I always thought that if there really is demand for a
utility then atleast a
token amount of money should be charged for that utility. You will find that
people who claim to need changes to the utility but are unwilling to pay a
I think you're comparing Apples and IBMs here :-). It is one thing to
expect _you_ to make changes to your program (and that arguably should be
charged for), it's another to want to make those changes themselves...
few bucks for a new revision should just be ignored,
they remind me of
friends who keep taking up your personal time fixing their computers as long
Are you seriously suggesting you think that the Internet would be better
if everything was charged for? No free downloads of old manuals like on
bitsavers, for example (somebody spent time scanning those, converting
them to pdf, etc). No free schematics on
hpmuseum.net (I spent hundreds,
no make that thousands. of hours drawing those out), etc.
I have written a few (OK, very few) utilities, and have never charged for
any of them, and nor do I ever intend to.
very little if any for the software that makes the
machine usable. You do
not owe the world the source code for your hard work period. If people want
to use some of your code they should pay for it or write their own. Sales
Next time somebody here asks for a sevice manual, or a schematic, or a
pinout, or... I will not bother to look it up for them. I will simply
point out that you can deduce the necessary information from the machine,
from data sheets available on the net (and you'll
have to go and find
them) and a few hours with a mulitmeter. I won't bother
pointing out
useful repair tricks, it took me time to discrover them, why should I
help you.
should be a yardstick to measure if continuing the
development of the
utility is worth the effort. Sooner or later the people who needed the
utility will already have it, at that point you can quit developing and
destroy the source code or release it in any manner you like. Why do I get
the feeling that people who push really hard for open sourcing just want to
use your knowledge and time for free in their projects?
So now you're claiming that all users of linux and *BSD are plagarists.
Yes, I will admit I've used ideas from open-source programs in my own
programs. Yes, I will also admit that I've looked at published schematics
and thought 'hey, that's a neat trick to save a few ns of delay', and
used something similar in my own design. If the trick is significant, it
gets an acknowledgement of the form 'Using a mux to decode the signals
{foo...barr} was inspired by the DEC KT11-C schematic'
That, IMHO, is a far cry from ripping off somebody's work. Or do you want
to re-invent the wheel every time.
Can any programmer or electronic designer honestly claim to have never
read somebody else's code/schematics and taken ideas from it? Because I
would doubt it.
To get back to disk imaging, I may be stupid, but I do wonder if it's
actually possible to write such a program to run under linux or any other
multi-tasking system.
It is relatively easy to write a program to dump an image back to a
physical disk. I've done similar things several times for specific disk
formats (in particular TRS-80 M2/M4 and HP LIF). To do the reverse -- to
imagge a disk _once the format is known_ is also easy.
The problem comes with discovering the format. I've read and re-read the
8272 and 765 data sheets. From what I can see the only way to see what
sectors are on the current track is to use the ReadID command. This
returns the ID bytes from the next sector header to pass under the head.
There is no way to automatically dump all the IDs from all the sectors
from index pulse to the next index pulse (if there is,
can somebody
please enlighten me).
On a single-tasking OS, you could submit another ReadID command as soon
as you get the reuslts from the current one, and keep on going until you
read the same ID again. That way you will hopefully have read all the
headers on a track (hope you don't miss any ;-)). On a multi-tasking
machine it seems to be hopeless. Your task could be switched out during
this operation, you will then miss some sectors, you will not discover
all the IDs.
If I am missing something, please enlighten me (point me to the
appropriate section of the Intel or NEC datasheets, for example. I have
both). If not, then why did nobody point this out <n> days ago, in which
case this whole flamefest could have been seriously reduced.
-tony