27 Aug
1999
27 Aug
'99
12:31 p.m.
please see embedded comments below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu Date: Friday, August
27, 1999 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: PDP era and a question
[...]
> In yesterday's newspaper I noted that the local discount house (Best-Buy
for
a
Well, first of all, I think it's nice that the mfg's of these devices have
made it possible to do this work on machines costing less than a year's pay,
and if there were enough business to justify it, they'd make it possible for
you to build their devices on your HP calculator or whatever you prefer.
It's just a question of how badly you want to do it. If I didn't want to
spend the necessary money, I'd not be able to do it either. Now, I don't
know why you can't get a job. There are lots of people here in the US who
are in the same boat. If you have some physical disability, or
mental/emotional impairment, though, there are programs here and I'd be
surprised if there weren't some similar programs in the UK to "help" you
get
a low-cost PC if there are any indications at all that you'd be able to
produce useful work translatable in to substantial gainful activity with it
at your disposal.
However, if you can't get a job because you categorically refuse to learn to
use the PC because you find the Microsoft OS repugnant, I'd predict you'll
remain so.
> I recently read that the folks who sell these FPGA's have no problem at
all
Well, it's not likely that you'll encounter much cooperation in your
effort
to convince the world to share its secrets. These days, when patents are of
no use because the market window is shorter than the delay getting to court,
the only way people can defend what they perceive to be their turf is by
keeping it "close to the vest" like a hand of cards.
.>Not really. Even if I could buy a source
license, that wouldn't give me
>the right to pass the sources around. About the only way to get to do
>that is to buy the company (:-)).
It's absolutely open source, if that's
how you want to handle it, once you
buy the right to do so. I don't mean buy a copy. I mean buy ALL the
rights. Once you've acquired all the rights, by paying for them, I doubt
you'll want to give them away by making them freely distributable.
>> all of us are willing to pay the required 6.23*10^23 bucks for what we'd
>> otherwise get for less than $1k for just the objects.
>Again, I am not asking for the
'official' sources. Just for the ability
>to write my own.
Perhaps if you inquire about obtaining those
rights, you'll see what value
they are perceived to represent. Dealing with the numbers helps put things
in to prespective.
I'm surprised that there was a commonly available scf2xnf (or whatever it
was called) translator, since that essentially reverse engineered your
product for your competitor, but it would surprise me even more for the
vendor to provide you the ability to see how they've enhanced their parts if
that's reflected in their configuration files.
Nevertheless, perhaps you need to back away from your devotion to the
absolute notion of fully open source in favor of a really efficient,
particularly cost-efficient, PDP whatever you want to build. If you need to
have sources in order to fix what you consider to be an annoying bug in the
software tools with which the FPGA is to be devised, I'd point out that
noone else is able to fix it either. Sometimes it's necessary to live with
those "bugs" which annoy you most.
>-tony
>
> >Firstly, it doesn't matter how cheap the software is if you can't
use
it.
It depends more on how you define "can't" than anything else, though.
"Can't" is quite simple : I can't execute the software on that
disk/CD-ROM on any computer that I currently own. Period.
> those who care) was offering a major-brand 350 MHz
Celeron-based computer
> system without monitor but with AGP video, 6.4 GB HDD, 64 MB memory,
CDROM,
FDD, v.90
modem, keyboard, all for $399 US. A really nice (I recently
They're a little more in the UK, although I think I've seen similar
machines advertised here for \pounds 399 or thereabouts.
> bought one when the "appropriate display" (19") mentioned above
developed > margin problem.) 17" monitor for $199. That
means that for what I
typically
> earn in a couple or three days after taxes and
expenses, I can buy a
whole
computer
system capable of doing this FPGA stuff.
OK for you. Remember I can't get a job. After 'essentials', I would have
to save for about a year to get a machine like that. And there are other
things I put somewhat higher on my priority list as I already have plenty
of useable computer systems for everything else I want to do.
Please note, I am not saying that the FPGA manufacturers should support
all the possible choices of machine and OS. Just that I wish that _one_
of them would provide enough information for me to support them myself.
The reality of the matter is that these device vendors, of whom I would
assume it could be said they're in a good position to make such a
determination, have decided that it's worth their effort to invest the
effort and money in creating support tools for the PC running Windows 9x and
not the PDP-8S or whatever, running something else. This is not my
preference either, since I like and trust DOS much more than the WINDOWS
varieties, but then, they no longer put out tools for the MAC either, not
that I'd use one even if they were free.
> giving you the necessary data to enable you to
configure their parts.
They
won't give
you a disassembly tool or whatever that would be, but they'll
Interesting. That's exactly the opposite of my experiences with Xilinx
when I used the official toolkit in my last job (XC3000 and XC4000 parts
mostly).
There was a _supplied_ program that would take a configuration bitstream
and turn it back into a CLB + interconnect map - essentially a
disassembler. Of course turning that map into a schematic was a lot of
work, but the 'secret' part was there.
But no way would they tell us what any of the bits in the configuration
file actually meant.
I am told they might have supplied some documentation under an NDA, but
that's no use for open-source software, of course.
> >Secondly, I like all my software to be open-source so that I can fix
> >bugs. Now, I can quite understand why commercial software isn't like
> >this. What I am commenting on is the fact that I _can't_ write my own
> >FPGA tools if I wanted to.
> > All software is open-source if you have the
dough to buy the sources.
Not