Heater has the open-source religion.
As for myself I am agnostic, but prefer open-source as well. I just grew weary of paying money in order to pay more money.
With China, it is the question of their vision of a 'national OS' and creating a barrier that is economic, cultural, and informational. They just seem now unable to get beyond a 'Great Wall' concept of how a nation defines security.
Communications with authority figures is often about not daring to say anything upsetting rather than discussion and debate of a real agenda to improve society. I suppose it is all remnants of authoritarianism that keep reviving themselves.
As I said in first posting, we will just have to see which giant the 'Giant Killer' will actually kill. In China, there is always the potential of leadership to 'loose the mandate of heaven' (the tacit support of the general population). The same thing is possible in any nation.
Why do people always brand arguments that they don't understand or don't agree with or don't fit their agenda as "religion"?
It's actually insulting.
It suggests that my points of view are based on some "faith" in some unprovable, indemonstrable, unobservable thing that I just happen to like.
It totally ignores all the practical real-world reasons I put forward for wanting Free and Open Source software, open standards, multiple vendors, patent free goods and so on.
I'm not about to reiterate all those points yet again. Even I need a break sometimes
But I'll leave you with one tiny example. The Propeller was originally only supported by the Propeller Tool. Closed source and Windows only. That caused many to skip over the Prop at the time. Around about the same time the Arduino stormed the world. Why? Because of it's open source nature.
The masses have never understood why they have to pay for software. It's just bits that you can download, so why should it cost anything. They don't realize that there may have been a large development team that produced the software, and it may have cost millions of dollars in salaries and development tools to produce it. Even Heater, who is an evangelist for free software demands payment for the stuff he writes. Many of us make a living writing software. I don't think our employers would pay us very much if they gave the software away for free.
I don't think our employers would pay us very much if they gave the software away for free.
That is why there is always the option selling t-shirts and coffee mugs to supplement what ever is needed. LOL The cause comes first, right? Or does that only apply to those greedy companies.
But I'll leave you with one tiny example. The Propeller was originally only supported by the Propeller Tool. Closed source and Windows only. That caused many to skip over the Prop at the time. Around about the same time the Arduino stormed the world. Why? Because of it's open source nature.
Also there was no support for C on the Propeller at that time .
Why do people always brand arguments that they don't understand or don't agree with or don't fit their agenda as "religion"?
It's actually insulting.
It suggests that my points of view are based on some "faith" in some unprovable, indemonstrable, unobservable thing that I just happen to like.
It totally ignores all the practical real-world reasons I put forward for wanting Free and Open Source software, open standards, multiple vendors, patent free goods and so on.
I'm not about to reiterate all those points yet again. Even I need a break sometimes
But I'll leave you with one tiny example. The Propeller was originally only supported by the Propeller Tool. Closed source and Windows only. That caused many to skip over the Prop at the time. Around about the same time the Arduino stormed the world. Why? Because of it's open source nature.
Then again, it may be idealization versus pragmatism.
Those that follow the ideal often get over-extended.
Regarding the Arduinio... your account of history is a vast over-simplification. But when AVR chips did finally have a good GCC rather than have to buy a C compiler, a great deal of open-source material did come available.
Still there were a variety of factors that contributed to the Arduino's success and it is likely that years earlier Parallax shifted the industry paradigm from having to buy expensive software to being able to buy a hardware item that has free software (admitted closed source, but free) which pretty much blazed the trail that Arduino was to follow.
The Propeller versus Arduino chapter in microcomputer history was likely more about the Arduino presenting a sophisticated scheme for introducing microcontrollers to people that were adverse to handling things like OOP and registers and so on. I'd have to say that they won customers and a loyal following based on the publication of a great deal of support material for novice users. They may have been able to do so because much was written by unpaid enthusiast or university students.
The BasicStamp was a huge success based on a very similar approach. The Propeller was a very different approach which attracted much more savy microcontroller users. It challenged the architectural status quo of microcontrollers with a new alternative.
