FLOSS-/hacker-friendly music-players?

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

Benjamin Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> <rozzin at geekspace.com> wrote:
> > ... people working in government or industry where
> > there is a concern about espionage, accountability, privacy, or fodder
> > for blackmail or public criticism (so: G-men ...
> 
>   Government people carry BlackBerries and leave them in the bin at the door.

Wouldn't they agree, then, that BlackBerries make lousy in-office
music-players--if they have to leave them in a bin that's located
*outside* of their offices? :)

>   A lot of those designated areas don't allow *any* PEDs (Personal
> Electronic Devices), whether or not it has a camera/mic/radio, so the
> distinction is largely irrelevant there.

So, what *do* people do, there? Is there a supply of pre-cleared
live performers? Or is *this* the demographic that's keeping the market
for victrola `cactus needles' alive? :)

> > lawyers ...
> 
>   I can't speak to that.  Could be.
> 
> > ... social workers ...
> 
>   ?

And mafia informants. And mafia non-informants. At least the smart ones? :)

I'll admit to not being in any of those 4 groups, myself--so they're
guesses at `people who want a guarantee that their conversions don't leak'.

Like `lawyers don't discuss cases over e-mail, even with encryption'.
I definitely remember reading something about that, somewhere. Hm,
I think it was this:

    Lawyers Would Rather Fly Than Download PGP
    <http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/29/003253>

    "The NYTimes is running a front-page story about lawyers
     for suspects in terrorism-related cases fearing government
     monitoring of privileged conversations"


Actually, I should have included that hospitals, nursing call-centres, etc.
do appear to be on their way toward banning cell-phones due to concerns
relating to HIPPA compliance.

> > people working with high-sensitivity equipment where RFI is
> > a significant concern (scientists, some musicians..., others?);
> 
>   Some very particular science applications, yes.  But musicians?

Oh, absolutely: haven't you ever heard (or heard about) the interference
that GSM phones cause in (radio?) audio equipment? Whenever I leave work
and my phone re-handshakes with the cells, if I have the car radio on,
then a very distinctive "dash-dot-dash... dot dot dot" sort of pattern
can be heard through the car speakers. I've noticed the same thing
when watching television (through the TV speakers) and listening
the music on the home stereo. One can even `predict' incoming calls
by listening for the interference that they cause before the phone
actually rings :)

I recall that a similar sort of interference can be heard when
using some `radio bridge' devices (whatever they're actually called)
to get music from a an output-device like a player in one room
the stereo in another room: I remember a friend of asking
`is that a scratched record playing?' before figuring out that
the `pops' that he heard were coming from, if I'm recalling correctly,
DHCP exchanges on the nearby 802.11b LAN.

I imagine that there are plenty of cordless microphones, headphones, etc.
that are vulnerable to the same sort of interference. Some wired stuff
is much better about handling these issues, some isn't:
professionals tend to use `balanced' circuits that are *mostly* immune,
but amateurs will often record with unbalanced circuits where it's
easier (more affordable) to just try to reduce sources of interference.

I haven't tested what sort of over-the-air interference might affect
my theremin, but I do know that it's *extremely* sensitive to power-supply
factors like grounding-problems and ripple from fluorescents and TRIACs.
It's using unbalanced circuits to transport the audio signal and,
well... it's a *theremin*, so not only does it have cables that
`might act like antennae', it actually *has antennae for input*. :)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were plenty of musicians who were
even less versed in EE principles than I am and who just decide
against devices that they think `might cause interference' without
bothering to be too analytical about it.


And, actually, in the `others?' category: I'd forgot about this,
but I've also had my TouchStream-LP keyboard flake-out on me
(and need to be rebooted) in response to the radio-burst that
my mobile phone put out when calls came in. I learned pretty quickly
to just *keep the phone away from the TouchStream*. Now that I remember,
that's a pretty strong requirement of mine: that I be able to listen
to music and use my keyboard at the same time :)

> > paranoiacs who really do think that they are `allergic' to Wi-Fi
> > or who think that RF `radiation' is going to give them cancer;
> 
>   Who won't buy anything anyway and thus are not of concern.
> 
> > ... and people who are just afraid that `too many features' will
> > make the device `too complicated'.
> 
>   I haven't seen any evidence that that group of people doesn't buy
> phones.  Sure, they don't know how to use them and complain they are
> confusing, but they still buy them.

I think the question isn't "whether they by phones", but rather
"whether they buy phones when all they want is a music-player."

And I haven't seen any evidence that people who are afraid of RF
avoid buying *non-RF* devices :)

> > I can't, for example take a call while I leave my multigadget
> > plugged into a stereo to play party-music.
>
>   That's a limitation of the device.  There's no good reason the 3.5mm
> jack couldn't continue playing music while your Bluetooth earpiece
> handles the call.  It's just a Simple Matter of Programming(TM).

Well, no--there are actually several issues with that:

One is the intentionally-short range of bluetooth links, which means
that being unable to put enough separation between myself and the
party to be able to comfortably hold a private conversation via the
earpiece, without also degrading the bluetooth link (probably to the
point of disconnect) is more than just a software-issue.

Another is that I've yet to see a bluetooth `earpiece' that included
a display and keypad--and, if one did, it might as well just
*be* a separate phone; which would then also address problems
in other areas: like the contention between simultaneous
voice-calls and data-flows.

There certainly *are* issues with functionality-collisions that *are*
just software issues (like `why does the incoming-call alert have to
be so intrusive--why can't it just *ring* and let me ignore it?'),
and there are other regions of opportunity by unifying the two
(e.g.: using the phone as a day-planner means that the phone can be made
to *automatically* turn its ringer off when the user is in meetings,
movies, or other `quiet times'). But none of those do anything to
make my problems actually go away :)

And even some of the things that *are* `merely' software issues
are not necessarily soluble, because the software interfaces
available to the consumer-developer doesn't necessarily provide
any way to do things like `change the incoming-call handler'.
I can do that on the FreeRunner (and have), but it's not clear
that it's possible on any of the Android phones that people
have recommended--my *impression* was that capabilities like that
were not part of the Android userspace visible to third-party
developers, but I can't cite a source where I got that impression.
Maybe someone here can debunk it--in which case I apologise
for spreading anti-Android FUD :)

-- 
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."