User avatar
cheery
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: Game Console OS

Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:07 pm

DexOS wrote:Yes, me and Dave are coding a small R-PI OS that could be used for this, if enough support was gotten.
We have already got a basic graphic to work on a bare bones R-PI
Image
Theres also a x86 ver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJx2zZK7c8
The x86 ver is small only 60k, including full tcp/ip stack.
But it only worth doing if enough people want it.
Can you share the source? Then it's worth doing it anyway. :]

User avatar
DexOS
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:32 pm
Contact: Website

Re: Game Console OS

Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:03 pm

cheery wrote:
DexOS wrote:Yes, me and Dave are coding a small R-PI OS that could be used for this, if enough support was gotten.
We have already got a basic graphic to work on a bare bones R-PI
Image
Theres also a x86 ver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJx2zZK7c8
The x86 ver is small only 60k, including full tcp/ip stack.
But it only worth doing if enough people want it.
Can you share the source? Then it's worth doing it anyway. :]
In my last project DexOS, i went fully open source.
But i have had very bad experiences with open source.
Open source is about sharing and giving back and in return you get help with your projects.

Thats fine if your well known in the open source community, but if not, it means you get no help and your code ripped off.

Your project is of know use, other than the code.
Well i am on the fence, but unless i have a good reason i will only share with coders that help with the project.
Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Game Console OS

Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:16 pm

DexOS wrote:In my last project DexOS, i went fully open source.
But i have had very bad experiences with open source.
Open source is about sharing and giving back and in return you get help with your projects.

Thats fine if your well known in the open source community, but if not, it means you get no help and your code ripped off.

Your project is of know use, other than the code.
Well i am on the fence, but unless i have a good reason i will only share with coders that help with the project.
That's sad. How much have you personally taken from the open source community (in terms of devices running Linux / *BSD, source code, snippets of code, all that jazz) over the years, without giving anything back? Yeah, probably at least as much as I have, as we all have. "Getting your code ripped off" is painful when looked at one way (I don't know what license you released under, but most licenses allow for legal recourse), but on the other hand, it's kinda flattering.

Funny thing is, sharing with people works, and can pay off, sometimes years later. As an example, some years ago, I got rather cross with Wacom, who had "Steved" their ADB range of tablets to coincide with the release of OSX. Obviously, this was mere weeks after I'd bought a rather expensive ADB-equipped A4 Ultrapad. When I contacted Wacom to offer help developing drivers, I was told that the driver model in OSX didn't allow for the throughput that the ADB tablets required, and therefore the tablets were definitively, and totally, unsupported. In addition, they couldn't tell me anything about the protocols used, "trade secrets" and all that jazz. Hooray.

Fast forwards a few years. I'm still feeling rancourous, but happen upon a tool to "sniff" the ADB bus using 2 old macs, a couple of dissected cables, and a few passives. So I dug down to the back of the cupboard-o-dusty-crap, pulled out my still-boxed tablet, hooked everything up and started sniffing. Within a few hours, I had my head around the (rather simple) protocol used for this particular range of tablets, and had it pretty much fully documented. Documented enough that I could get a driver up and running within a couple of days, and under OSX 10.2 it was working fine.

Fast forward another few years. I no longer have a Mac with an ADB port, so my tablet has, again, fallen into disuse (and the driver has succumbed to a certain amount of bitrot). But I happen upon the iMate USB-ADB adaptor, and manage to pick one up for next to nothing. The only problem being that this, also, had no drivers. A bit of googling and some hopeful emailing later, I came across someone who had reverse-engineered the original driver and was willing to share his findings. So, another driver was born, and, once again, my tablet was hooked up and working. This time under OSX 10.4

Time passed, and I got fed up with maintaining my own branch of Apple's ADB controller code (which had gone the way of the dodo along with the last partially ADB-equipped macs, the Powerbook G4 range). So the drivers and tablet succumbed, once again, to the years (although they are still on the great internets, along with my original documentation from all those years ago).

Then I got an email out of the blue from a bloke who was trying to take a hardware approach to the problem. "Did I know anything about ADB tablets?", he asked. And he got a big fat briandump. And then for months I didn't hear anything from him, until he sent me a link to his project, which uses a tiny little microcontroller to turn old, unloved Wacoms into shiny new(ish) Wacoms. "Cool", I thought, and filed it away for further reference.

