know what?
IT WAS OVER CLOCKED THE WHOLE CALL!

Maybe you should take your own advice? Underclock profile is not loaded during the call. It's loaded after the call finishes, after the user has hung up. The whole time the call is going on, it has the overclock-call profile loaded.

You may have some special version on your device that doesn't. But the one in the repository overclocks for the duration of the call. I quoted the very line of script that showed you exactly where the error was. Did you think I didn't ssh into my device to get that? Where did you think it came from?

Originally Posted by karam View Post
really !! ? well is their any official KP version that is >42
the one in extras is 42 the one in devel is 49 !! + i have never heard of KP v43 !
There are KP versions from the 30s on up, which have all been in the repository at some point. Just because they're not in the repository as the default item today doesn't mean they never existed. There are lots of people out there running PR1.1 still! Did it not occur to you that someone may still be running KP38, or KP41, or KP43? Did you think they just randomly skipped release numbers?

If you rely on a specific version of a package, you should be putting that in the dependency settings for your package. It's quite easy to do! You just specify you require KP49 or better, and viola, it will either install the newer version, or refuse to install your package because it can't get the latest KP.

The repeating point here is you're doing things wrong. The proper way to do this is to assume they have a system/kernel that is older and can't handle SR1. Then test for the version by number and copy the SR1 enabled file into place only when you have determined it can be used by the kernel on the system. You're doing the opposite, which will cause *lots* of people's systems to break when they install your package. All because you couldn't be bothered to properly, logically think about this and do it the right way.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
here [is where I'm telling people the deb in the repository overclocks]

+ any one with a been brain sized can understand that overclock profile OVERCLOCKS HIS DEVICE
You're assuming a lot. You're assuming someone is coming to this thread, and reading the entire first post. First off, lots of people just install things from the repository based on the description of the package. Nowhere in the description do you say you're overclocking. And then, even if they find this thread, most people won't read that enormous first post! After the first page of speedpatch technical lies (btw, you still never addressed how you lie about making 3 cgroups when you really only make 1!), most will go "yeah yeah! it tweaks things.. next page". They won't make it to the battery patch section, where you mention you load an overclock profile way down in the mumbo-jumbo techincal details. And even there, you're never telling people how drastically you're overclocking!

Originally Posted by karam View Post
already mentioned (backed up are *.bak) + no restore on uninstall because
power users know how to when need to and noob users will have no problems with it
Yes... you did entirely miss my point about how you're doing it in the completely wrong way. And that the error you get on uninstall was caused by your lack of doing backups correctly. That the warning you were getting was caused entirely by your inability to think logically or write two lines of script to check to see if you already did that step.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
i call this miss *noticing from you* from 1st post and ssh your phone to check the call OC
Take your own advice.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
i'll note one last time that i have warn the users about many times + 1st post proves in FAQS section
And I'll note again: Most people don't read FAQ or posts. There are third party site (like mymaemo.com) that link to the repositories here, and offer NO details about where to find this forum, or your FAQ, or this thread! People installing from there rely on the package description to tell them information.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
PS: waiting you to pick up something new about speedpatch and batterypatch
What? That you rolled a new version, and didn't put it into the repository? That's wonderful... Frankly I'm not inclined to got get it and dissect it again. Why bother? So I can point out more errors in your scripts? It's all pretty much crap. Why would I want to do this whole thing over, when the clear point has already been made:

You have no idea what you're doing, and you lack even the basic scripting talent to make a proper install/uninstall package for a set of shell scripts. If you can't even get the install scripts right (which are only like 4 or 5 lines of script), what confidence should I have that all the other scripts you wrote for these packages are any better? Or that I should let you make new scripts every other day to run on my device, breaking it in random ways? No, thanks...

Originally Posted by karam View Post
PS2: what happened with those tests seker_94?
That's great. Tell me, can you explain why any of that happened? You clearly don't even know what you're doing, since you claim to have made 3 separate cgroups, when the script you posted only creates 1!

Be sure to document which of the 500 versions of speedpatch you released that he tested. And also note that you still leave permanent system changes when you install and uninstall.

