27 Apr
2013
27 Apr
'13
12:02 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:45:10PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
In my case, I don;'t want to depnd on anything that I can't repair or
maintain. This doesn't mean it has to be 'open'. I am quite happy to buy
a service manual anf accept that it is a copyrighted work that I can't
pass on copies of, and that I cannont use it for manufacturing similar
devices.
Similarly I am happy (if I can afford it!) to pay for a source license
for a piexe of software so that I can maintain (and modify) the version I
run. But practialyl the easiest way to get source code is to choose
open-source pacakges in the first palce :-)
I'm _especially_ against
having to use their choice of compiler - which, as I noted a message or
two ago, probably won't run on either the OS or the CPU architecture I
want to run it on even if I were willing to run it.
I certainly get that. For me it's a matter of categories. I can't get the
source code or schematics for my microwave oven, but
while I'd certainly enjoy
Odd... A lot of domestic appliances here have a scheamtic stuck inside.
Of course it doesn't docuemtent the itnernals of the PCBs (timer, etc).
having them, it's fiiiine. It's just an
appliance. It's irritating being
Yes, and when it fails at 23:00 on 24 December, you will wish you had a
scheamtic so you can replace the transistor that failed with one from the
junk box....
Incidetnalyl, getting back to FPGA design,.I have done it. I would do it
again if paid. But I didn;'t enjoy it. In fact I think I hated every
darn minute of itm and would not condier such devices for a project I was
doing for my own enjoyment.
This is artly due to the closed nature of the tools (and the fact that
you can't wrtie your own), it's more that there are too may 'levels'
between your scheamtic or VHDL program and the actual hardware, which
many of the translatiuons being essentuially undocumented. I found I
could get a lot more done -- more quickly and more reliably -- using
simple ICs than FPGAs.
-tony