Today, with the help of my trusty stanley knife and glue gun, I retrofitted my tablet with a tiny little microcontroller, driven by code written to documentation I wrote 8 years ago and gave away for free.

On Monday, I'll probably receive the ADB Intuos tablet I ordered on "leboncoin.fr", and I'll get down to decrypting that one, too. And yes, I will be giving the results away. Partly as a two-finger salute to Wacom, who still view that information as "trade secrets", and partly because I've taken a lot from the community, so I should give some back. And I'll probably give the ultrapad to a friend of mine, who's even poorer than I am.

Simon

User avatar
DexOS
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:32 pm
Contact: Website

Re: Game Console OS

Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:29 pm

tufty wrote:
DexOS wrote:In my last project DexOS, i went fully open source.
But i have had very bad experiences with open source.
Open source is about sharing and giving back and in return you get help with your projects.

Thats fine if your well known in the open source community, but if not, it means you get no help and your code ripped off.

Your project is of know use, other than the code.
Well i am on the fence, but unless i have a good reason i will only share with coders that help with the project.
That's sad. How much have you personally taken from the open source community (in terms of devices running Linux / *BSD, source code, snippets of code, all that jazz) over the years, without giving anything back? Yeah, probably at least as much as I have, as we all have. "Getting your code ripped off" is painful when looked at one way (I don't know what license you released under, but most licenses allow for legal recourse), but on the other hand, it's kinda flattering.

Funny thing is, sharing with people works, and can pay off, sometimes years later. As an example, some years ago, I got rather cross with Wacom, who had "Steved" their ADB range of tablets to coincide with the release of OSX. Obviously, this was mere weeks after I'd bought a rather expensive ADB-equipped A4 Ultrapad. When I contacted Wacom to offer help developing drivers, I was told that the driver model in OSX didn't allow for the throughput that the ADB tablets required, and therefore the tablets were definitively, and totally, unsupported. In addition, they couldn't tell me anything about the protocols used, "trade secrets" and all that jazz. Hooray.

Fast forwards a few years. I'm still feeling rancourous, but happen upon a tool to "sniff" the ADB bus using 2 old macs, a couple of dissected cables, and a few passives. So I dug down to the back of the cupboard-o-dusty-crap, pulled out my still-boxed tablet, hooked everything up and started sniffing. Within a few hours, I had my head around the (rather simple) protocol used for this particular range of tablets, and had it pretty much fully documented. Documented enough that I could get a driver up and running within a couple of days, and under OSX 10.2 it was working fine.

Fast forward another few years. I no longer have a Mac with an ADB port, so my tablet has, again, fallen into disuse (and the driver has succumbed to a certain amount of bitrot). But I happen upon the iMate USB-ADB adaptor, and manage to pick one up for next to nothing. The only problem being that this, also, had no drivers. A bit of googling and some hopeful emailing later, I came across someone who had reverse-engineered the original driver and was willing to share his findings. So, another driver was born, and, once again, my tablet was hooked up and working. This time under OSX 10.4

Time passed, and I got fed up with maintaining my own branch of Apple's ADB controller code (which had gone the way of the dodo along with the last partially ADB-equipped macs, the Powerbook G4 range). So the drivers and tablet succumbed, once again, to the years (although they are still on the great internets, along with my original documentation from all those years ago).

Then I got an email out of the blue from a bloke who was trying to take a hardware approach to the problem. "Did I know anything about ADB tablets?", he asked. And he got a big fat briandump. And then for months I didn't hear anything from him, until he sent me a link to his project, which uses a tiny little microcontroller to turn old, unloved Wacoms into shiny new(ish) Wacoms. "Cool", I thought, and filed it away for further reference.

Today, with the help of my trusty stanley knife and glue gun, I retrofitted my tablet with a tiny little microcontroller, driven by code written to documentation I wrote 8 years ago and gave away for free.

On Monday, I'll probably receive the ADB Intuos tablet I ordered on "leboncoin.fr", and I'll get down to decrypting that one, too. And yes, I will be giving the results away. Partly as a two-finger salute to Wacom, who still view that information as "trade secrets", and partly because I've taken a lot from the community, so I should give some back. And I'll probably give the ultrapad to a friend of mine, who's even poorer than I am.