Again: I never said these patches do nothing. I said they made permanent changes than an uninstall didn't undo, which is true. I also said they don't do anything that would seem cause anything but shell scripts to speed up. And since you've yet to even being to explain how or why the single additional cgroup (not groups, group, you make 1, not 3) do anything at all, there's little to talk about on that topic.

Last edited by woody14619; 2012-01-27 at 00:55.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post:
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#2935
Btw... At this point, I've pretty much made up my mind on this. You're a dangerous hack, and the packages are pretty much crap. Most if not all of the speed gain and battery savings your "patches" get comes from KP, and using unstable system settings that may work for some devices, but break more than they work on.

Given your attitude, and your inability to explain what you're doing (or even acknowledge what's happening when presented with your own code as evidence), I'm going to continue to tell people to stay away from these crap-patches. It's as simple as this:
  • You're doing things to other people's phones that can make them unstable.
  • You're overclocking their device without making that clear in the package description.
  • You're tinkering with systems you don't understand, with scripts that are clearly more advanced than you understand how to write, based on your install/uninstall scripts.

All in all, your packages are dangerous, as is what you're doing.

If others want to install this crap, awesome. But I'm going to continue to warn people away, as it's got better odds than not of screwing up their entire system.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post:
Posts: 372 | Thanked: 61 times | Joined on Jan 2012
#2936
i know my skills are nothing in front of you guys's skill but lately i hav started using battery and speedpatch with kp49 and latest cssu testing. i must say that i see a lot of improvements. thanks karam. i am new in this forum and i am happy to be a part of it. thanks
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mohammed Muid For This Useful Post:
Posts: 856 | Thanked: 1,681 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Aleppo ,Syria
#2937
damit woody i'm so bored from you
i said many times why not restoring *.bak
also when you say i didn't mention
i show you that i mention
then you say most people don't read


WTF

and as wetnesses
see seker_94's post
and Mohammed Muid' post

and you you know what !!? keep telling people this b*llshit
but speedpatch and batterypatch will stay at the repository

Last edited by karam; 2012-01-27 at 06:39.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to karam For This Useful Post:
Posts: 13 | Thanked: 1 time | Joined on Nov 2011
#2938
i think beter u disscuss with karam & Muhammad AG to rectify all the script.

just my 2 cent



Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
You mean the one that you edit almost daily? Yes... I did. You note there that you load a profile called overclock about 3-pages down in the first post. But it's not highlighted, just in plane simple text, and most people won't read that far simply because of all the technical crap and jargon you have before it.

Line one of that top post should read, in clear bright bold letters "BatteryPatch uses kernel Overclocking, and overclocks your device." The same warning should be in the description of the package.

We're not talking about the potential to overclock (like KP, which has such warnings), or that you can change settings to enable overclock, like other apps that overclock (which all have said warning). There's no clear and concise notice that you're overclocking their device (as witnessed by at least one person posting that it was not obvious to them.)

There's also no notice at all that you're enabling a very unstable, still in testing setting (SR1), that may cause system instability. There's also no indicator that you're overclocking with min frequency set >700Mhz, which is beyond bogus, even for a short time, yet alone a full call.



I do... Your deb package replaces existing files, after renaming the originals as a "backup". If another package sets a variable in .profile (like say SET MAADE_ENV=N900), your postinst moves that to a backup file and replaces the .profile with your settings. Now any package that put stuff into the .profile the right way will cease to function. And if they uninstall speedpatch, it doesn't restore the backup, leaving that application still broken! THAT'S A PERMANENT SYSTEM CHANGE, why can't you understand that simple fact?



It's not *harder* that you need to explain it. The way you're doing this is simply wrong. Period. When dealing with shared resource files (like .profile) you can't just replace them with your content. You must inject the content, and remove it when you're done. Look at deb files from any other debian-based distro system and you'll see them doing that.



YES! Because you're doing it WRONG! I told you why you were getting that message. In fact, I can show you exactly how to reproduce that message:
  • Edit your .profile and add a simple line: SET FOO=1
  • Now run the package reconfigure command. The .profile with SET FOO is moved to .profile.speedpatch and your package profile is put into .profile.
  • Now run that reconfigure again. SET FOO is now completely GONE. And if you were to restore during uninstall, you'd get a copy of your package's .profile, which is what's generating the error you were seeing!

