←back to thread

642 points vkoskiv | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pankalog ◴[] No.45530894[source]
If I had no problem with devoting the time and money, contributing to the kernel (especially in a topic as obscure as making the extra buttons work on a 20-year-old laptop) is at the top of my bucket list, and I am definitely going to be doing it in the near future when my calendar clears up a bit.

Exquisite write-up and OP's simple writing has a motivating ring to it, and I'm now on the local used marketplace looking for pieces of tech like this :-)

replies(5): >>45531179 #>>45532671 #>>45532745 #>>45533331 #>>45534675 #
dmurray ◴[] No.45531179[source]
I feel most laptops still don't work completely out of the box with Linux, so you don't have to hunt for old hardware.

Maybe you won't find an issue as simple as fixing a button, though.

replies(1): >>45531725 #
leakycap ◴[] No.45531725[source]
> Maybe you won't find an issue as simple as fixing a button, though.

Every laptop I've used with linux has had a few non-functioning buttons and keys. I think you underestimate the widespread issue.

replies(3): >>45532258 #>>45534626 #>>45534648 #
fnicfnac ◴[] No.45532258[source]
We might have a different definition of issue.. I think 100% compatibile working would be launching bloatware installed by the manufacturer. I'm happy not to have the pavlovian training that may some day cause me to click one of these things on someone's windows machine.
replies(1): >>45532305 #
leakycap ◴[] No.45532305[source]
> I think 100% compatibile [sic] working would be launching bloatware installed by the manufacturer.

Making a physical button work requires bloatware in your understanding?

> I'm happy not to have the pavlovian training that may some day cause me to click one of these things on someone's windows machine.

Do you know what you're trying to say here? I do not.

replies(2): >>45532520 #>>45532686 #
pixl97 ◴[] No.45532520[source]
I think it's more of the buttons perform specialized tricks to launch bloatware in Windows.

Some of the issue here is the keys themselves have almost no standardization, even across models. Hell, possibly in the same model sometimes. Some backend windows driver captures these signals via a 50 mile long series of if statements that make grown men weep when viewed. This later can mean your totally working fix for the kernel doesn't actually work on a 1/3rd of that fleet of laptops.

replies(2): >>45532609 #>>45534818 #
1. firesteelrain ◴[] No.45534818[source]
I have a calculator button on my Dell laptop. Some of these keys are just macros.
replies(1): >>45535236 #
2. leakycap ◴[] No.45535236[source]
The calculator button is one of the "standardized" buttons, it isn't even as complex as macro as it turns out!

And very handy

replies(1): >>45538453 #
3. firesteelrain ◴[] No.45538453[source]
Really? I had assumed it was running calc.exe via some hidden command line window
replies(1): >>45540644 #
4. leakycap ◴[] No.45540644{3}[source]
Yep! It's basically just a button that tells the OS "open the system calculator"

~~

I looked it up, the Human Interface Devices usage "Consumer Control" code assigned to "Application Launch - Calculator" is 0x0C0192 or 0x192

This keypress is sent as a scancode/keycode, not an ASCII character. On Windows, this opens calc.exe by default, but you can change which app opens in response to the calculator key by editing the media key mappings in the Registry