@BradC: no problem - contact Jim Carey (jcarey@parallax.com) and he'll "hook you up" Parallax-style. I've already alerted him by e-mail.
@OBC: I think comments like those stem from the BASIC Stamp's closed firmware, programmed into an OTP PIC chip. While it's a fantastic and successful product, as more time passed and more different processors were released with free BASIC or C compilers, some people found themselves almost resentful of the BASIC Stamp's success. You are not a BASIC Stamp customer, but there's an amazing history (and future) behind that particular product. The BASIC Stamp's success largely exists because: it's just so darned easy to use; it has a tremendous number of applications published everywhere around the world; and because it's part of a successful educational/hobby how-to system supported with tutorials, hardware boards, etc. And the firmware is stable, producing the same result every time. Something like that. . . I'd have to leave it to Mike Green to put it more clearly.
I guess Parallax has matured a bit and today we reside amidst the presence of many younger companies, so perhaps it as simple as us looking a bit like stodgy ogres who don't do enough time on Twitter, Facebook and similar social distractions.
In the very short future, we shall be formalizing our "openness" more clearly.
I got here through the Adafruit blog post that just went up today, and I am very happy and impressed that Parallax is moving more towards an open source approach and letting a community be built around products that are simply fantastic.
Sure a lot of stuff has been open about the products an it is not hard to find schematics and whatnot, however Parallax has always felt like a closed company in that the IDE/Tools are all closed source, making it harder to port the tools to Linux (SX/B programming on Linux/Mac OS X would be awesome!) (There are quite a few good tools out there that attempt to replicate the various tools required, but it has always felt like it was a legal grey area).
What has changed? Has the IP moved from being the firmware/schematics more to product as a whole, or is there no threat from other large companies that they will pick up the schematics and code and produce something cheaper?
As a small business owner myself I would like as much as possible to be open source about our products, our hardware, our firmware, however where do we draw the line? As a small business we don't have the buying power as bigger business which means we are operating on smaller margins and the ability for some other company to come along and sell the same product for less using our source can be frightening.
I definitely applaud the move on Parallax's part, and look forward to more awesome products and ideas coming from the community that will surely be built around the open source aspects of the Parallax products.
To clarify our position about non-Windows support (closed IDEs). . .It's not a legal grey area from our perspective to have other software tool developers work on non-Windows systems, and we have no lawyers on staff (fed 'em to the inventory guard dogs a long time ago). For the BASIC Stamp we published the tokenizer communication protocol and Murat Konar made a very nice Macintosh editor. We've supported him as much as he needs, never a mention of any license or restriction on his efforts (only appreciative "thanks" from our company). His efforts have brought many Mac programmers to the BASIC Stamp. We're thankful for what he's made available for so many years, for free.
For the Propeller we see BST on Linux and the Mac. Brad has done this with only minimal support from Parallax. No grey area here, either. In fact we'll soon link up the BST effort directly on the Propeller's download page.
What restricts us most is the fact that we use Delphi and that we have a limited software staff (ahem, one person). Indeed, I understand that even Delphi can compile to alternative operating systems. Our Windows-centric approach is our biggest weakness next to the fact we can't replicate Chip's abilities. Getting our software engineer to switch to a multi-destined OS compiler is difficult, and he's got reasons that may be convincing. But I concur, this would be the final descent on the concept of sharing and hopefully we shall soon accomplish this improvement as well.
Your points are understood and we've got the same interests. Getting there is another story if Parallax must be the source of all multi-OS efforts. Without the help of others our situation would be much worse, and we're grateful for what they've done.
From a practical standpoint, you can already program the BASIC Stamp and Propeller on a Mac. And the approach we've taken involves the user community.
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
Post Edited (Ken Gracey (Parallax)) : 12/10/2009 6:12:55 AM GMT
Thanks for your quick reply, especially at 10 PM at night!
It is good to hear that these tools do exist, I had been made aware of MacBS2 a while back and it was a pleasure working with it on my Mac. The chip that I use the most mainly because of its cost is the SX, and as far as I am aware there is still no port to Mac OS X for it.
Its good to hear that the lawyers were fed to the inventory guard dogs, and that Parallax has no issues with people releasing such tools. I was certainly not asking that Parallax be the source of all the multi-OS efforts, I definitely agree that would be difficult to accomplish, however source code for SX/B (for example) would make it easier to port it to other platforms, and have them perform in the same manner. Maybe programming in assembly is the way to go, since http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsasm/ does exist! As for cloning Chip ... well maybe in the future.
My main question about whether the IP has shifted from the individual parts of a product to the product as a whole are what I am most interested in. What has changed that Parallax feels comfortable releasing firmware under a MIT license? From a business standpoint, what does Parallax gain by doing this? I am interested mainly in an attempt to learn from the greats, to help make decisions going forward for my small business.
I may not have worded my previous post in the best way possible! Please accept my apologies for that.
Maybe I'm a stern writer and people always seem apologize when I respond to their posts. Maybe nobody wants to offend us, but this forum is often where we learn about what to do next at Parallax. Your message was worded nicely and isn't cause for any concern.
I'll try to answer your question. One of the reasons we want to release IP is to establish prior art, our best defense against patent sharks. We've spent time with patent attorneys in the past, trying to decide whether or not we should patent certain aspects of our core IP. After we tell them that Parallax won't be for sale or publicly traded, and that we don't care to pursue other companies from an offensive position to protect a patent we've established, the lawyers tell us to skip pursuing any patent. Instead, our only objective is then to defend ourselves against a claim that our IP came from elsewhere, and is in violation of an existing patent owned by others. The best way to show this is to establish prior art. Sharing product designs on the internet provides that proof to show that our work existed first. This subject alone could ignite a whole new thread among forum members.
Next, there's a whole bunch of goodwill associated with open-source. It's our belief that the goodwill returns in the form of sales from enthusiastic customers. And this benefit is greater than the cost of losses caused by a customer who decides to design his own PropScope, for example.
Finally, when you own the main IP used in the open-source designs (such as the Propeller) we hope we'll always sell chips to customers who adapt the designs for their own use. Maybe a PIC won't easily run our PropScope circuit (others, spare me the whole XMOS discussion out of respect this one time, please!).
Bert, we could forgo all of the above reasoning and simply stake the open-source necessity on the fact that "the first to market with the best product at the right price with the right support wins". Once you've done a good design and put it all together correctly (marketing, price, distribution, support) I am pretty sure you'll hold onto the majority of the market. I am not suggesting that we've achieved this by any means, but it happens quite regularly in many industries.
