Treo 650

[Alan Dayley]

Craig White said:
> On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 17:40 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
>>
>> I'll have to check my notes at home.  I am going through this with my
>> wife's Palm M130.  My search came down to a list of supported Palm
>> devices
>> in a driver or config file somewhere.  One person had to add their
>> device
>> to the list in order for it to work.  That's where I quit for the night
>> a
>> week or so ago.
>>
>> [rant]
>> I like Fedora, really.  But, from FC2 on sync with palm devices has been
>> a
>> broken pain.  It's like they broke it with UDEV and other stuff and no
>> one
>> knows or cares.  I don't know where in the chain it breaks.  I spent
>> more
>> than an hour in the #fedora chat with two seemingly knowledgable people
>> trying to solve my above issue and they were stumped as I was.  USB
>> "sees"
>> the device, stuff gets generated by UDEV, sync fails.  Argh!
>> [/rant]
>>
>> Maybe between the two of us we can get it to work.  I'll look at it
>> again
>> when I get home.
>>
>> All input from others is very welcome since I am struggling with this
>> too.
> ----
> that's sort of a worthless rant since FC-2 was the early 2.6 kernel and
> udev really changed as the 2.6 kernel has matured. So yes, of course
> they broke things in udev but that is the point of going forward. The
> last thing is the devices which obviously need to be added - not only
> covered in udev-rules but also in gpilot-devices

I agree, most rants, including that one, are worthless or nearly so.  I am
now at FC3 on one and FC4 on another computer.  The wife's M130 will not
sync FC3 and I have the same problem with my daughter's on FC4.  So, as
udev progressed, it is still broken for the M130.

I think this lends credibility to what I believe to be my problem: The
M130 is not in the list of recognized devices.  Because I cannot believe
that Fedora would stay broken for a whole class of devices.

> I got fairly well educated in this with my Kyocera 7135 and it made
> sense. I got pretty far with the Treo 650 but I don't understand the
> error.

>From your original post, it sounds like you are getting as far as I have. 
I am hopeful my solution, if I can find it, will be yours also.

I really have to get home.

Alan