The solution here is not to just not restore the files. The solution is to FIX YOUR DAMN STUPID INSTALLER SCRIPT so that you don't over-write an existing backup file! Minimally, all you would have to do is this:

Code:
if [ ! -e /home/user/.profile.speedpatch.bak ]; then
mv /home/user/.profile /home/user/.profile.speedpatch.bak 
fi
See those two red lines? That's all you have to add to accomplish the ability to restore the original file. If a backup pre-exists on the users system, don't overwrite it. Basic scripting rules. Done... two lines, but that's apparently too hard for you to figure out?

The correct way to do this, is to inject your script block into the .profile in postinst, like this:

Code:
echo "#Next X lines are from SPEEDPATCH" >> /home/user/.profile
echo "echo $$ >/dev/cgroup/.....  " >> /home/user/.profile
...
Then in your prerm, you can use sed to find your tag (SPEEDPATCH) and remove that line and the X below it from .profile. Done. It's that freaking simple. You could even use grep to remove them, since they all contain the word speedpatch! Like this:

Code:
cp /home/user/.profile /home/user/.profile.sp.uninst
grep -v -i speedpatch </home/user/.profile.sp.un >/home/user/.profile
Is that so complex? Clearly too much you to understand and fix, I mean this is tough scripting code... not nearly as easy as scripting an entire system to add in cgroups, right? Instead, you'd rather break other people's installs by replacing the .profile with your own stuff, to hell with anyone else.



Because noob users will totally know if any package they've already installed has a .profile change? Nope. And they will have a problem with it, because YOUR PACKAGE DOESN'T RESTORE THE BACKUP FILES ON UNINSTALL!

Want to see an example of a noob who's system broke because of your speedpatch? There's lots of them in threads you've already read. Trish02 for example.



I DID... You know what?
IT WAS OVER CLOCKED THE WHOLE CALL!

Maybe you should take your own advice? Underclock profile is not loaded during the call. It's loaded after the call finishes, after the user has hung up. The whole time the call is going on, it has the overclock-call profile loaded.

You may have some special version on your device that doesn't. But the one in the repository overclocks for the duration of the call. I quoted the very line of script that showed you exactly where the error was. Did you think I didn't ssh into my device to get that? Where did you think it came from?



There are KP versions from the 30s on up, which have all been in the repository at some point. Just because they're not in the repository as the default item today doesn't mean they never existed. There are lots of people out there running PR1.1 still! Did it not occur to you that someone may still be running KP38, or KP41, or KP43? Did you think they just randomly skipped release numbers?

If you rely on a specific version of a package, you should be putting that in the dependency settings for your package. It's quite easy to do! You just specify you require KP49 or better, and viola, it will either install the newer version, or refuse to install your package because it can't get the latest KP.

The repeating point here is you're doing things wrong. The proper way to do this is to assume they have a system/kernel that is older and can't handle SR1. Then test for the version by number and copy the SR1 enabled file into place only when you have determined it can be used by the kernel on the system. You're doing the opposite, which will cause *lots* of people's systems to break when they install your package. All because you couldn't be bothered to properly, logically think about this and do it the right way.



You're assuming a lot. You're assuming someone is coming to this thread, and reading the entire first post. First off, lots of people just install things from the repository based on the description of the package. Nowhere in the description do you say you're overclocking. And then, even if they find this thread, most people won't read that enormous first post! After the first page of speedpatch technical lies (btw, you still never addressed how you lie about making 3 cgroups when you really only make 1!), most will go "yeah yeah! it tweaks things.. next page". They won't make it to the battery patch section, where you mention you load an overclock profile way down in the mumbo-jumbo techincal details. And even there, you're never telling people how drastically you're overclocking!



Yes... you did entirely miss my point about how you're doing it in the completely wrong way. And that the error you get on uninstall was caused by your lack of doing backups correctly. That the warning you were getting was caused entirely by your inability to think logically or write two lines of script to check to see if you already did that step.



Take your own advice.