Simon
I have never used any code from linux or any other open source software. you seem to be missing the point for example, i use linux OS, but i do not look at or need any of the source code.
I did not say i will not give the OS away for free, i said the code.
Open source has killed programming and now it wants to kill hardware.
I have a good mind to to start a charity to make electronic kits and sell them at cost price and see how they like it, ( i have no problem with charity's like R-PI or co that sell electronic devices), but the so called "maker movement" that killed software and now make money from kits.
we hippy's give the software for free its valueless, but we are getting rich selling kits :x
Last edited by DexOS on Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

User avatar
Dave_G_2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Re: Game Console OS

Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:49 pm

@tufty
To me it seems your example is motivated by revenge rather then goodwill.
We all give and take in different ways and giving away the source code is not a prerequisite
to giving back.

We all use apps such as text editors, hex editors, web browsers and so on and in many cases the
source code is available but how many have actually bothered or had a need to look at it.
The mere fact that these apps are available for use at no cost is a contribution.

In fact it's pretty much what Broadcom is doing with the blob, anyone can use it but the source code
is not available.
Does this mean that they have not made a contribution or helped free software?

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Game Console OS

Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:25 am

DexOS wrote:I have never used any code from linux or any other open source software. you seem to be missing the point for example, i use linux OS, but i do not look at or need any of the source code.
Missing the point? If you're using *any* operating system out there, you're using an OS based on collaboration and free sharing of code. Linux is built on that concept, The kernel and command-line userland of OSX likewise. Windows uses significant amounts of BSD licenced code.

So you've never used any linux or other open source code. Never checked the ARM site and used snippets posted there? Intel's site? Never used StackOverflow? Every piece of code you've ever written is entirely "all me own work, guv", totally free from "reading a piece of code to understad how something works", through "I'll use that snippet"? Bull.
DexOS wrote:I did not say i will not give the OS away for free, i said the code.
That's your choice. But when you die, your code dies with you. I think it's a shame that you're trying to do something on a platform designed for educational usage, and to which the source code, in of itself, could be a valuable educational resource. On the other hand, maybe you're afraid to take criticism of your code, or think that you might be able to make money off the back of it. Fair enough, but it's a shame in any case.

Realistically speaking, the operating system kernel is now a commodity item. You're never going to make money off one, and you're highly unlikely to ever "break into the market", regardless of source status. But writing an OS kernel is an interesting task, and one that is useful as a learning exercise, even if you're only "following along".
DexOS wrote:Open source has killed programming and now it wants to kill hardware.
I'll refrain from saying what I actually think of that comment, as it would probably get me banhammered for a number of reasons, and just say that I believe you are wrong on all counts.
Dave_G_2 wrote:@tufty
To me it seems your example is motivated by revenge rather then goodwill.
We all give and take in different ways and giving away the source code is not a prerequisite
to giving back.
This particular example was and is, I will admit, motivated to a certain extent by rancour against the artificial end-of-lifing of hardware. On the other hand, the documentation and code I wrote is out there, it's usable by anyone who wishes to do so (and that has paid off - people *have* taken that code and done things with it). There's a whole load of other open source stuff I've released, from little snippets posted here and elsewhere, bugfix patches to other people's projects through to fully-fledged (and, in a good few cases, half-arsed) applications. And, within the licensing terms, that's also "for the taking".

Code is poetry. The goal is not to "make a name for myself", or to get rich. The goal is to release something that people might find useful. Even if they tear something apart and only use a tiny amount of it, or build on something half-finished to produce a work of beauty of their own. And no, I don't care if someone gets rich off the back of my work, as long as they respect the licensing terms I released that work under.

Broadcom don't want to / can't release the source code to "the blob", but that's not important either. It is, to my eyes, a shame, but they have their reasons (and it wouldn't be of much use to anyone other than their competitors). I'm actually less happy about the status of the OpenVG and OpenGL/ES implementations, but there appears to be at least some commitment to making those available.
Dave_G_2 wrote:We all use apps such as text editors, hex editors, web browsers and so on and in many cases the
source code is available but how many have actually bothered or had a need to look at it.
The best way of finding that out is to take something relatively trivial and looking at the list of contributors. GNU Emacs is probably a decent starting point. In fact, that's pretty heavy, but you might want to go down a level and look at who's contributed to just one of the packages that runs under emacs.

I just cloned the gnus git repository (the emacs newsreader) and ran the following:

Code: Select all

gnus simon$ git log --format=format:"%an" --all | uniq | wc -l
4562 distinct contributors for a package written in lisp and that's used for doing something most of the internet have forgotten about, and a lot of others wrapped up in the all-encompassing "Emacs developers".