The lesson that Parallax should have learned is that there will always be a broader market in beginners than in more advanced users. While it may be a different product line, there is a stable cash flow that can sustain the more exciting and exotic stuff -- like a Propeller 2 or 3. Of course, the problem is who is going to write all that introductory support material for the complete novice in an interesting and engaging manner. Parallax doesn't really want to become a publishing house. I don't see why Parallax shouldn't produce its own Arduino devices and join in on retaining a share of the beginner's market. (Of course, that is very pragmatic versus the idealism that Parallax has to make everything themselves.)
A lot of items that don't fit my personal agenda are not religion. Open-source in its purest sense just seem to be religion-like. So does Forth or Moore's Law.
The reality is that Linux as an open-source OS is based on Unix which is not. How pure can we be about open-source under such a reality?
I do realize that professional programmer desires to make a decent living. But the nature of software is often that a second edition is likely to be the best version and it starts going downhill after that. (The first edition presents the utility of the idea and acquires public feedback for a second edition. After that, upgrades tend to be rather like selling subscription magazines or long-term health club memberships.)
Fortunately, I don't attempt to make a living via programming.
Those that follow the ideal often get over-extended.
I'm not sure what you are getting at but here is an ideal: "I would rather have control of my computer myself than someone else has it". Are there many people that would think that's a crazy, "religious", idea or ideal?
A tiny case in point:
Over the weekend my PC died. I took out the SSD and popped it into another PC. Bingo it booted up and worked straight away. My understanding of the modern Windows world is that Windows would refuse to run. Or require re-activating when it finds it's in a new machine with all different peripherals. I've often heard of the difficulties people have had moving their Windows around. Why on earth would I submit control of a big part of my world to a third party that has to give me permission ("re-activate") to run the OS that I bought and paid for on my hardware anyhow I like? Similarly it seems many people can no longer used those XP install media they paid for either. Do correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong here.
A second tiny case in point:
Today I read that all new phones sold in California will be required by law to have "kill switch" functionality. That is to say external entities can not only brick but erase all data on my phone. So here we have a computer in my pocket, which not only provides a lot of useful applications but is an essential communication device, but the control of my communication, my apps and my data is now in the hands of third parties. Again correct me if I'm wrong, anybody.
So, there is my ideal. It's not religious. It's cold hard reality. If you like you can call it politics because it's all about who has the power and control over your life.
...your account of history is a vast over-simplification...
No doubt. Like for example: In a strange twist of fate Parallax is partly responsible for the Arduino. The Arduino creators were using BASIC STAMPs. They decided they were too expensive. On finding there were no alternatives they decided to design and build their own small, easy to use, MCU system. Of course Richard Stallman and his accursed Free Software "ideal" came to the rescue in a very practical way by allowing them to use GCC. The rest is history....
The reality is that Linux as an open-source OS is based on Unix which is not.
This is so totally incorrect I don't know what to say.
How pure can we be about open-source under such a reality?
A meaningless question given the assumed "reality" is anything but.
When in your opinion did AVR "finally have a good GCC" ?
As for the thread title ....
I'm sure "the party" was tired of trying to convince business not under their direct control to help in advancing their agenda.
When? I can't say in terms of specific dates. But it seemed like the microprocessor makers finally realized that expecting developers to buy a C compiler was never going to happen, sales were stagnating, and providing a free Windows based solution wasn't working. So they became willing to share enough details so that open-source cross compilers in GCC could finally do what was expected.
One of the other negative factors was a huge investment in fancy Window based proprietary IDEs. So I suspect that about the same time as MS was loosing its grip on being the development side of the industry, Linux started looking good as an alternative path to driving sales.
I'd have to say the Asus EEEpc might have been the turning point. Microsoft refused to deliver a cheaper version of XP for it, the economy as bad, and so Asus released it with a version of Linux for $300USD. And of course, Vista was overprice and unruly to learn... in spite of a very pretty video display.
In other words, the economic downturn of 2007-8 pretty much forced the industry to seek new customers from student populations and people that weren't will to support Windows.
Over the weekend my PC died. I took out the SSD and popped it into another PC. Bingo it booted up and worked straight away. My understanding of the modern Windows world is that Windows would refuse to run. Or require re-activating when it finds it's in a new machine with all different peripherals. I've often heard of the difficulties people have had moving their Windows around. Why on earth would I submit control of a big part of my world to a third party that has to give me permission ("re-activate") to run the OS that I bought and paid for on my hardware anyhow I like? Similarly it seems many people can no longer used those XP install media they paid for either. Do correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong here.