Something like that. I don't know if this kind of model applies to your products or not. And don't trust our intuition, either. We've made a few wrong turns now and then, too! In fact, I've got a shelf of them in my office. They usually came in the form of failed products.
And you're right - the SX has no Mac support. The timing, communication interdependency and protocol between the SX-Key and the IDE during DEBUG would cause even the best Mac programmers to buy a case of Lomotil to get through the project.
Thanks,
Ken Gracey
Post Edited (Ken Gracey (Parallax)) : 12/10/2009 6:58:09 AM GMT
Coming from where I do, where the very software people use everyday is obtained with a 15 page Master License Agreement, so full of terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions and the all powerful "hold harmless" and "not warrantied for any specific use or purpose" clauses, my head aches just thinking about it. Heck, you can't even fire the software tools up, without first seeing a long and rather ugly "don't look at this closely, and if you do, we might have to kill you slow" batch of legalese scroll by. I swear, that command window pops up, just to display that stuff, and if closed, the whole thing crashes...
Parallax products are wonderfully open by comparison.
Thank you very much for your quick responses. I am very appreciative of the long answer I received, and will definitely keep it in the back of my mind as I move forward with my own projects.
As for trusting Parallax's intuition, I wasn't going to use this as a clearcut here is what I should do because they do it, but more along the lines of here is what one of the leaders is doing, maybe it is worth looking into.
Publish early and often is very smart. Your attorney earned their dollars well.
It is kind of scary to see the software and process patents going through. Darn things should be not permitted, like they once were. Now that we have them, I see larger companies just filing on all sorts of Smile that often has prior art just screaming all over the place. I don't think they even care, as the burden for those is often on others, when it shouldn't be, but just is.
Half the time I wonder whether or not it's all part of a master plan to own their competition before they even compete, and the other half of the time, I think it's a form of speculation where the size of a patent war chest is linked to the value perception associated with said company.
Most disturbing to me is seeing this effort escalate where companies are no longer adding value to profit from, and instead choose to leverage their user base in new and creative ways for revenue...
Open products are good from a personal ideological stand point in that skills acquired can be used freely, without being forced to remap them at a vendors pleasure and need for dollars. All good. A thing learned is a hard won thing, and should only be learned once, barring some factor of age and our humanity. (brain cell dies, what's a guy to do?)
Another element that is growing in importance for me is the growing check open solutions is on these artificial value propositions. It's disturbing to me when I learn the best new feature of a product release happens to be new and creative exploitation that is good for them and you both! (the other guy is getting screwed, and isn't technology grand?)
Truth is, there is one body of open code and understanding. It varies a bit as to license details. Some terms only allow open works, others allow open and closed, with the idea that people will contribute to the pool in consideration for what they pulled from it. By contrast, the body of closed solutions is fragmented into lots of legally and often deliberately physical incompatible entities that look for all the world like old school fiefdoms.
This growing body of assets, code and hardware understanding has a most interesting property that scares the hell out of the closed clowns, and that is the use value of it for any one contributor is generally worth more than the investment required to obtain that use value, and or the value of any one persons contribution!
eg: If one has a nice, open Propeller, it's possible to do lots of things with it, limited only by the raw capacity of the chip, and access to the pool of understanding surrounding it. A propellers use value over time grows as an exponential function of the users contributions to the open pool, so to speak. This is not anywhere as true for closed devices.
Boiled down, that means it takes some effort to get to make use of the pool, but that effort pays back handsomely over time. Contributing to the pool is a lot of work, and the return is even greater use value for not only the contributor, but a very large fraction of potential users as well. This is one of the few things in this world where you actually get more out than you put in --or at least the opportunity to do so is present and largely uninhibited.
Also notable is the distribution of wealth and opportunity to create wealth. In the open model, the always growing use value keeps the barrier to entry for wealth creation (innovation applied to labor over time) low for all users in like kind. The originator of the tech benefits as do all engaged and willing users. In the closed model, wealth opportunities are managed affairs, with the originator of the tech generally benefiting more overall than any one user does. The most common way this is done is through ongoing product "enhancements" and annual pricing as a function of perceived use value delivered. These are both regressive economic ideas, that stunt the very innovation that fuels new product development, necessary to sustain the steady escalation of technology demand world wide. Those that don't get this are literally fighting over a smaller and small slice of the pie each year, losing out to those that do. Sigh...
Nothing else works like this, and I see it as a clear and effective check on managed value solutions, where the whole key to operating is substantial annual revenue to support the closed development. In this model, your use value isn't directly related to any of your contributions, only those they see fit to incorporate. The individual loses out in this, contributing time, understanding and dollars, only to receive a managed amount in return. This almost never has a good balance, and is easily exploited for all but the very largest users, and their large contributions influence the product.
On the open side of things, one person somewhere can bend the stuff to their needs, and contribute whatever they feel makes sense, or nothing, and still not diminish the use value for others, and see good use value themselves.
That boiled down means we continue to move toward a model where wealth really is innovation applied to labor over time, and that's pure and meaningful to me. Without a robust and growing pool of open stuff to work from, that classic equation for wealth is significantly diluted, in that no source vendor will actually allow a consumer to generate value on par with theirs, or they risk death.
More and more people and businesses grok this reality, and it is nothing but a good thing.
Yes, I find this topic fascinating and have followed it with great interest since the mid-90's when open and closed began to clash. About that time, open means, methods and tools began to clash with closed, proprietary ones, with the predictable legal clashes playing out accordingly.
The single most significant risk factors facing this pool of open resources are litigation and legislation to marginalize that huge use value proposition growth to better balance it against the much more cost burdened and innovation limited use value inherent in every closed model I've ever seen. This is largely because the innovators dilemma prevents closed organizations from actually innovating new value, because it cannibalizes the existing value chain.
A rare private company or two will do this, with our friends here at Parallax doing just that. They are private and can act in their longer term interests, without regard to shorter term "expectations" influencing things, beyond that which they need for short term health. By contrast, most public companies cannot do this, because market expectations are set so high that there exists no slack for the kinds of longer term changes needed to keep a business sustainable over the longer term, as the return to the shareholders must meet those high, and ever rising expectations, denying resources for ongoing and regular investments in the business necessary to adapt to constant change.
Rather than die, they will litigate, partner, merge, and legislate their way to viability longer term, and that all comes at our expense, thus the risk factors I identified above.
