Not for anything remotely serious though. You are FAR better off with an
eval of a commercial system.
>Using Free an OpenSource will reduce the cost of your budget.
Really?
However if you are in a commercial environment don't forget some decent
insurance......
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by mcu....@gmail.com●September 26, 20062006-09-26
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:58:30 +0100, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>The choice of RTOS is immaterial. People seriously underestimate the the
>>shift in mind set needed to move from non RTOS development to RTOS
>>development.
>
> I call it micro-computer brain damage.
>
Nice one.
Ian
Reply by Robert Adsett●August 31, 20062006-08-31
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <1156862296.343751.320620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >
> >cbarn24050@aol.com wrote:
> >> Chris Hills wrote:
> >> > Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?
> >>
> >> I guess it does depend on just how big the team is but you dont develop
> >> software on a compiler, you compile what you have written.
> >
> >Here we see another aspect of the problem.
> >
> >Some see software like a compiler as analogous to a tool like a
> >screwdriver. If one person isn't using it another can and perhaps at a
> >different location. It's not particularly tied to a person or a
> >location. Even with expensive tools like high speed oscilloscopes this
> >follows, it's laughable to think you would require permission from the
> >manufacturer for a second person to use the tool at another location.
>
> Not a problem.... but what happens when you want to use 3 screw drivers
> at once?
That depends, if one person needs multiple screwdirvers at once then
you need more than one. If it's more than one person other
possibilities open up. For a screwdriver that's only a few dollars it
makes sense to have multiples around, for a multi-million dollar
instrument it makes sense to have people share. A lot of tools lie
somewhere in between obviously. Also the border between sharing a
single tool and having individual tools varies tremendously from place
to place and depends on factors other than economics (even if they
shouldn't play a large role).
Robert
Reply by David Brown●August 31, 20062006-08-31
Andy Peters wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal
>> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software
>> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license. If
>> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have
>> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand.
>> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich
>> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as
>> the one it is familiar with.
>
> I've heard the "when I get rich I'll buy the product" argument before
> and I don't believe it for a second. What's the incentive, other than
> perhaps the threat of a lawsuit?
>
There always has to be an incentive - it's not going to happen by
itself. But it's easy enough to think when changes of philosophy might
happen, such as during expansion, or when buying up another company or
being bought out, or when working with more fussy clients. I agree it
is not going to happen on its own.
> Here's an example from a different market: a friend used to write
> plug-ins for DigiDesign's ProTools (the Microsoft Windows of the
> digital audio workstation market). He knew for a fact that producers
> were using pirated copies of his $250 products on songs that sold
> millions of copies. And it's not like those producers were writing big
> checks to my friend's company as a way of saying, "thanks."
>
> It got to the point where he estimated that for every legal customer
> there were easily a hundred cracked copies in use. Where's the
> incentive to make the next product?
>
Some of these copies should certainly have been sales, and are therefore
money lost to illegal copying. But a lot of those hundred copies,
frustrating and demoralising though they are, would never have been
sales. All I want to here is point out there are differences, and when
looking at lost sales due to illegal copying it is important to
understand those differences. I have even less idea where the balances
lie in your friend's market - that's up to him to find out. But
ultimately, the incentive boils down to whether he gets in enough money
from sales to cover the costs and make a profit - remember, a sale lost
to illegal copying is not money lost, it is money not earned.
> (Coda: DigiDesign ultimately "made 'em an offer they couldn't refuse,"
> no horse-head in the bed needed, and bought out my friend and his
> partner. I guess that's one way of making money in that business.
> Probably the only way.)
>
It certainly is one way to make money, and a path taken by many
developers. Each case is different, each developer is different - some
want control of everything, others are happy to stick to the development
and let someone else handle the business side.
> -a
>
Reply by Kevin D. Quitt●August 30, 20062006-08-30
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:58:30 +0100, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The choice of RTOS is immaterial. People seriously underestimate the the
>shift in mind set needed to move from non RTOS development to RTOS
>development.
I call it micro-computer brain damage.
--
_
Kevin "What do you mean I can't write on the disk registers?" Quitt
96.37% of all Statistics are Made Up.
Reply by Andy Peters●August 30, 20062006-08-30
David Brown wrote:
> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal
> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software
> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license. If
> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have
> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand.
> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich
> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as
> the one it is familiar with.
I've heard the "when I get rich I'll buy the product" argument before
and I don't believe it for a second. What's the incentive, other than
perhaps the threat of a lawsuit?
Here's an example from a different market: a friend used to write
plug-ins for DigiDesign's ProTools (the Microsoft Windows of the
digital audio workstation market). He knew for a fact that producers
were using pirated copies of his $250 products on songs that sold
millions of copies. And it's not like those producers were writing big
checks to my friend's company as a way of saying, "thanks."
It got to the point where he estimated that for every legal customer
there were easily a hundred cracked copies in use. Where's the
incentive to make the next product?
(Coda: DigiDesign ultimately "made 'em an offer they couldn't refuse,"
no horse-head in the bed needed, and bought out my friend and his
partner. I guess that's one way of making money in that business.
Probably the only way.)
-a
Reply by Ian Bell●August 30, 20062006-08-30
Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:26:31 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
> <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>>> From the point of view of simple economics it is often worth it to save
>>> the extra component and introduce an RTOS and a good debugger in such a
>>> design.
>>
>> This is seriously wrong especially where no RTOS was in use before - it
>> is just asking for a whole bunch of quite unnecessary headaches,
>> heartaches,
>> late nights and seriously dodgy products.
>
> Assuming you speak from first-hand experience, I guess you must have
> encountered the bad RTOSes only.
>
>
The choice of RTOS is immaterial. People seriously underestimate the the
shift in mind set needed to move from non RTOS development to RTOS
development.
Ian
Reply by Boudewijn Dijkstra●August 30, 20062006-08-30
Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:26:31 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
<ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>> From the point of view of simple economics it is often worth it to save
>> the extra component and introduce an RTOS and a good debugger in such a
>> design.
>
> This is seriously wrong especially where no RTOS was in use before - it
> is just asking for a whole bunch of quite unnecessary headaches,
> heartaches,
> late nights and seriously dodgy products.
Assuming you speak from first-hand experience, I guess you must have
encountered the bad RTOSes only.
--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply by Chris Hills●August 29, 20062006-08-29
In article <1156862296.343751.320620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>
>cbarn24050@aol.com wrote:
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>> > >> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
>> > >> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
>> > >> one compiler for any given target....
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler
>> >
>> > Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?
>>
>> I guess it does depend on just how big the team is but you dont develop
>> software on a compiler, you compile what you have written.
>
>Here we see another aspect of the problem.
>
>Some see software like a compiler as analogous to a tool like a
>screwdriver. If one person isn't using it another can and perhaps at a
>different location. It's not particularly tied to a person or a
>location. Even with expensive tools like high speed oscilloscopes this
>follows, it's laughable to think you would require permission from the
>manufacturer for a second person to use the tool at another location.
Not a problem.... but what happens when you want to use 3 screw drivers
at once?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/