I believe this is true, although it has never happened to me. Technically users don't buy XP install media, they buy a license to run Windows on a single machine. If you disagree with the terms you shouldn't use Windows.
Today I read that all new phones sold in California will be required by law to have "kill switch" functionality. That is to say external entities can not only brick but erase all data on my phone. So here we have a computer in my pocket, which not only provides a lot of useful applications but is an essential communication device, but the control of my communication, my apps and my data is now in the hands of third parties. Again correct me if I'm wrong, anybody.
The intent of the kill switch bill is to allow the owner to kill their own phone to deter theft. Here's a news story:
When? I can't say in terms of specific dates. But it seemed like the microprocessor makers finally realized that expecting developers to buy a C compiler was never going to have and sales were stagnating and provided a free Windows based solution wasn't working. So they became will to share enough details so that open-source cross compilers in GCC could finally do what was expected.
No. All the information required to build a compiler for AVR, and pretty much any other computer ever, was already out there. The vendor has to tell people how to program the thing after all. So architecture, instruction set, op code encoding, special function registers, etc are all in the data sheets.
All it takes is for someone to take all that info an build an AVR, or whatever target, back end code generator. Not that that is a trivial task but still.
That's what happened with propgcc as well by the way.
If you disagree with the terms you shouldn't use Windows.
Yes exactly. Thank you. I don't, so I don't. No "religion", no "politics", just a simple business offer that I refuse.
Luckily there is a world full of people smarter and more skillful than me that also don't agree and have the ability to do something about it. Both individual and corporate. So I don't have to live in the stone age in computing terms and can join you all here today on this wonderful forum as a result.
No. All the information required to build a compiler for AVR, and pretty much any other computer ever, was already out there. The vendor has to tell people how to program the thing after all. So architecture, instruction set, op code encoding, special function registers, etc are all in the data sheets.
All it takes is for someone to take all that info an build an AVR, or whatever target, back end code generator. Not that that is a trivial task but still.
That's what happened with propgcc as well by the way.
When I look at the horrific complexity of OpenAVR for a Make file, is that all from Linux open-source coders or did industry provide all that just to make sure that all their devices would be compatible with GCC?
I just can seem to believe that it was all done without some sharing by industry.
When I look at the horrific complexity of OpenAVR for a Make file, is that all from Linux open-source coders or did industry provide all that just to make sure that all their devices would be compatible with GCC?
I have no idea what you are talking about. OpenAVR is: "OpenAVR is an open-source AVR-compatible core developed in THDL++". It's an HDL description of an AVR processor intended to be used in FPGAs. What this has to do with GCC I have no idea. Apart from the fact that an AVR GCC target already existed.
What "Linux open-source" coders have to do with it I can't imagine. Who ever they are.
I just can seem to believe that it was all done without some sharing by industry.
I'm almost certain it was. How would ATMEL benefit from having people use the instruction set of their processors in an FPGA core? Not at all.
However I agree, Make files, for all kinds of projects can be horrendous things to comprehend.
Heater, I find some of the comments you made in this thread confusing, and a bit contradictory. You haven't responded to my earlier post, and I wonder what your thoughts are on it.
The masses have never understood why they have to pay for software. It's just bits that you can download, so why should it cost anything. They don't realize that there may have been a large development team that produced the software, and it may have cost millions of dollars in salaries and development tools to produce it. Even Heater, who is an evangelist for free software demands payment for the stuff he writes. Many of us make a living writing software. I don't think our employers would pay us very much if they gave the software away for free.
Also, can you explain why you think Loopy's comment was "totally" incorrect? Isn't at least some portion of his comment correct?
Heater, I find some of the comments you made in this thread confusing, and a bit contradictory.
Everyone posting here has bad days. I'll submit this for everyone's entertainment as my bad day candidate (there is more to the story, but I won't bore you with that). Here goes: Eggs are white. Well, Chicken eggs are white. Actually some chicken eggs are white. Many chicken eggs are brown or even red. Oh wait, some chicken eggs are blue, therefore eggs are blue. I don't really believe and didn't say "all eggs" are blue of course, as only "some eggs" are blue. This is just an example of how badly things can go and how simple mistakes can be made by a writer and a reader as well if just one word is dropped. Ugh even short posts are a lot of work. If you have to quote any of my response, please quote it all. Now I have a headache.