So no, nobody bothers to look at the source code.

Simon

User avatar
Dave_G_2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:46 am

tufty wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote:@tufty
To me it seems your example is motivated by revenge rather then goodwill.
We all give and take in different ways and giving away the source code is not a prerequisite
to giving back.
This particular example was and is, I will admit, motivated to a certain extent by rancour against the artificial end-of-lifing of hardware. On the other hand, the documentation and code I wrote is out there, it's usable by anyone who wishes to do so (and that has paid off - people *have* taken that code and done things with it). There's a whole load of other open source stuff I've released, from little snippets posted here and elsewhere, bugfix patches to other people's projects through to fully-fledged (and, in a good few cases, half-arsed) applications. And, within the licensing terms, that's also "for the taking".
That is of course your choice and I too have released code snippets.
However it does not mean that every line of code that one writes must all of a sudden be released
into the public domain.
tufty wrote: Code is poetry. The goal is not to "make a name for myself", or to get rich. The goal is to release something that people might find useful.
A bit Utopian don't you think?
Nothing wrong with helping others but money makes the world go round.
Just because a app is released/given away without the source code, does not make it less useful.
If that was the case, then Windows and Mac would not have the following they have.

I can just see the outcome:

Dave: "Boss, you know that firmware we spent weeks developing for our new set top box?"
Da Boss: "Yes, what about it?"
Dave: "I think we are being selfish by keeping it to ourselves, let's post it on the net, after all people
might want to look at it and it will enrich their usage of the product.
What the heck, let's throw in the PCB layout and schematics too"

Anybody wanna guess what da bosses reply will be?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are different levels of software just like in hardware.
If one goes out and buys a kit, then yes you get the parts, the layout, the schematics and sometimes
even any software and firmware binaries and source.
However when buying any other electronic item, when last did you get everything?
Everyone accepts this, why should software/apps be any different?
tufty wrote: Broadcom don't want to / can't release the source code to "the blob", but that's not important either. It is, to my eyes, a shame, but they have their reasons (and it wouldn't be of much use to anyone other than their competitors).
More then likely you are correct in that having the source code wouldn't help, but it hasn't stopped
people in their thousands from using the blob and they have protected their IP and investment.
Yes, I would like to look at the source code too, but I respect their decision and move on.
tufty wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote:We all use apps such as text editors, hex editors, web browsers and so on and in many cases the
source code is available but how many have actually bothered or had a need to look at it.
The best way of finding that out is to take something relatively trivial and looking at the list of contributors. GNU Emacs is probably a decent starting point. In fact, that's pretty heavy, but you might want to go down a level and look at who's contributed to just one of the packages that runs under emacs.

I just cloned the gnus git repository (the emacs newsreader) and ran the following:
[....]
So no, nobody bothers to look at the source code.
I said most don't bother to read the source.

User avatar
DexOS
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:32 pm
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:19 pm

@tufty Your contradicting yourself, you say the raspberry pi binary blob does not need to be open, but others code does.
If the binary blob source was open, there would be no need for my source, it would also have no value.

And if Broadcom wants to keep its source close, well then that's up to then and they have every right.
I think there a lot of fairy tales about open source, get real, the only one's who its benefited is big Co.
Take a look at who the real winners are Apple (BSD), google android (linux) and many more big Co.
So open source as ended up has the cheapest cheap labor possible (free).

I will give you another example MenuetOS great asm OS, open source for a number years, until he seen what open source gave him, now its closed source.

And remember i did not say others will not see it, but only coders wanting to be part of the project, plus here my contribution to open source
http://www.dex-os.com
Wheres your ?.

And the remarks about making money from it, is laughable, know one make money other than big Co.
Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:42 pm

DexOS wrote:@tufty Your contradicting yourself, you say the raspberry pi binary blob does not need to be open, but others code does.
I never said that. I just pointed out that it is a shame, IMO, that yours won't be.

Simon

Bakul Shah
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:25 am

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:04 pm

DexOS wrote:In my last project DexOS, i went fully open source.
But i have had very bad experiences with open source.
Open source is about sharing and giving back and in return you get help with your projects.

