--- In , "Oliver Betz" <list_ob@g...> wrote: > theobee00 wrote: > > [...] > > > Sorry Oliver, I meant flack in the sense somebody might start taking shots at you. > > > > I understand NoIce not to be freeware:-) > > it was the first entry in the "Shareware" section of my mail, not > freeware. It is neither, extract from NoIce; ------------------- NoICE is not free software. Don't be a parasite: if you use it, pay for it. Your purchase entitles you to free upgrades to any new versions of NoICE which may be released within one year of the date of purchase. It also encourages us to continue spending time improving NoICE. ------------------- Hence my little bit of Oz colloquial, sorry about the confusion, was my foreign accent... Regards, Theo

Bob Furber wrote: > > > Hmm, I had a look as well, and their credentials aren't all bad... > > > > I don't care about credentials if I can look at the product. _Did_ > > you look at the code? > > Is it really a product? not so important, IMHO. > I got the impression that they are proposing an open standard. whether or not, it's program code intended to be used. In cars! > I believe you have access to the code. If you don't like it, you can change > it. I have not more access than http://www.acelab.org/HAL/files.html (the link from Jay's OP). And I don't want to change it, I found it interesting that somebody tries to standardize the access to HC12 hardware and was curious how it is done. > But,the way I see it, the real question: Is there a place for a Hardware > Abstraction Layer? Or, in HAL's eyes, a STANDARD that outlines the functions > and structures used to access the hardware, regardless of the underlying > platform? Ack, that's an interesting question, because it's a compromise between standardized software interface and performance. Another question is: Isn't there already a standard - PE's beans which one can buy with CW? And is it possible to standardize access to hardware with so many configuration options without severe limitations? Although these questions are interesting, that's not what I wanted to discuss. I would like to know other people's opinion about the quality. Maybe we should post the link in comp.arch.embedded, what do you think, Jay? Oliver -- Oliver Betz, Muenchen

theobee00 wrote: [...] > Sorry Oliver, I meant flack in the sense somebody might start taking shots at you. > > I understand NoIce not to be freeware:-) it was the first entry in the "Shareware" section of my mail, not freeware. Oliver -- Oliver Betz, Muenchen

Gary Olmstead wrote: > >> You might get some flack on that one... > > > >excuse my ignorance, but my dictionary doesn't explain "flack" in a > >way that I could understand what you mean. > > > Well, since my dictionary defines "flack" as "press agent" I can see where > that would be a puzzle. :-). that was what I found with dict.leo.org and my dictionary. > However, a second entry says that "flack" is an alternate spelling of > "flak" which is short for Fliegerabwehrkanone; and I don't have to tell you > what that means :-). No, thanks for the explanation. Merriam-Webster OnLine (was inaccessible when I sent my mail to the list) explicitly mentions "criticism, opposition". And I received also the information (thanks to all who sent me a mail!) that The Oxford English Dictionary mentions "A blow, slap, or stroke". Oliver -- Oliver Betz, Muenchen

--- In , "Oliver Betz" <list_ob@g...> wrote: > theobee00 <yahoodump2@o...> wrote: > > [bad code from ACE Lab?] > > > Hmm, I had a look as well, and their credentials aren't all bad... > > I don't care about credentials if I can look at the product. _Did_ > you look at the code? I did, having only rudimentary C knowledge, I cannot comment on the quality other then that it seemed very well documented. It left me somewhat confused, on the one hand we have negative comments on the code quality by a couple of experts, on the other hand they seem prime movers in the Korean automotive field. They live in a building with a very imposing entrance indeed, have ten year contracts with Motorola and others, but their efforts seem to be focussed on a few development boards and the code is released under the GNU licence. Don't know what to think. Cheers, Theo

> > Hmm, I had a look as well, and their credentials aren't all bad... > > I don't care about credentials if I can look at the product. _Did_ > you look at the code? Is it really a product? I got the impression that they are proposing an open standard. I believe you have access to the code. If you don't like it, you can change it. But,the way I see it, the real question: Is there a place for a Hardware Abstraction Layer? Or, in HAL's eyes, a STANDARD that outlines the functions and structures used to access the hardware, regardless of the underlying platform? Bfn, Bob Furber __________________________________________________________ Connect your micro to the internet the easy way www.microcommander.com Microcontroller with an obscenity of I/O & features ..in a small footprint www.steroidmicros.com __________________________________________________________

--- In , "Oliver Betz" <list_ob@g...> wrote: > > > Besides the GNU/Linux systems _most_ of the internet > > > web/mail/news/etc. servers rely on, I list some of the _free_ > > > software I work with because of it's high quality: > > > > > NoICE debugger > > > > You might get some flack on that one... > > excuse my ignorance, but my dictionary doesn't explain "flack" in a > way that I could understand what you mean. Sorry Oliver, I meant flack in the sense somebody might start taking shots at you. I understand NoIce not to be freeware:-) Regards, Theo

At 03:41 PM 2/16/04 +0100, you wrote: >theobee00 wrote: > >> >> You might get some flack on that one... > >excuse my ignorance, but my dictionary doesn't explain "flack" in a >way that I could understand what you mean. > Well, since my dictionary defines "flack" as "press agent" I can see where that would be a puzzle. :-). However, a second entry says that "flack" is an alternate spelling of "flak" which is short for Fliegerabwehrkanone; and I don't have to tell you what that means :-). Gary Olmstead Toucan Technology Ventura CA

At 09:47 AM 2/16/04 +0000, you wrote: >--- In , Gary Olmstead <garyolmstead@e...> wrote: >> At 11:03 PM 2/15/04 +0100, you wrote: >> >"hc08jb8" wrote: >> >I had a really short look at it... >> > >> Me too.... > >Hmm, I had a look as well, and their credentials aren't all bad... > Which says nothing about their code.... Gary Olmstead Toucan Technology Ventura CA