Everyone posting here has bad days. I'll submit this for everyone's entertainment as my bad day candidate (there is more to the story, but I won't bore you with that). Here goes: Eggs are white. Well, Chicken eggs are white. Actually some chicken eggs are white. Many chicken eggs are brown or even red. Oh wait, some chicken eggs are blue, therefore eggs are blue. I don't really believe and didn't say "all eggs" are blue of course, as only "some eggs" are blue. This is just an example of how badly things can go and how simple mistakes can be made by a writer and a reader as well if just one word is dropped. Ugh even short posts are a lot of work. If you have to quote any of my response, please quote it all. Now I have a headache.
And then you add to that the fact that the brown eggs are more natural and healthier. (And they think country folk are simple and don't know how to market!)
SInce you can tell the color of the egg from the chicken does that mean you can tell the color of the chicken from the egg? To do this do you need to know which came first?
Which parts are "confusing, and a bit contradictory"? Perhaps I can rectify or clarify.
I have no idea what the "masses", whoever they are, understand. Certainly developing software takes a lot of time and effort, ultimately that involves huge piles of money. I'm sure many of those "masses" have no idea what it takes to create software. In the same way that have no idea what it takes to design a car or build an airplane or pretty much do anything in this modern world. I am one of the "masses" and I have no idea how most of what we have happens.
Even Heater, who is an evangelist for free software demands payment for the stuff he writes. Many of us make a living writing software. I don't think our employers would pay us very much if they gave the software away for free.
I totally defend your right to arrange some bits in your computer into a pleasing or useful pattern, and then try and sell copies of that pattern to me or anyone else who may find it pleasing or useful. That is a free market. I don't think I have ever said otherwise.
I also totally defend any ones right to write similar software and give it away for free. And for a community of users, individuals or corporate, to use it, copy it, hack on it as they wish.
Which may of course put you and your company out of business. For example: I used to work on a team producing electronics CAD systems for the PC. Schematic capture, PCB layout and so on. We received a pretty good salary. Those packages sold for 10,000 GBP a seat. Life was good. Today you can get most of that same functionality from the open source KiCad http://www.kicad-pcb.org/display/KICAD/KiCad+EDA+Software+Suite
That of course sucks if you own or have invested in that company, but it's beneficial for the human race as a whole.
Bottom line is that you can't "demand" that you get paid for creating software, as an individual or a company. And you can't outlaw the creation of software as Free and open source. (Note the capital "F"). Or I hope you are not suggesting the establishment of a communist style command economy where some group of people is exclusively allocated the task of creating software while others are forbidden from doing so and have to support those that do.
...can you explain why you think Loopy's comment was "totally" incorrect? Isn't at least some portion of his comment correct?
0) Firstly Unix is an operating system. Linux is not, it's a kernel. But never mind that nit-pick.
1) Loopy said "Linux ...is based on Unix".
I don't accept that it is. It is a totally new code base, started from scratch by Linus Torvalds. Linux based operating systems may well do what Unix does and they may well use the same interfaces (APIs) to do it. So what? What we have here is a re-implementation of documented and standardized functionality and interfaces. Think POSIX.
No matter, Linux is not Unix or BSD. I don't think you can even put BSD code into Linux due to the licenses.
3) Loopy also asked: "How pure can we be about open-source under such a reality?"
Well, I'm not sure what he is questioning here. There is some implication of Linux being "impure" or "dirty" or something bad. Well, if I write a program that does some function F which I have copyrighted and sell in source or binary form and then you write your own code that also does F and release it under the GPL does that imply that your F program is some how not "pure open source"?
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that Linux was 'dirty' or 'impure'.
What I meant to imply was the pursuit of purity was in and of itself dirty and nasty. We live in a world where many aspects of society and culture are at odds and in conflict just because zealots seek to enforce their own version of 'purity' on others.
As far as Linux 'being based on Unix'...