Ugh...
That leaves us with two core models. Do we force the fiefdoms that come along with the litigation and legislation, or do we encourage innovation as the core expression of wealth? That is the question of open -vs- closed, expressed in economic terms today.
Sorry to get heady. Well, not really. I enjoy watching this stuff play out. So far, geeks +1, suits 0, with legislation, particularly international treaties being the biggest advantage for the suits.... Stay tuned!
@potatohead- to further complicate matters, none of this IP protection matters across country borders [noparse][[/noparse]without amazing expense and headache].
Somebody should start a new variety of open source license:
The CHINA OS License. If it exists, it's yours!
We recently found a very close BS2 clone in China but it was unavailable when we tried to order it.
That is so true, and is the subject of a very disturbing secret "anti counterfeit" treaty being worked on right now. The idea of some greater protections isn't a bad one. Lord knows plenty of people have been tripped up by IP freedom friendly places in the world.
On the other hand, if it's the right thing to do, why so much security and secrecy, and why no general public involvement?
My gut says the people who favor and depend on the closed model, and it's necessary litigation and legislation, are pushing hard to "level the field", and that will generally cost us in terms of sharply reduced use value opportunities. They will point to the open model, and it being toxic to their need to sustain their innovation regressive models, in much the same way older companies regularly do to newer ones as they threaten, or actually release disruptive technology.
Edit: (last one, I promise) Interestingly, the growth of open resources from which to build solutions reduces recurring, annual demand for closed ones, while at the same time distributing the work opportunities to fulfill specialized and localized solution demand. This is important to consider in context, as this trend directly impacts people like us, who innovate for value directly on a smaller scale. There are tons of us, and not many of them. They are top heavy, and we are often just not, and can work together with few worries, where they depend on fiefdoms and teams of people to carve up the value realized in proportion to the efforts, and regions of the world.
They can't compete on that scale in a sustainable way, without some regulatory and legal assistance, and know it, and rather than adopt the more successful way of working, or innovate their way to their own disruptive solution, will instead seek political and legal solutions to their dilemma, and that costs us always. The sad thing is this generally is "cheaper" to them in terms of hard costs. Of course, the opportunity cost to everyone else is sky high, but those are not hard dollars, and as such are not a worry to the public share holders. Funny how that works huh?
Edit: One very interesting front where this can be observed in action is the current lack of software patents in the EU. We permit them here, which effectively criminalizes many open solutions, thus marginalizing them in the manner I wrote above. The number and diverse attempts at "fixing" that have been astounding, and the effort just will not stop...
Maybe you need a "buddy" to order one clone, so you can take a look at it [noparse]:)[/noparse] That is exactly what I would do, given that dilemma.
The PropScope is very open- the schematic is available and there is nothing stopping you from reprogramming the Propeller that powers the PropScope. I'll shortly finish the "PropScope Communication Protocol" which details how the windows interface communicates with the PropScope firmware. Then, anyone can replace either piece.
You can get started now- start the Propeller Tool with the PropScope connected. Starting with Propeller Tool v1.2.7 the default setting will skip the PropScope to allow you to work with both a Propeller and a PropScope, but you can change that setting...
The "propscope.binary" file that the PropScope interface loads to the PropScope is a standard binary file, feel free to replace it with your own.
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here), 12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
Hanno said...
I'll shortly finish the "PropScope Communication Protocol" which details how the windows interface communicates with the PropScope firmware. Then, anyone can replace either piece.
Looking forward to that one.
Hanno said...
Starting with Propeller Tool v1.2.7 the default setting will skip the PropScope to allow you to work with both a Propeller and a PropScope, but you can change that setting...
How does it achieve that?
It does look like a very funky bit of hardware. I wonder how you'd go replacing the LTC2286 with an LTC2289 and increasing the maximum sample rate to 80Mhz ? (after looking at the schematic crystal speed I should say 100Mhz!)
Oh wow, I just noticed on the schematic this is a production product that overclocks the Propeller to 100Mhz.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
It's nice to see the responses here and at Adafruit to the open source comments. I originally posted the link to there because I too thought the idea of Parallax being "closed" sounded funny.
Both companies do a lot of cool stuff and have people that really stand behind and support what they do. And both companies have gotten a fair amount of my money, too, I guess.
Now I (still) just need to find time to play with my Propscope.
To me this is a case where actions speak louder than words.
Right now I refuse to use propeller chips in my projects and I try to talk anyone out of using them if they are considering using them.
There is only one reason I do this and that is because the whole design is closed and there didn't seem until I read this thread, that there was a chance it would open up.
Many of us pleaded to open up the design and were pretty much told to go away.
Its fine that people have successfully reverse engineered the tools and software but if the design was open they wouldn't have to.
You say you only have one software engineer. What better reason to open the code up. So its in Delphi. Open it up. You might be surprised by what the community can do.
In the end making promises doesn't change anything. Publishing code, op-codes, firmware, that's what will change perception.
@Chris Kraft, can you confirm that your feelings primarily driven by Parallax's lack of open-sourcing the Propeller IDE? In other words, would open-source developers be satisfied with extracting what they need from our Delphi code, or do you expect Parallax to document and support the IDE/Propeller communication protocol? I'm interested in knowing whether or not your threshold of acceptance could intersect with Parallax's capabilities and resources.
I don't remember Parallax telling anyobdy to go away when they asked for open-source support on the Propeller. More likely is that we were very quiet on the issue due to workloads in the office (come visit us and see what's going on around here). Maybe our lack of response is why you feel the way you do about the request.
Chris - scanning the thread I see the post you recently made. What would you describe as closed about the Propeller? What micros do you chose to use instead of the Propeller? What about that makes it open source? Sure, the Prop IDE isn't open source, but the guts and knowhow required to talk or program the Propeller is published. There is a great community here that works on projects together and freely shares code through the Obeject Exchange. Parallax creates application and circuits and publishes them. They also create code for the Propeller and put it in the object exchange as well.
Like OBC said, speak up, lets us understand what you are thinking and seeing.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Timothy D. Swieter, E.I. www.brilldea.com - Prop Blade, LED Painter, RGB LEDs, 3.0" LCD Composite video display, eProto for SunSPOT www.tdswieter.com
I will come back later tonight and post my thoughts. I am trying to get the forum search function to pop up the original threads which caused me to give up the Propeller.