Thats fine if your well known in the open source community, but if not, it means you get no help and your code ripped off.
The "return" you get can come in many forms. Peer respect, consulting/contracting opportunities, fame, satisfaction of knowing your code is being useful, seeing your project continues with other people chipping in, etc. etc. Example: a few months ago during random googling I found out that the ARM folks are using a verilog parser I wrote about 20 years ago. I was happy that something I wrote in my spare time is being useful. I don't know in what form and I don't care if they make money with it!

But I wouldn't say everyone must open source their code. If anything I would prefer that people open source only the code that they are really *proud* of!

Corporations tend to be far more paranoid about sharing code but often they have code they don't ship and by open sourcing it they could help themselves (goodwill at the very least) and help others. Curiously, the same paranoia makes them release this code under GPL since they don't want their competitors to make money with it! Another reason I don't like the copyleft (anyway, that is a separate discussion).

User avatar
Dave_G_2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:58 am

I really can't understand this whole "you must share your source" stuff which seems to be mainly
a Linux thing.
With Windows software, it's the exception rather then the rule that source code is supplied with
free software but somehow as soon as it has anything to do with Linux, it's expected.
Along with this thinking comes the belief that the R-Pi is somehow the sole preserve of Linux.
Well it ain't.
It just so happens that the first few OSes available for it are Linux.

I have used countless free Windows apps and not once was the source code available.
Perhaps it's because Linux is open source, somehow all software written for it must automatically
be open source too, well it doesn't and there are thousands of companies using Linux on their products and very little of it is open source, some is free yes, but not open source.

I've heard the argument that making software open source promotes learning and understanding.
To a certain extent it does but the counter argument is that it promotes the "cut and paste" generation
and ultimately teaches nothing.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be open source projects, just that not all must be open source.

What I also don't agree with is that making software open source somehow increases your
employment opportunities.
If your software is good, then it will be noticed, open source or not.
Let's take the guys at sysinternals.com as an example, they made darn good software,
Microsoft noticed this and bought them out.
None of their stuff was open source that I know of.
I can hear some of you saying "Microsoft only bought them out to stop them".
That may be so, but they made good money out of it and can now probably afford to stay at home
and write more software and some of it may even land up as open source.
I seriously doubt that the outcome would have been the same had they made their software open source.

Software (and hardware) is a bit like real life, you work, you get paid and give some of it away to charity.
Just like you won't give all your money away, you don't make all your software open source.

EDIT:

I'm not for a minute saying that Windows and Microsoft are somehow better then Linux.
I use both and each has it's pros and cons.
Just thought I'd clear that up before someone accuses me of being a fan boy of either OS.

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:35 am

Dave_G_2 wrote:I really can't understand this whole "you must share your source" stuff which seems to be mainly
a Linux thing.
It's not "you must", it's a choice that you have.

I suspect a lot of the disconnect people have here is driven by the difference between the business of computer programming, and the study of computer science.

Business has always, more or less, kept its secrets to itself, with knowhow passed from master to apprentice via whispers and crafts guilds. The idea being that secrets are best kept secret, otherwise people might realise how easy it is, and you're no longer needed. Or other people might set up doing the same thing as you only cheaper, and steal all your clients.

Science, on the other hand, has (at least, until fairly recently) been based upon peer review, upon the sharing of work.

The goal of the Pi is not "making money" (although there's nothing particularly stopping anyone doing that, nor would I try to dissuade anyone from doing so) - it's teaching children about computer science. Teaching, of course, is another thing that is based upon sharing of knowledge. If it were not, maths class would be "This is your calculator. Carry on." Teaching computer science requires the ability to see how, and understand why, things are done in the way they are.

So, DexOS says
DexOS wrote:We want people to want the real time bare metal OS, that boots in a second, that lets you have full hardware access and can be programmed in basic, not how its coded.
...and I think it's him that's missing the point. If anyone really wants a bare metal OS that boots in a second, gives you full hardware access, and can be programmed in BASIC, there's very little stopping them doing it themselves - there are a large number of open or permissive licensed, trusted and sure, guaranteed realtime operating systems out there that target (amongst other processors) the ARM. Anyone who just wants to program in BASIC is usually gonna be better off taking one of the various BASICs out there and running it under Linux. That way they get accelerated graphics via OpenGL and all the good stuff that Linux gives (y'know, stuff like a choice of mature editors and so on). Or they could wait a few weeks and use RiscOS.