Much depends on where you draw the line of 'being based on'. We seem to still be using a lot of Unix utilities and a file system that started with Unix. In one sense, the modern Ferrari was based on a horse cart; in another sense, maybe it wasn't.
And so, it one sense, Heater has open-source religion; in another sense, he doesn't.
Am I making any sense at all? Or is this all chicken and egg or rotten eggs versus humpty-dumpty eggs. Oh my!!!!!.
Meanwhile, I do wonder about what China and Russia are cooking up to annoy the USA. And I tend to agree with Heater that MS just was too greedy and there has been a lot of covert tyranny in how the modern personal computer has been put into the hands of the public. Ambition and greed seem to seep into any political system. At least we are free to discuss it.
I won't spend another dollar on an OS. I use Linux because it works well, I learn more, I spend less time on maintence, I spend more time on productive computer work, and it is free.
Nonetheless, I do NOT think all microcontroller projects need an OS and a file system, and one doesn't need to program in GCC to be a true programmer. I also believe that OOP was developed by a terrorist organization in collaboration with big thick book publisher and the paper industry.
Have I said enough? (likely I have said too much...)
I can agree that pursuit of some crackpot ideal can be detrimental to ones own well being and those around you. Trying force that vision on everyone else is even worse.
Which is why I get twitchy when ideas get branded as "religious". Those who have religion can not not only be annoying but they can also be extremely dangerous.
I hope that with my arguments in favour of Free and Open Source software I am only being annoying
I also believe that OOP was developed by a terrorist organization in collaboration with big thick book publisher and the paper industry.
Amen brother. I'm with you there.
There is a very famous book on software construction: "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software". In it's opening pages it states "Favor object composition over inheritance".
I take that as meaning. "Stop reading this book now. Object oriented is not what you want". It's probably the most valuable lesson in the book.
Of course all those C++ and Java programmers can't do composition very easily in the OO languages. So they have to go on and read the rest of the book
There is a very famous book on software construction: "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software". In it's opening pages it states "Favor object composition over inheritance".
I take that as meaning. "Stop reading this book now. Object oriented is not what you want". It's probably the most valuable lesson in the book.
Of course all those C++ and Java programmers can't do composition very easily in the OO languages. So they have to go on and read the rest of the book
I'm not sure what you mean, as composition is trivial in C++ and Java. It just means using the "has a" relationship instead of the "is a" relationship. Which is a complicated way of saying use a private member variable:
class Fruit {
//...
}
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
//...
}
There's nothing magic or hard about OOP. But the point of the book you mentioned is prevent programmers reinventing the wheel. If you use a language with a decent class library most of the patterns mentioned in the book will probably be in the utility package.
Comments
As for myself I am agnostic, but prefer open-source as well. I just grew weary of paying money in order to pay more money.
With China, it is the question of their vision of a 'national OS' and creating a barrier that is economic, cultural, and informational. They just seem now unable to get beyond a 'Great Wall' concept of how a nation defines security.
Communications with authority figures is often about not daring to say anything upsetting rather than discussion and debate of a real agenda to improve society. I suppose it is all remnants of authoritarianism that keep reviving themselves.
As I said in first posting, we will just have to see which giant the 'Giant Killer' will actually kill. In China, there is always the potential of leadership to 'loose the mandate of heaven' (the tacit support of the general population). The same thing is possible in any nation.
It's actually insulting.
It suggests that my points of view are based on some "faith" in some unprovable, indemonstrable, unobservable thing that I just happen to like.
It totally ignores all the practical real-world reasons I put forward for wanting Free and Open Source software, open standards, multiple vendors, patent free goods and so on.
I'm not about to reiterate all those points yet again. Even I need a break sometimes
But I'll leave you with one tiny example. The Propeller was originally only supported by the Propeller Tool. Closed source and Windows only. That caused many to skip over the Prop at the time. Around about the same time the Arduino stormed the world. Why? Because of it's open source nature.
Well Richard Stallman does call himself St IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs, so the confusion is understandable.
https://stallman.org/saint.html
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/St._Ignucius
-Tor
Ray
Also there was no support for C on the Propeller at that time .
Then again, it may be idealization versus pragmatism.
Those that follow the ideal often get over-extended.