One thing though. To me open source, or open hardware, is more than just giving out a few schematics or having a code repository for libraries. A great example is Makerbot, and the RepRap project. You can find everything from engineering drawings to firmware code. There isn't a single thing that I am aware of at Makerbot that you can't build yourself using the information they openly publish.
I guess I don't really see the comparison between the Propeller and Makerbot (both of which I like). Is the Propeller, a processor, more closed than the Atmel chips used in the Makerbot?
There are more open source tools available for the Atmel chips, but the Atmel chips have also been around longer and are much more widely used than the Propeller. There are also more tools that are not open source and are commercially available for AVRs, for the same reason. But, the tools for Propeller are growing and Parallax does seem to be supportive - within the constraints they have to deal with due to time, etc.
I have not attempted to write any tools for dealing with the Propeller, but it seems to me that most of what is needed to write those tools is available now. Maybe I'm mistaken?
Chris Kraft: "Right now I refuse to use propeller chips in my projects and I try to talk anyone out of using them if they are considering using them. There is only one reason I do this and that is because the whole design is closed"
What on earth are you talking about? You don't have to go away and think very long. Just answer me this question: If not the Propeller because it is closed then which microprocessor/micro-controller do you use or recommend that is open?
Most off the shelf processors don't come with their design implementation documents, or their VHDL/Verilog descriptions. Anyone know of even one that does?
Or do you only use processors for which you have the Verilog or VHDL such that you can implement your own in FPGA? Nice idea but just shifts the open/closed problem to the fact that the FPGA itself is very closed. Not to mention the software tools to design with / configure them.
Where do you draw the line? Are you still building your own CPUs with TTL.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Chris Kraft: Just caught up with your later post were you say "There isn't a single thing that I am aware of at Makerbot that you can't build yourself using the information they openly publish"
That may well be true but in the light of your statement that the Propeller is not to be used because it's closed. I hope you are not building the projects from Makerbot either.
On my first ever visit there and first project picked out I find the Sanguino v1.0 Microcontroller Kit which is based on an atmega644p which is, well, CLOSED.
Interesting site though, Makerbot, thanks.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Hmm..Thinking about it, isn't it so that originally the download protocol for Prop programming was not published. That would actually have made the Prop more closed than many other MCUs.
So Chris Kraft , you may well have had a point. If I understand correctly that bit of "closedness" was published some time ago so all is well now. Still can't see the protocol in the manual though.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
At risk of taking this thread farther off topic, I must say that the other Chris' comments are confusing to me.· Perhaps I use products with a different mind set.
I don't care about anything that is "open".· I have no desire to change the tools I purchased to use - the VAST majority of people don't.· I buy the prop chips as "magic boxes" and use them with great pleasure.· Using the Prop Tool editor, I can do anything I need to do to the Prop.· If I didn't like the Prop or the editor, I wouldn't expect Parallax (or any other company) to provide me with access to its internals.· I might ask for changes, after all, that is what I am paying them for.· They are providing a product that should meet or exceed the customer's expectations and so far, everything I have used from Parallax has greatly exceeded my expectations.·
I have found that not only does Parallax communicate better with its customers than any other company I have dealt with in the past 40years, they still respect and appreciate their customers.·
In this day of the internet, many people feel that EVERYTHING should be free and open as there is so much free stuff on the net.· I suggest you pursue those products that are free and/or open and not try to change companies into·making their products free or open.·
What really "opened up" the Propeller for me was 4 things.
- The snippet of Delphi code that was posted showing how the Parallax tools talked to the chip.
- interpreter.spin
- booter.spin
- bootsequence.spin
That was absolutely all that was needed to write a complete compiler/downloader from the ground up. Nothing else.
I've recently gone back to PIC's for a project that I just could not do with a Prop, and I forgot how much the Propeller dev environment has spoiled me.
I now have to use Windows or Wine (there is no easily available ASM30 assembler for the PIC that is not Win32). I have to then download the thing with a PICKIT2 to flash every time I want to test a bit of code. (I am using a prop plug and the bst terminal to talk to the application code though!).
What takes me about 3 seconds on the Prop (F10) takes about 30 seconds on the PIC. Make/Flash/Run. Oh, and I really have to use mplab in a windows VM to make it all happen as getting all the disparate pieces to work under Linux with Wine is not what could be called easy or intuitive. None of the open source tools target the dsPIC processors.
I'll take the prop thanks. And if you give me a MAC instruction I can drop the PIC tomorrow [noparse];)[/noparse]
Open is relative I guess. I'm more pragmatic and will use what gets the job done.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Chris_D: "I have found that not only does Parallax communicate better with its customers than any other company I have dealt with in the past 40years, they still respect and appreciate their customers."
Well said. And those attributes of Parallax impress me more pretty much every day. Look at the threads discussing what the Prop II should look like for example.
BradC: "Open is relative I guess. I'm more pragmatic and will use what gets the job done"
Quite so.
Of course this "open" thing is something of a self interested altruism on the part of many companies. Parallax is a great example. Build a community of users around your product. Give away all kinds of information. Provide free software (OBEX say) and free designs. Don't set the lawyers on those who clone your IDE etc etc. Makes every one feel good and accelerates take up of your product by making it easier for people.
BUT make no mistake, the "crown jewels", the Propeller in this case are closely guarded and as closed as can be. Last thing Parallax wants is people/companies/competitors just cloning Props for themselves from Chip's Verilog or whatever.
I personally don't have any problem with that.
Maybe what I'm saying is obvious but I do hear people asking for too much sometimes.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
There seems to be the assumption that I want Parallax to give everything away for free, or give away the secrets of their chips. Thats not really the case.
I grabbed a few questions to answer. I will try my best to keep it short and to the point.
@Ken Gracey "can you confirm that your feelings primarily driven by Parallax's lack of open-sourcing the Propeller IDE?"
My original query, which I can't find using the search features, was related to having the IDE or at a minimum, compiler, available on other platforms than Windows. I was told that resources were limited. I made the suggestion of opening this up so that the community could possibly do the port. I was told this would consume too many resources.
@Oldbitcollector "I hope you will stick around long enough to engage in conversation and not just dropped in for a quick rant. This will help greatly!"
I am happy to answer any questions. I apologize that my post came across as a drive-by rant.
@Timothy D. Swieter "What would you describe as closed about the Propeller? What micros do you chose to use instead of the Propeller? What about that makes it open source?"
@schill "I have not attempted to write any tools for dealing with the Propeller, but it seems to me that most of what is needed to write those tools is available now. Maybe I'm mistaken?"