With operating systems, the implementation is usually far more interesting and useful than the actual end result.

My own OS is working along similar lines to DexOS's of course, but:

- Despite being aimed at producing a totally Scheme-based OS that's rather radically "different" to most OSs out ther, the core is not tied to any one language - it would be easy to use BASIC rather than Scheme (as long as you don't mind re-implementing drivers and so on)
- It's open sourced under the BSD license, so you can (and are encouraged to) do pretty much what you like with it, including developing a world-beating closed-source OS and becoming a multi-billionaire off the back of my hard work and never giving me a penny.
- I'm documenting the reasons behind the design and technical choices made, on my blog, as I go along. With code snippets. which you can also use to develop ... etc etc

... but that's just my choice. I don't expect armies of programmers to suddenly descend on me, offering help, I don't expect thanks, I don't even expect anyone apart from myself to run it. If the few people who have commented on my blog have taken something away from the process, that's enough.

Simon

User avatar
Dave_G_2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:46 am

tufty wrote: It's not "you must", it's a choice that you have.
and I have made mine.
tufty wrote: I suspect a lot of the disconnect people have here is driven by the difference between the business of computer programming, and the study of computer science.
The R-Pi can cater for both.
tufty wrote: Business has always, more or less, kept its secrets to itself, with knowhow passed from master to apprentice via whispers and crafts guilds. The idea being that secrets are best kept secret, otherwise people might realise how easy it is, and you're no longer needed. Or other people might set up doing the same thing as you only cheaper, and steal all your clients.
Exactly, got anything against businesses and commerce in general?
tufty wrote: Science, on the other hand, has (at least, until fairly recently) been based upon peer review, upon the sharing of work.
That is why I said that there are different projects.
Those that are open and those that are not.
Not all scientific work/research is open for peer review.
tufty wrote: The goal of the Pi is not "making money" (although there's nothing particularly stopping anyone doing that, nor would I try to dissuade anyone from doing so) -
I beg to differ, the manufacturers, the distributors and indeed the Foundation are making money
from the R-Pi.
Not to mention others selling accessories for it such as cases, interface boards and what not.
The amount and what it's used for is for another discussion, but the fact remains that they are.
The bottom line is that education is not free and there is nothing wrong with making money
from something that also can be a benefit to others.

Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe this whole "every thing must be free" attitude is actually
counter productive?
After all open source projects have been available for years and if they were so successful at promoting
programming amongst the youth (and others) why then did the Foundation decide to bring out the R-Pi
in an effort to rectify the current situation whereby each new generation knows less and less about
computers and programming?

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:17 am

Dave_G_2 wrote:
tufty wrote: I suspect a lot of the disconnect people have here is driven by the difference between the business of computer programming, and the study of computer science.
The R-Pi can cater for both.
...but is intended for one.
Dave_G_2 wrote:Exactly, got anything against businesses and commerce in general?
That sounds a lot like "What are you, some sort of stinkin' godless communist?".
The answer of course, being, "Don't be so damned stupid. I had a shower yesterday".
Dave_G_2 wrote:Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe this whole "every thing must be free" attitude is actually
counter productive?
After all open source projects have been available for years and if they were so successful at promoting
programming amongst the youth (and others) why then did the Foundation decide to bring out the R-Pi
in an effort to rectify the current situation whereby each new generation knows less and less about
computers and programming?
No, I must admit I've never stopped to think that. Because it's the most ridiculous straw man I've seen all morning. Maybe all week.

Thanks for playing, but I'll stop now.

Simon

User avatar
Dave_G_2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:04 am

tufty wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote:
tufty wrote: I suspect a lot of the disconnect people have here is driven by the difference between the business of computer programming, and the study of computer science.
The R-Pi can cater for both.
...but is intended for one.
Says whom?
Read the statements by the Foundation members again.
tufty wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote:Exactly, got anything against businesses and commerce in general?
That sounds a lot like "What are you, some sort of stinkin' godless communist?".
The answer of course, being, "Don't be so damned stupid. I had a shower yesterday".
Assumptions on your part.
Anyways, your words not mine.
tufty wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote:Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe this whole "every thing must be free" attitude is actually
counter productive?
After all open source projects have been available for years and if they were so successful at promoting
programming amongst the youth (and others) why then did the Foundation decide to bring out the R-Pi
in an effort to rectify the current situation whereby each new generation knows less and less about
computers and programming?
No, I must admit I've never stopped to think that. Because it's the most ridiculous straw man I've seen all morning. Maybe all week.
It seems to be the most used cop out on this forum, the straw man thing.
tufty wrote: Thanks for playing, but I'll stop now.
;)

P.S.
As regards to the URL, I expected more from you tufty.
Up to now our disagreement was a civil one, no need for abuse when you feel that you may just be wrong.