Regarding the Arduinio... your account of history is a vast over-simplification. But when AVR chips did finally have a good GCC rather than have to buy a C compiler, a great deal of open-source material did come available.
Still there were a variety of factors that contributed to the Arduino's success and it is likely that years earlier Parallax shifted the industry paradigm from having to buy expensive software to being able to buy a hardware item that has free software (admitted closed source, but free) which pretty much blazed the trail that Arduino was to follow.
The Propeller versus Arduino chapter in microcomputer history was likely more about the Arduino presenting a sophisticated scheme for introducing microcontrollers to people that were adverse to handling things like OOP and registers and so on. I'd have to say that they won customers and a loyal following based on the publication of a great deal of support material for novice users. They may have been able to do so because much was written by unpaid enthusiast or university students.
The BasicStamp was a huge success based on a very similar approach. The Propeller was a very different approach which attracted much more savy microcontroller users. It challenged the architectural status quo of microcontrollers with a new alternative.
The lesson that Parallax should have learned is that there will always be a broader market in beginners than in more advanced users. While it may be a different product line, there is a stable cash flow that can sustain the more exciting and exotic stuff -- like a Propeller 2 or 3. Of course, the problem is who is going to write all that introductory support material for the complete novice in an interesting and engaging manner. Parallax doesn't really want to become a publishing house. I don't see why Parallax shouldn't produce its own Arduino devices and join in on retaining a share of the beginner's market. (Of course, that is very pragmatic versus the idealism that Parallax has to make everything themselves.)
A lot of items that don't fit my personal agenda are not religion. Open-source in its purest sense just seem to be religion-like. So does Forth or Moore's Law.
The reality is that Linux as an open-source OS is based on Unix which is not. How pure can we be about open-source under such a reality?
I do realize that professional programmer desires to make a decent living. But the nature of software is often that a second edition is likely to be the best version and it starts going downhill after that. (The first edition presents the utility of the idea and acquires public feedback for a second edition. After that, upgrades tend to be rather like selling subscription magazines or long-term health club memberships.)
Fortunately, I don't attempt to make a living via programming.
A tiny case in point:
Over the weekend my PC died. I took out the SSD and popped it into another PC. Bingo it booted up and worked straight away. My understanding of the modern Windows world is that Windows would refuse to run. Or require re-activating when it finds it's in a new machine with all different peripherals. I've often heard of the difficulties people have had moving their Windows around. Why on earth would I submit control of a big part of my world to a third party that has to give me permission ("re-activate") to run the OS that I bought and paid for on my hardware anyhow I like? Similarly it seems many people can no longer used those XP install media they paid for either. Do correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong here.
A second tiny case in point:
Today I read that all new phones sold in California will be required by law to have "kill switch" functionality. That is to say external entities can not only brick but erase all data on my phone. So here we have a computer in my pocket, which not only provides a lot of useful applications but is an essential communication device, but the control of my communication, my apps and my data is now in the hands of third parties. Again correct me if I'm wrong, anybody.
So, there is my ideal. It's not religious. It's cold hard reality. If you like you can call it politics because it's all about who has the power and control over your life. No doubt. Like for example: In a strange twist of fate Parallax is partly responsible for the Arduino. The Arduino creators were using BASIC STAMPs. They decided they were too expensive. On finding there were no alternatives they decided to design and build their own small, easy to use, MCU system. Of course Richard Stallman and his accursed Free Software "ideal" came to the rescue in a very practical way by allowing them to use GCC. The rest is history.... This is so totally incorrect I don't know what to say. A meaningless question given the assumed "reality" is anything but.
When in your opinion did AVR "finally have a good GCC" ?
As for the thread title ....
I'm sure "the party" was tired of trying to convince business not under their direct control to help in advancing their agenda.
When? I can't say in terms of specific dates. But it seemed like the microprocessor makers finally realized that expecting developers to buy a C compiler was never going to happen, sales were stagnating, and providing a free Windows based solution wasn't working. So they became willing to share enough details so that open-source cross compilers in GCC could finally do what was expected.
One of the other negative factors was a huge investment in fancy Window based proprietary IDEs. So I suspect that about the same time as MS was loosing its grip on being the development side of the industry, Linux started looking good as an alternative path to driving sales.