I will answer these two together. The parts I thought were closed were the op-codes. I know that much of the detail has been reverse engineered. But if I look at the specs for the Atmel AVR's for example, its all pretty much published in PDF's on their site.
@heater "What on earth are you talking about? You don't have to go away and think very long. Just answer me this question: If not the Propeller because it is closed then which microprocessor/micro-controller do you use or recommend that is open?"
I use Atmel AVR's. And no. I am not looking for Verilog or VHDL code from Parallax. Just enough so that someone could create an open-source tool chain without having to resort to reverse engineering bits.
@Chris_D "I don't care about anything that is "open". I have no desire to change the tools I purchased to use - the VAST majority of people don't. I buy the prop chips as "magic boxes" and use them with great pleasure."
Yeah, your right. The tools are great. The Propeller is an amazing chip and Parallax is a nice company. I am not disputing any of those things. The original point was folks were asking "How is Parallax not open" And I was trying to explain that being open is about more than publishing a few schematics and talking about what you are doing.
Thank you for engaging us in conversation! I know Parallax is paying attention.
By the way, this forum is on it's last legs and is going to be replaced soon.
The search feature of the forum is worthless. Try search.parallax.com
Comments
I'm really trying to understand the perception that Parallax is closed?
I know I'm arriving late in the game (Propeller/2006) but since I've been
playing with Parallax products, I've found schematics, firmware, etc!
Is there some "dark" history where Parallax hid everything?? I don't get it.
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?
Visit the: The Propeller Pages @ Warranty Void.
@OBC: I think comments like those stem from the BASIC Stamp's closed firmware, programmed into an OTP PIC chip. While it's a fantastic and successful product, as more time passed and more different processors were released with free BASIC or C compilers, some people found themselves almost resentful of the BASIC Stamp's success. You are not a BASIC Stamp customer, but there's an amazing history (and future) behind that particular product. The BASIC Stamp's success largely exists because: it's just so darned easy to use; it has a tremendous number of applications published everywhere around the world; and because it's part of a successful educational/hobby how-to system supported with tutorials, hardware boards, etc. And the firmware is stable, producing the same result every time. Something like that. . . I'd have to leave it to Mike Green to put it more clearly.
I guess Parallax has matured a bit and today we reside amidst the presence of many younger companies, so perhaps it as simple as us looking a bit like stodgy ogres who don't do enough time on Twitter, Facebook and similar social distractions.
In the very short future, we shall be formalizing our "openness" more clearly.
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
Sure a lot of stuff has been open about the products an it is not hard to find schematics and whatnot, however Parallax has always felt like a closed company in that the IDE/Tools are all closed source, making it harder to port the tools to Linux (SX/B programming on Linux/Mac OS X would be awesome!) (There are quite a few good tools out there that attempt to replicate the various tools required, but it has always felt like it was a legal grey area).
What has changed? Has the IP moved from being the firmware/schematics more to product as a whole, or is there no threat from other large companies that they will pick up the schematics and code and produce something cheaper?
As a small business owner myself I would like as much as possible to be open source about our products, our hardware, our firmware, however where do we draw the line? As a small business we don't have the buying power as bigger business which means we are operating on smaller margins and the ability for some other company to come along and sell the same product for less using our source can be frightening.
I definitely applaud the move on Parallax's part, and look forward to more awesome products and ideas coming from the community that will surely be built around the open source aspects of the Parallax products.
To clarify our position about non-Windows support (closed IDEs). . .It's not a legal grey area from our perspective to have other software tool developers work on non-Windows systems, and we have no lawyers on staff (fed 'em to the inventory guard dogs a long time ago). For the BASIC Stamp we published the tokenizer communication protocol and Murat Konar made a very nice Macintosh editor. We've supported him as much as he needs, never a mention of any license or restriction on his efforts (only appreciative "thanks" from our company). His efforts have brought many Mac programmers to the BASIC Stamp. We're thankful for what he's made available for so many years, for free.
http://www.muratnkonar.com/otherstuff/macbs2/
For the Propeller we see BST on Linux and the Mac. Brad has done this with only minimal support from Parallax. No grey area here, either. In fact we'll soon link up the BST effort directly on the Propeller's download page.
http://www.fnarfbargle.com/bst.html (didn't readily find a Mac screenshot of Brad's IDE, though there are several for Linux)
What restricts us most is the fact that we use Delphi and that we have a limited software staff (ahem, one person). Indeed, I understand that even Delphi can compile to alternative operating systems. Our Windows-centric approach is our biggest weakness next to the fact we can't replicate Chip's abilities. Getting our software engineer to switch to a multi-destined OS compiler is difficult, and he's got reasons that may be convincing. But I concur, this would be the final descent on the concept of sharing and hopefully we shall soon accomplish this improvement as well.
Your points are understood and we've got the same interests. Getting there is another story if Parallax must be the source of all multi-OS efforts. Without the help of others our situation would be much worse, and we're grateful for what they've done.
From a practical standpoint, you can already program the BASIC Stamp and Propeller on a Mac. And the approach we've taken involves the user community.
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
Post Edited (Ken Gracey (Parallax)) : 12/10/2009 6:12:55 AM GMT
Thanks for your quick reply, especially at 10 PM at night!
It is good to hear that these tools do exist, I had been made aware of MacBS2 a while back and it was a pleasure working with it on my Mac. The chip that I use the most mainly because of its cost is the SX, and as far as I am aware there is still no port to Mac OS X for it.
Its good to hear that the lawyers were fed to the inventory guard dogs, and that Parallax has no issues with people releasing such tools. I was certainly not asking that Parallax be the source of all the multi-OS efforts, I definitely agree that would be difficult to accomplish, however source code for SX/B (for example) would make it easier to port it to other platforms, and have them perform in the same manner. Maybe programming in assembly is the way to go, since http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsasm/ does exist! As for cloning Chip ... well maybe in the future.
My main question about whether the IP has shifted from the individual parts of a product to the product as a whole are what I am most interested in. What has changed that Parallax feels comfortable releasing firmware under a MIT license? From a business standpoint, what does Parallax gain by doing this? I am interested mainly in an attempt to learn from the greats, to help make decisions going forward for my small business.
I may not have worded my previous post in the best way possible! Please accept my apologies for that.
Bert
Maybe I'm a stern writer and people always seem apologize when I respond to their posts. Maybe nobody wants to offend us, but this forum is often where we learn about what to do next at Parallax. Your message was worded nicely and isn't cause for any concern.