User avatar
DexOS
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:32 pm
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:29 pm

tufty wrote: So, DexOS says
DexOS wrote:We want people to want the real time bare metal OS, that boots in a second, that lets you have full hardware access and can be programmed in basic, not how its coded.
...and I think it's him that's missing the point. If anyone really wants a bare metal OS that boots in a second, gives you full hardware access, and can be programmed in BASIC, there's very little stopping them doing it themselves - there are a large number of open or permissive licensed, trusted and sure, guaranteed realtime operating systems out there that target (amongst other processors) the ARM.
The point is they can not, i have spent 10 year doing nothing but low level OS programming, many OS's are started, but very few get past the hello world stage.
Its a craft that takes time to learn and has very little value anymore, like you said yourself why do all that work, when you can use linux.

There is no bare metal R-PI OS, RiscOS is not in anyway a bare metal OS.
Dave_G_2 wrote: As regards to the URL, I expected more from you tufty.
Up to now our disagreement was a civil one, no need for abuse when you feel that you may just be wrong.
And i agree with Dave_G_2, no need to be uncivil, just because your wrong.
Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:07 pm

DexOS wrote:The point is they can not, i have spent 10 year doing nothing but low level OS programming, many OS's are started, but very few get past the hello world stage.
Its a craft that takes time to learn and has very little value anymore, like you said yourself why do all that work, when you can use linux.
What I was trying to get across is that, even if Linux / *BSD or one of the other open source *n*x OSs doesn't float your boat, there's very little point in wasting ten years of your time writing your own from scratch either - there are a multitude of tried and tested, open source or otherwise, kernels out there for pretty much every hardware family there is. So unless you're going to try and do something that's radically new (and in kernel space there's very little that's radically new) or have a particular goal in writing a kernel, you're as well off taking an existing kernel and porting it. It's usually not (that) much work, and if you choose your kernel with care, the majority of the stacks (USB, TCP/IP, framebuffer, etc) you need are already there, it's only the really low level driver code you need to worry about. Less code to write is, as I'm sure you're aware, less bugs introduced.
DexOS wrote:There is no bare metal R-PI OS, RiscOS is not in anyway a bare metal OS.
I know. However, for someone that wants to program at a lower level using BASIC, it's a pretty decent bet.
DexOS wrote:
Dave_G_2 wrote: As regards to the URL, I expected more from you tufty.
Up to now our disagreement was a civil one, no need for abuse when you feel that you may just be wrong.
And i agree with Dave_G_2, no need to be uncivil, just because your wrong.
Oh, I doubt you've even imagined how uncivil I can be.

Simon

User avatar
abishur
Posts: 4477
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:10 am
Location: USA
Contact: Website

Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:57 pm

I was asked to start this thread so people could debate the validity of open/closed sourced projects. I'd like to think the members of this forum are so awesome that a thread like this could exist perpetually with no issue, but let's be honest. This is a subject which for some reason people feel very passionately about. Ironically, these same people also often use one of the most locked down OSes I've ever seen, but whatever.

Keep it polite and do try and keep an open mind. There are perfectly valid scenarios where both sides are best, trying to pretend like one side is *always* the best options for *every* situation is a fanboi position that usually escalates into thread closure ;-)
Dear forum: Play nice ;-)

User avatar
MrBunsy
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:02 pm

If such a thread is going to exist, then I have a question I'd very much like answered: Richard Stallman and the free software institute seem to think that propriety software is actually immoral. But I can't for the life of me find out why. Does anyone know?

edit: woah, this was a thread a moment ago, and now it's not? what just happened?

