The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: The key things about the DDAR/Rio patch


  • To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: The key things about the DDAR/Rio patch
  • From: "James" <James@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:21:16 -0000
  • Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx

Well to add to the confusion the file I got was 3.95mb and it works well

James T

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro de Oliveira [mailto:p.oliveira@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 February 2002 20:04
To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] The key things about the DDAR/Rio patch




-----Original Message-----
From: mark_harrison_uk1 [mailto:Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx]

3: The receiver.arf you finish up with should be 6.85 Mb (ie the size
that Stuart and I got).

[Pedro de Oliveira]

I have to disagree here.  My receiver.arf file is *only* 3.85Mb and is
working perfectly serving the receiver.html applet and clickable
displayserver.  It may depend on which receiver.arf file you started off
with as I started off with one which had the webserver but no line-out
hack.
I followed the instructions in the
http://empeg.dyndns.org/receiver/Feb_2002/Readme.txt
to the letter.

Can someone else who has a working hacked .arf file confirm the size
please.

Just my 0.06 Escudos worth.

Pedro


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.