I'll try to answer your question. One of the reasons we want to release IP is to establish prior art, our best defense against patent sharks. We've spent time with patent attorneys in the past, trying to decide whether or not we should patent certain aspects of our core IP. After we tell them that Parallax won't be for sale or publicly traded, and that we don't care to pursue other companies from an offensive position to protect a patent we've established, the lawyers tell us to skip pursuing any patent. Instead, our only objective is then to defend ourselves against a claim that our IP came from elsewhere, and is in violation of an existing patent owned by others. The best way to show this is to establish prior art. Sharing product designs on the internet provides that proof to show that our work existed first. This subject alone could ignite a whole new thread among forum members.
Next, there's a whole bunch of goodwill associated with open-source. It's our belief that the goodwill returns in the form of sales from enthusiastic customers. And this benefit is greater than the cost of losses caused by a customer who decides to design his own PropScope, for example.
Finally, when you own the main IP used in the open-source designs (such as the Propeller) we hope we'll always sell chips to customers who adapt the designs for their own use. Maybe a PIC won't easily run our PropScope circuit (others, spare me the whole XMOS discussion out of respect this one time, please!).
Bert, we could forgo all of the above reasoning and simply stake the open-source necessity on the fact that "the first to market with the best product at the right price with the right support wins". Once you've done a good design and put it all together correctly (marketing, price, distribution, support) I am pretty sure you'll hold onto the majority of the market. I am not suggesting that we've achieved this by any means, but it happens quite regularly in many industries.
Something like that. I don't know if this kind of model applies to your products or not. And don't trust our intuition, either. We've made a few wrong turns now and then, too! In fact, I've got a shelf of them in my office. They usually came in the form of failed products.
And you're right - the SX has no Mac support. The timing, communication interdependency and protocol between the SX-Key and the IDE during DEBUG would cause even the best Mac programmers to buy a case of Lomotil to get through the project.
Thanks,
Ken Gracey
Post Edited (Ken Gracey (Parallax)) : 12/10/2009 6:58:09 AM GMT
Parallax products are wonderfully open by comparison.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Thank you very much for your quick responses. I am very appreciative of the long answer I received, and will definitely keep it in the back of my mind as I move forward with my own projects.
As for trusting Parallax's intuition, I wasn't going to use this as a clearcut here is what I should do because they do it, but more along the lines of here is what one of the leaders is doing, maybe it is worth looking into.
Once again, thank you very much.
Bert
It is kind of scary to see the software and process patents going through. Darn things should be not permitted, like they once were. Now that we have them, I see larger companies just filing on all sorts of Smile that often has prior art just screaming all over the place. I don't think they even care, as the burden for those is often on others, when it shouldn't be, but just is.
Half the time I wonder whether or not it's all part of a master plan to own their competition before they even compete, and the other half of the time, I think it's a form of speculation where the size of a patent war chest is linked to the value perception associated with said company.
Most disturbing to me is seeing this effort escalate where companies are no longer adding value to profit from, and instead choose to leverage their user base in new and creative ways for revenue...
Open products are good from a personal ideological stand point in that skills acquired can be used freely, without being forced to remap them at a vendors pleasure and need for dollars. All good. A thing learned is a hard won thing, and should only be learned once, barring some factor of age and our humanity. (brain cell dies, what's a guy to do?)
Another element that is growing in importance for me is the growing check open solutions is on these artificial value propositions. It's disturbing to me when I learn the best new feature of a product release happens to be new and creative exploitation that is good for them and you both! (the other guy is getting screwed, and isn't technology grand?)
Truth is, there is one body of open code and understanding. It varies a bit as to license details. Some terms only allow open works, others allow open and closed, with the idea that people will contribute to the pool in consideration for what they pulled from it. By contrast, the body of closed solutions is fragmented into lots of legally and often deliberately physical incompatible entities that look for all the world like old school fiefdoms.
This growing body of assets, code and hardware understanding has a most interesting property that scares the hell out of the closed clowns, and that is the use value of it for any one contributor is generally worth more than the investment required to obtain that use value, and or the value of any one persons contribution!
eg: If one has a nice, open Propeller, it's possible to do lots of things with it, limited only by the raw capacity of the chip, and access to the pool of understanding surrounding it. A propellers use value over time grows as an exponential function of the users contributions to the open pool, so to speak. This is not anywhere as true for closed devices.
Boiled down, that means it takes some effort to get to make use of the pool, but that effort pays back handsomely over time. Contributing to the pool is a lot of work, and the return is even greater use value for not only the contributor, but a very large fraction of potential users as well. This is one of the few things in this world where you actually get more out than you put in --or at least the opportunity to do so is present and largely uninhibited.
Also notable is the distribution of wealth and opportunity to create wealth. In the open model, the always growing use value keeps the barrier to entry for wealth creation (innovation applied to labor over time) low for all users in like kind. The originator of the tech benefits as do all engaged and willing users. In the closed model, wealth opportunities are managed affairs, with the originator of the tech generally benefiting more overall than any one user does. The most common way this is done is through ongoing product "enhancements" and annual pricing as a function of perceived use value delivered. These are both regressive economic ideas, that stunt the very innovation that fuels new product development, necessary to sustain the steady escalation of technology demand world wide. Those that don't get this are literally fighting over a smaller and small slice of the pie each year, losing out to those that do. Sigh...
Nothing else works like this, and I see it as a clear and effective check on managed value solutions, where the whole key to operating is substantial annual revenue to support the closed development. In this model, your use value isn't directly related to any of your contributions, only those they see fit to incorporate. The individual loses out in this, contributing time, understanding and dollars, only to receive a managed amount in return. This almost never has a good balance, and is easily exploited for all but the very largest users, and their large contributions influence the product.
On the open side of things, one person somewhere can bend the stuff to their needs, and contribute whatever they feel makes sense, or nothing, and still not diminish the use value for others, and see good use value themselves.
That boiled down means we continue to move toward a model where wealth really is innovation applied to labor over time, and that's pure and meaningful to me. Without a robust and growing pool of open stuff to work from, that classic equation for wealth is significantly diluted, in that no source vendor will actually allow a consumer to generate value on par with theirs, or they risk death.
More and more people and businesses grok this reality, and it is nothing but a good thing.
Yes, I find this topic fascinating and have followed it with great interest since the mid-90's when open and closed began to clash. About that time, open means, methods and tools began to clash with closed, proprietary ones, with the predictable legal clashes playing out accordingly.