User avatar
abishur
Posts: 4477
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:10 am
Location: USA
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:07 pm

MrBunsy wrote:edit: woah, this was a thread a moment ago, and now it's not? what just happened?
It's still a thread, I just moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here :-)
Dear forum: Play nice ;-)

User avatar
MrBunsy
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:09 pm

abishur wrote:
MrBunsy wrote:edit: woah, this was a thread a moment ago, and now it's not? what just happened?
It's still a thread, I just moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here :-)
mind==blown. You totally confused me for a moment :P

User avatar
johnbeetem
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:18 pm
Location: The Mountains
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:05 pm

MrBunsy wrote:If such a thread is going to exist, then I have a question I'd very much like answered: Richard Stallman and the free software institute seem to think that propriety software is actually immoral. But I can't for the life of me find out why. Does anyone know?
Here's a link to GNU's philosophy page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

One way proprietary software is immoral is that it prevents you as the user from using your computer as you see fit. It permits proprietary data formats so that you're locked into using a vendor's products once you start creating files in their format. It's as if Ford were to require you to use Ford gasoline. Was it immoral for IBM to insist that you had to use punched cards manufactured by IBM? Was it immoral for IBM to insist that its software could only be run on IBM hardware? Is it immoral for Microsoft to insist that ARM-based tablets that can run Windows 8 will only be able to run Windows 8?

Another way proprietary software is immoral is that you don't know what it's really doing. Would you like your cell phone to sit there recording every word you say whether you think the device is on or off, and then secretly upload it when you turn it on? With proprietary software you don't know if it's doing that and there's no way to find out.

Perhaps proprietary software is not inherently immoral, but it certainly can lead to immoral behavior. Free (libre) software protects you from this.

obarthelemy
Posts: 1399
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:53 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:01 am

I'm mighty glad I don't have to use only FOSS software though. Most of what I'm doing would not be possible then.

tufty
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:04 am

johnbeetem wrote:Was it immoral for IBM to insist that you had to use punched cards manufactured by IBM? Was it immoral for IBM to insist that its software could only be run on IBM hardware?
An interesting pair of questions, those, and which were largely at the core of the IBM antitrust investigation during the '70s and early '80s.

Taking the second one first, it was largely shocking because IBM were pretty much the first to unbundle software from hardware. And if they were selling the software separately, why couldn't I run it on (for example) my Amdahl. It's interesting to note that these days Apple and (and Google, to a certain extent) do this and nobody bats an eyelid.

The first one, and the assorted other "you can only use IBM disk packs with IBM mainframes" type rules, were a concerted attempt to lock everyone else out of the mainframe market. Yep, that was immoral, in my book.
Is it immoral for Microsoft to insist that ARM-based tablets that can run Windows 8 will only be able to run Windows 8?
Depends which way you look at it.

Looked at from the "you can only sell hardware that will run Win8 if it won't run anything else" perspective, yep, that looks pretty close to immoral. Quite how immoral is rather dependent on the amount of explicit or implied strongarming (if you'll excuse the pun) is going on behind the scenes.

On the other hand, looked at from the "you, the consumer, can only run this software on devices which are hardware restricted" point of view, it's not. Nobody is forcing people to run Win8/ARM, and although my personal belief is that you'd have to be an idiot to buy a piece of hardware you can't control, it's not exactly immoral. A fool and his money, and all that.

I'm in two minds about Stallman. On the one hand he can appear to be seriously over-the-top, and yet on the other he's visionary, not only predicting the way things would turn, but also providing a mindset to avert a danger nobody else had spotted.

Simon

User avatar
MrBunsy
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact: Website

Re: Open/Closed or Somewhere-in-between source?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:40 am

johnbeetem wrote:Perhaps proprietary software is not inherently immoral, but it certainly can lead to immoral behavior. Free (libre) software protects you from this.
That's the thing, it could be immoral, yes, by doing some of the things you've listed - though I don't think that locking you into their own ecosystem is necessarily immoral, you've always got the choice to simply not buy whatever it is (as tufty just said).

The fundamental thing I don't understand about the FSI is how they think not having full freedom over your software is immoral. I buy an amplifier - I don't get the circuit diagram, I buy a bottle of cider and I don't even get the ingredients! If someone sells software without the source, they're not lying to me, they're selling a binary and only a binary. I can buy it or not.

However we have law enforcement to protect ourselves from companies producing software which breaks the law, and there's nothing actually stopping someone writing open-source software which does illegal or immoral things too. I think the debian openssl debacle shows that people don't actually read the source to check things are secure.


note - this isn't meant to be attacking anyone, it's just I don't understand this "propietry software is immoral" thing and I'd rather like to try and work out the mindset behind it!

Return to “Off topic discussion”