I'd have to say the Asus EEEpc might have been the turning point. Microsoft refused to deliver a cheaper version of XP for it, the economy as bad, and so Asus released it with a version of Linux for $300USD. And of course, Vista was overprice and unruly to learn... in spite of a very pretty video display.
In other words, the economic downturn of 2007-8 pretty much forced the industry to seek new customers from student populations and people that weren't will to support Windows.
I believe this is true, although it has never happened to me. Technically users don't buy XP install media, they buy a license to run Windows on a single machine. If you disagree with the terms you shouldn't use Windows.
The intent of the kill switch bill is to allow the owner to kill their own phone to deter theft. Here's a news story:
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26403692/brown-signs-cell-phone-kill-switch-bill-into
If this gets used for Orwellian purposes California voters can use the referendum process to get rid of the law.
My guess is that's the true intent of the OS. If they mandate its use it would almost certainly be the case.
All it takes is for someone to take all that info an build an AVR, or whatever target, back end code generator. Not that that is a trivial task but still.
That's what happened with propgcc as well by the way.
Luckily there is a world full of people smarter and more skillful than me that also don't agree and have the ability to do something about it. Both individual and corporate. So I don't have to live in the stone age in computing terms and can join you all here today on this wonderful forum as a result.
When I look at the horrific complexity of OpenAVR for a Make file, is that all from Linux open-source coders or did industry provide all that just to make sure that all their devices would be compatible with GCC?
I just can seem to believe that it was all done without some sharing by industry.
What "Linux open-source" coders have to do with it I can't imagine. Who ever they are. I'm almost certain it was. How would ATMEL benefit from having people use the instruction set of their processors in an FPGA core? Not at all.
However I agree, Make files, for all kinds of projects can be horrendous things to comprehend.
Everyone posting here has bad days. I'll submit this for everyone's entertainment as my bad day candidate (there is more to the story, but I won't bore you with that). Here goes: Eggs are white. Well, Chicken eggs are white. Actually some chicken eggs are white. Many chicken eggs are brown or even red. Oh wait, some chicken eggs are blue, therefore eggs are blue. I don't really believe and didn't say "all eggs" are blue of course, as only "some eggs" are blue. This is just an example of how badly things can go and how simple mistakes can be made by a writer and a reader as well if just one word is dropped. Ugh even short posts are a lot of work. If you have to quote any of my response, please quote it all. Now I have a headache.
And then you add to that the fact that the brown eggs are more natural and healthier. (And they think country folk are simple and don't know how to market!)
SInce you can tell the color of the egg from the chicken does that mean you can tell the color of the chicken from the egg? To do this do you need to know which came first?
Which parts are "confusing, and a bit contradictory"? Perhaps I can rectify or clarify.
I have no idea what the "masses", whoever they are, understand. Certainly developing software takes a lot of time and effort, ultimately that involves huge piles of money. I'm sure many of those "masses" have no idea what it takes to create software. In the same way that have no idea what it takes to design a car or build an airplane or pretty much do anything in this modern world. I am one of the "masses" and I have no idea how most of what we have happens. I totally defend your right to arrange some bits in your computer into a pleasing or useful pattern, and then try and sell copies of that pattern to me or anyone else who may find it pleasing or useful. That is a free market. I don't think I have ever said otherwise.
I also totally defend any ones right to write similar software and give it away for free. And for a community of users, individuals or corporate, to use it, copy it, hack on it as they wish.
Which may of course put you and your company out of business. For example: I used to work on a team producing electronics CAD systems for the PC. Schematic capture, PCB layout and so on. We received a pretty good salary. Those packages sold for 10,000 GBP a seat. Life was good. Today you can get most of that same functionality from the open source KiCad http://www.kicad-pcb.org/display/KICAD/KiCad+EDA+Software+Suite
That of course sucks if you own or have invested in that company, but it's beneficial for the human race as a whole.
Bottom line is that you can't "demand" that you get paid for creating software, as an individual or a company. And you can't outlaw the creation of software as Free and open source. (Note the capital "F"). Or I hope you are not suggesting the establishment of a communist style command economy where some group of people is exclusively allocated the task of creating software while others are forbidden from doing so and have to support those that do. 0) Firstly Unix is an operating system. Linux is not, it's a kernel. But never mind that nit-pick.