The single most significant risk factors facing this pool of open resources are litigation and legislation to marginalize that huge use value proposition growth to better balance it against the much more cost burdened and innovation limited use value inherent in every closed model I've ever seen. This is largely because the innovators dilemma prevents closed organizations from actually innovating new value, because it cannibalizes the existing value chain.
A rare private company or two will do this, with our friends here at Parallax doing just that. They are private and can act in their longer term interests, without regard to shorter term "expectations" influencing things, beyond that which they need for short term health. By contrast, most public companies cannot do this, because market expectations are set so high that there exists no slack for the kinds of longer term changes needed to keep a business sustainable over the longer term, as the return to the shareholders must meet those high, and ever rising expectations, denying resources for ongoing and regular investments in the business necessary to adapt to constant change.
Rather than die, they will litigate, partner, merge, and legislate their way to viability longer term, and that all comes at our expense, thus the risk factors I identified above.
Ugh...
That leaves us with two core models. Do we force the fiefdoms that come along with the litigation and legislation, or do we encourage innovation as the core expression of wealth? That is the question of open -vs- closed, expressed in economic terms today.
Sorry to get heady. Well, not really. I enjoy watching this stuff play out. So far, geeks +1, suits 0, with legislation, particularly international treaties being the biggest advantage for the suits.... Stay tuned!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/10/2009 7:45:40 AM GMT
Somebody should start a new variety of open source license:
The CHINA OS License. If it exists, it's yours!
We recently found a very close BS2 clone in China but it was unavailable when we tried to order it.
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
That is so true, and is the subject of a very disturbing secret "anti counterfeit" treaty being worked on right now. The idea of some greater protections isn't a bad one. Lord knows plenty of people have been tripped up by IP freedom friendly places in the world.
On the other hand, if it's the right thing to do, why so much security and secrecy, and why no general public involvement?
My gut says the people who favor and depend on the closed model, and it's necessary litigation and legislation, are pushing hard to "level the field", and that will generally cost us in terms of sharply reduced use value opportunities. They will point to the open model, and it being toxic to their need to sustain their innovation regressive models, in much the same way older companies regularly do to newer ones as they threaten, or actually release disruptive technology.
Edit: (last one, I promise) Interestingly, the growth of open resources from which to build solutions reduces recurring, annual demand for closed ones, while at the same time distributing the work opportunities to fulfill specialized and localized solution demand. This is important to consider in context, as this trend directly impacts people like us, who innovate for value directly on a smaller scale. There are tons of us, and not many of them. They are top heavy, and we are often just not, and can work together with few worries, where they depend on fiefdoms and teams of people to carve up the value realized in proportion to the efforts, and regions of the world.
They can't compete on that scale in a sustainable way, without some regulatory and legal assistance, and know it, and rather than adopt the more successful way of working, or innovate their way to their own disruptive solution, will instead seek political and legal solutions to their dilemma, and that costs us always. The sad thing is this generally is "cheaper" to them in terms of hard costs. Of course, the opportunity cost to everyone else is sky high, but those are not hard dollars, and as such are not a worry to the public share holders. Funny how that works huh?
Edit: One very interesting front where this can be observed in action is the current lack of software patents in the EU. We permit them here, which effectively criminalizes many open solutions, thus marginalizing them in the manner I wrote above. The number and diverse attempts at "fixing" that have been astounding, and the effort just will not stop...
Maybe you need a "buddy" to order one clone, so you can take a look at it [noparse]:)[/noparse] That is exactly what I would do, given that dilemma.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/10/2009 7:57:49 AM GMT
You can get started now- start the Propeller Tool with the PropScope connected. Starting with Propeller Tool v1.2.7 the default setting will skip the PropScope to allow you to work with both a Propeller and a PropScope, but you can change that setting...
The "propscope.binary" file that the PropScope interface loads to the PropScope is a standard binary file, feel free to replace it with your own.
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here),
12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
Looking forward to that one.
How does it achieve that?
It does look like a very funky bit of hardware. I wonder how you'd go replacing the LTC2286 with an LTC2289 and increasing the maximum sample rate to 80Mhz ? (after looking at the schematic crystal speed I should say 100Mhz!)
Oh wow, I just noticed on the schematic this is a production product that overclocks the Propeller to 100Mhz.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Adafruit is certainly adding to the "stir".. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
www.adafruit.com/blog/2009/12/09/parallax-shall-open-up-a-lot-more-in-coming-days-wow/
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?
Visit the: The Propeller Pages @ Warranty Void.
Both companies do a lot of cool stuff and have people that really stand behind and support what they do. And both companies have gotten a fair amount of my money, too, I guess.
Now I (still) just need to find time to play with my Propscope.
"Only way to save the species"
I could not agree more, nicely stated [noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Right now I refuse to use propeller chips in my projects and I try to talk anyone out of using them if they are considering using them.
There is only one reason I do this and that is because the whole design is closed and there didn't seem until I read this thread, that there was a chance it would open up.
Many of us pleaded to open up the design and were pretty much told to go away.
Its fine that people have successfully reverse engineered the tools and software but if the design was open they wouldn't have to.
You say you only have one software engineer. What better reason to open the code up. So its in Delphi. Open it up. You might be surprised by what the community can do.
In the end making promises doesn't change anything. Publishing code, op-codes, firmware, that's what will change perception.
-- Chris
I don't remember Parallax telling anyobdy to go away when they asked for open-source support on the Propeller. More likely is that we were very quiet on the issue due to workloads in the office (come visit us and see what's going on around here). Maybe our lack of response is why you feel the way you do about the request.
I'll see what we can do.
Thanks, Ken Gracey
@Chris, I hope you will stick around long enough to engage in conversation and not just dropped in
for a quick rant. This will help greatly!
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?
Visit the: The Propeller Pages @ Warranty Void.
Like OBC said, speak up, lets us understand what you are thinking and seeing.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Timothy D. Swieter, E.I.
www.brilldea.com - Prop Blade, LED Painter, RGB LEDs, 3.0" LCD Composite video display, eProto for SunSPOT
www.tdswieter.com
One thing though. To me open source, or open hardware, is more than just giving out a few schematics or having a code repository for libraries. A great example is Makerbot, and the RepRap project. You can find everything from engineering drawings to firmware code. There isn't a single thing that I am aware of at Makerbot that you can't build yourself using the information they openly publish.