And I'll note again: Most people don't read FAQ or posts. There are third party site (like mymaemo.com) that link to the repositories here, and offer NO details about where to find this forum, or your FAQ, or this thread! People installing from there rely on the package description to tell them information.



What? That you rolled a new version, and didn't put it into the repository? That's wonderful... Frankly I'm not inclined to got get it and dissect it again. Why bother? So I can point out more errors in your scripts? It's all pretty much crap. Why would I want to do this whole thing over, when the clear point has already been made:

You have no idea what you're doing, and you lack even the basic scripting talent to make a proper install/uninstall package for a set of shell scripts. If you can't even get the install scripts right (which are only like 4 or 5 lines of script), what confidence should I have that all the other scripts you wrote for these packages are any better? Or that I should let you make new scripts every other day to run on my device, breaking it in random ways? No, thanks...



That's great. Tell me, can you explain why any of that happened? You clearly don't even know what you're doing, since you claim to have made 3 separate cgroups, when the script you posted only creates 1!

Be sure to document which of the 500 versions of speedpatch you released that he tested. And also note that you still leave permanent system changes when you install and uninstall.

Again: I never said these patches do nothing. I said they made permanent changes than an uninstall didn't undo, which is true. I also said they don't do anything that would seem cause anything but shell scripts to speed up. And since you've yet to even being to explain how or why the single additional cgroup (not groups, group, you make 1, not 3) do anything at all, there's little to talk about on that topic.
 
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#2939
Originally Posted by mohd012z View Post
i think beter u disscuss with karam & Muhammad AG to rectify all the script.

just my 2 cent
If they can't script well enough to do simple things, like make sure their installer isn't clobbering existing backups, then really, they have no business scripting things to auto-overclock other people's devices.

If you went to a mechanic to rotate your tires, and he put them on backward, would you trust them to overhaul your engine? Same concept.

Originally Posted by karam View Post
damit woody i'm so bored from you
i said many times why not restoring *.bak
And I told you twice, the reason that restoring generated the error was your own inability to properly script things. A simple 2-line script fix can fix that, but you can't be bothered to do it...

Originally Posted by karam View Post
also when you say i didn't mention
i show you that i mention
then you say most people don't read
You need to learn to read. I said you don't mention it in the description that goes into the deb, and that you don't mention it prominently enough on this faq/forum post.

You are overclocking people's devices, and most do not know it.


Originally Posted by karam View Post
and as wetnesses
Wetness? What's wet? You? Behind the ears?

Originally Posted by karam View Post
keep telling people this b*llshit
but speedpatch and batterypatch will stay at the repository
Sorry, but that's the script I pulled. The one that overclocks for the duration of the call, was from the repository.

As for keeping it there, there's nothing I can do to prevent it. If I could, I would, or at least I'd change the description so people installing it would know that it overclocks their system. What I can do is show people this thread, where you ignore the hard facts presented to you that your scripts are dangerous and shoddy.

If people decide to gamble and install crap on their device, so be it. Realistically, you should want to make the changes I noted above, for no other reason than to make your stuff better, safer, and to let people know what you're actually doing. But your childish enough that you'll probably avoid doing it, simple because I pointed it out to you.

Last edited by woody14619; 2012-01-27 at 20:01.
 
Posts: 1,033 | Thanked: 1,013 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#2940
Originally Posted by karam View Post
damit woody i'm so bored from you
i said many times why not restoring *.bak
also when you say i didn't mention
i show you that i mention
then you say most people don't read
You just change the subject all the time or you keep telling him to read your edited after-woody-told-you post, while woody offers direct evidence of your error. You suck as a developer. Instead of accepting his posts as feedback and self-improvement lessons, you just keep denying him. Sorry, but your ego made me lose all the trust in you.


Originally Posted by karam
WTF

and as wetnesses
see seker_94's post
and Mohammed Muid' post

and you you know what !!? keep telling people this b*llshit
but speedpatch and batterypatch will stay at the repository
I installed your patches as a test a while ago, on a fresh N900 and my device was operating much slower. SORRY!
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to patlak For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
autobrick, awesome-script, do no install, f***epitaph, install it now, perfect_ n900, script-a-brick, very safe


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:29.