1) Loopy said "Linux ...is based on Unix".
I don't accept that it is. It is a totally new code base, started from scratch by Linus Torvalds. Linux based operating systems may well do what Unix does and they may well use the same interfaces (APIs) to do it. So what? What we have here is a re-implementation of documented and standardized functionality and interfaces. Think POSIX.
2) Loopy claimed that Unix is not Open Source.
I beg to differ. Ever hear of BSD? It's a long a sordid story but I refer you to the USL vs BSD lawsuite of 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi
If you are really keen there is also the famous SCO vs Linux saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO–Linux_controversies
No matter, Linux is not Unix or BSD. I don't think you can even put BSD code into Linux due to the licenses.
3) Loopy also asked: "How pure can we be about open-source under such a reality?"
Well, I'm not sure what he is questioning here. There is some implication of Linux being "impure" or "dirty" or something bad. Well, if I write a program that does some function F which I have copyrighted and sell in source or binary form and then you write your own code that also does F and release it under the GPL does that imply that your F program is some how not "pure open source"?
P.S. You can still buy that electronics CAD package. CADSTAR From Zuken. http://www.zuken.com/en/products/pcb-design/cadstar They even have a free trial version http://www.zuken.com/en/products/pcb-design/cadstar/resources/software/express I wonder if the is any of my old code still in there...
I'm getting hungry, time for breakfast.
The "modified BSD license" used by Nokia/Qt in their example programs is (and other places) is compatible with GPL according to the FSF.
What I meant to imply was the pursuit of purity was in and of itself dirty and nasty. We live in a world where many aspects of society and culture are at odds and in conflict just because zealots seek to enforce their own version of 'purity' on others.
As far as Linux 'being based on Unix'...
Much depends on where you draw the line of 'being based on'. We seem to still be using a lot of Unix utilities and a file system that started with Unix. In one sense, the modern Ferrari was based on a horse cart; in another sense, maybe it wasn't.
And so, it one sense, Heater has open-source religion; in another sense, he doesn't.
Am I making any sense at all? Or is this all chicken and egg or rotten eggs versus humpty-dumpty eggs. Oh my!!!!!.
Meanwhile, I do wonder about what China and Russia are cooking up to annoy the USA. And I tend to agree with Heater that MS just was too greedy and there has been a lot of covert tyranny in how the modern personal computer has been put into the hands of the public. Ambition and greed seem to seep into any political system. At least we are free to discuss it.
I won't spend another dollar on an OS. I use Linux because it works well, I learn more, I spend less time on maintence, I spend more time on productive computer work, and it is free.
Nonetheless, I do NOT think all microcontroller projects need an OS and a file system, and one doesn't need to program in GCC to be a true programmer. I also believe that OOP was developed by a terrorist organization in collaboration with big thick book publisher and the paper industry.
Have I said enough? (likely I have said too much...)
I can agree that pursuit of some crackpot ideal can be detrimental to ones own well being and those around you. Trying force that vision on everyone else is even worse.
Which is why I get twitchy when ideas get branded as "religious". Those who have religion can not not only be annoying but they can also be extremely dangerous.
I hope that with my arguments in favour of Free and Open Source software I am only being annoying
Amen brother. I'm with you there.
There is a very famous book on software construction: "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software". In it's opening pages it states "Favor object composition over inheritance".
I take that as meaning. "Stop reading this book now. Object oriented is not what you want". It's probably the most valuable lesson in the book.
Of course all those C++ and Java programmers can't do composition very easily in the OO languages. So they have to go on and read the rest of the book
I'm not sure what you mean, as composition is trivial in C++ and Java. It just means using the "has a" relationship instead of the "is a" relationship. Which is a complicated way of saying use a private member variable:
class Fruit { //... } class Apple { private Fruit fruit = new Fruit(); //... }There's nothing magic or hard about OOP. But the point of the book you mentioned is prevent programmers reinventing the wheel. If you use a language with a decent class library most of the patterns mentioned in the book will probably be in the utility package.