-- Chris
There are more open source tools available for the Atmel chips, but the Atmel chips have also been around longer and are much more widely used than the Propeller. There are also more tools that are not open source and are commercially available for AVRs, for the same reason. But, the tools for Propeller are growing and Parallax does seem to be supportive - within the constraints they have to deal with due to time, etc.
I have not attempted to write any tools for dealing with the Propeller, but it seems to me that most of what is needed to write those tools is available now. Maybe I'm mistaken?
What on earth are you talking about? You don't have to go away and think very long. Just answer me this question: If not the Propeller because it is closed then which microprocessor/micro-controller do you use or recommend that is open?
Most off the shelf processors don't come with their design implementation documents, or their VHDL/Verilog descriptions. Anyone know of even one that does?
Or do you only use processors for which you have the Verilog or VHDL such that you can implement your own in FPGA? Nice idea but just shifts the open/closed problem to the fact that the FPGA itself is very closed. Not to mention the software tools to design with / configure them.
Where do you draw the line? Are you still building your own CPUs with TTL.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
That may well be true but in the light of your statement that the Propeller is not to be used because it's closed. I hope you are not building the projects from Makerbot either.
On my first ever visit there and first project picked out I find the Sanguino v1.0 Microcontroller Kit which is based on an atmega644p which is, well, CLOSED.
Interesting site though, Makerbot, thanks.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
So Chris Kraft , you may well have had a point. If I understand correctly that bit of "closedness" was published some time ago so all is well now. Still can't see the protocol in the manual though.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I don't care about anything that is "open".· I have no desire to change the tools I purchased to use - the VAST majority of people don't.· I buy the prop chips as "magic boxes" and use them with great pleasure.· Using the Prop Tool editor, I can do anything I need to do to the Prop.· If I didn't like the Prop or the editor, I wouldn't expect Parallax (or any other company) to provide me with access to its internals.· I might ask for changes, after all, that is what I am paying them for.· They are providing a product that should meet or exceed the customer's expectations and so far, everything I have used from Parallax has greatly exceeded my expectations.·
I have found that not only does Parallax communicate better with its customers than any other company I have dealt with in the past 40years, they still respect and appreciate their customers.·
In this day of the internet, many people feel that EVERYTHING should be free and open as there is so much free stuff on the net.· I suggest you pursue those products that are free and/or open and not try to change companies into·making their products free or open.·
Chris
- The snippet of Delphi code that was posted showing how the Parallax tools talked to the chip.
- interpreter.spin
- booter.spin
- bootsequence.spin
That was absolutely all that was needed to write a complete compiler/downloader from the ground up. Nothing else.
I've recently gone back to PIC's for a project that I just could not do with a Prop, and I forgot how much the Propeller dev environment has spoiled me.
I now have to use Windows or Wine (there is no easily available ASM30 assembler for the PIC that is not Win32). I have to then download the thing with a PICKIT2 to flash every time I want to test a bit of code. (I am using a prop plug and the bst terminal to talk to the application code though!).
What takes me about 3 seconds on the Prop (F10) takes about 30 seconds on the PIC. Make/Flash/Run. Oh, and I really have to use mplab in a windows VM to make it all happen as getting all the disparate pieces to work under Linux with Wine is not what could be called easy or intuitive. None of the open source tools target the dsPIC processors.
I'll take the prop thanks. And if you give me a MAC instruction I can drop the PIC tomorrow [noparse];)[/noparse]
Open is relative I guess. I'm more pragmatic and will use what gets the job done.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Well said. And those attributes of Parallax impress me more pretty much every day. Look at the threads discussing what the Prop II should look like for example.
BradC: "Open is relative I guess. I'm more pragmatic and will use what gets the job done"
Quite so.
Of course this "open" thing is something of a self interested altruism on the part of many companies. Parallax is a great example. Build a community of users around your product. Give away all kinds of information. Provide free software (OBEX say) and free designs. Don't set the lawyers on those who clone your IDE etc etc. Makes every one feel good and accelerates take up of your product by making it easier for people.
BUT make no mistake, the "crown jewels", the Propeller in this case are closely guarded and as closed as can be. Last thing Parallax wants is people/companies/competitors just cloning Props for themselves from Chip's Verilog or whatever.
I personally don't have any problem with that.
Maybe what I'm saying is obvious but I do hear people asking for too much sometimes.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I grabbed a few questions to answer. I will try my best to keep it short and to the point.
@Ken Gracey "can you confirm that your feelings primarily driven by Parallax's lack of open-sourcing the Propeller IDE?"
My original query, which I can't find using the search features, was related to having the IDE or at a minimum, compiler, available on other platforms than Windows. I was told that resources were limited. I made the suggestion of opening this up so that the community could possibly do the port. I was told this would consume too many resources.
@Oldbitcollector "I hope you will stick around long enough to engage in conversation and not just dropped in for a quick rant. This will help greatly!"
I am happy to answer any questions. I apologize that my post came across as a drive-by rant.
@Timothy D. Swieter "What would you describe as closed about the Propeller? What micros do you chose to use instead of the Propeller? What about that makes it open source?"
@schill "I have not attempted to write any tools for dealing with the Propeller, but it seems to me that most of what is needed to write those tools is available now. Maybe I'm mistaken?"
I will answer these two together. The parts I thought were closed were the op-codes. I know that much of the detail has been reverse engineered. But if I look at the specs for the Atmel AVR's for example, its all pretty much published in PDF's on their site.
@heater "What on earth are you talking about? You don't have to go away and think very long. Just answer me this question: If not the Propeller because it is closed then which microprocessor/micro-controller do you use or recommend that is open?"
I use Atmel AVR's. And no. I am not looking for Verilog or VHDL code from Parallax. Just enough so that someone could create an open-source tool chain without having to resort to reverse engineering bits.
@Chris_D "I don't care about anything that is "open". I have no desire to change the tools I purchased to use - the VAST majority of people don't. I buy the prop chips as "magic boxes" and use them with great pleasure."
Yeah, your right. The tools are great. The Propeller is an amazing chip and Parallax is a nice company. I am not disputing any of those things. The original point was folks were asking "How is Parallax not open" And I was trying to explain that being open is about more than publishing a few schematics and talking about what you are doing.
-- Chris
Thank you for engaging us in conversation! I know Parallax is paying attention.
By the way, this forum is on it's last legs and is going to be replaced soon.
The search feature of the forum is worthless. Try search.parallax.com
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?
Visit the: The Propeller Pages @ Warranty Void.