On 2016-01-05, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester <wirklich@nicht.at> wrote:> On January 5th, 2016, Grant Edwards sent: >"On 2016-01-05, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester <wirklich@nicht.at> wrote: >> >>> During the previous decade I reported a mistake in documentation >>> to STMicroelectronics therefore instead of deciding to simply add >>> a correction, STMicroelectronics threatened to sue us. Grow up. >> >>STM threatened to sue you for reporting an STM documentation error >>to STM?" > > Precisely.Except in a different sub-thread, you state that the phone call was about your possession of a confidential document that STM didn't think you should have. That's a bit different than threatening to sue you for reporting a documentation error. I'm not saying that the phone call wasn't in error, but is it possible they were calling because they thought you didn't have the proper NDA in place to posess the document rather than because you reported a mistake? [Is there any way you can turn off the ASCII-box-drawing stuff for quoted content and quote things the normal way? The box makes it hard to re-flow quoted material.] -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Give them RADAR-GUIDED at SKEE-BALL LANES and gmail.com VELVEETA BURRITOS!!
RTOS popularity
Started by ●December 26, 2015
Reply by ●January 5, 20162016-01-05
Reply by ●January 5, 20162016-01-05
On 1/5/2016 1:43 PM, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester wrote:> On January 5th, 2016, Rickman sent: > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > |"On 1/5/2016 1:17 PM, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester > wrote: | > |> On January 5th, 2016, Rickman > sent: | > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> |"Can you post the > letter?" || > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> > | > |> > Hi: > | > |> > | > |> No - it was a telephone call to a then > boss. | > |> > | > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> |"Exactly what did they want to sue you > for?" || > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> > | > |> NDA so-called violation but STMicroelectronics did not get very > far | > |> with this because there was no NDA > violation. | > |> > | > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> > |"Was || > > |> |there a confidentiality agreement that would have been > abrogated? || > |> > | || > > |> > |-- || > > |> > | || > > |> > |Rick" || > > |> > |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| > > |> > | > |> There was an NDA in force at the time. It went out of force many > years | > |> > later. > | > | > | > |Ok, so an over-zealous > lawyer" | > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > He was not a lawyer. > > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > |"called your boss and said something about > not | > |violating an NDA. What were they saying *was* a > violation" | > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > I was told that he incorrectly supposedly asserted that we had this > document by violating an NDA. > > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > |"or what were > they | > |*warning* you > about? | > | > | > |So far none of this makes much sense, mostly because you keep leaving > out | > |important information, the crux of the > matter. | > | > | > |-- > | > | > | > |Rick" > | > |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > What STMicroelectronics did did not make sense. The crux of this > matter is that STMicroelectronics was too lacking of intelligence to > be an engineering company.How many work for STM, 10,000 maybe 20,000? So one guy jumped a gun and accused you of violating an agreement and you think that means the entire STM company should be shunned? You still haven't provided all the relevant information and what you say is not clear. If the guy was not a lawyer what was his position? Surely he identified himself before launching into an accusation? Did he explain what he meant by you violated an NDA by "having" the document? If your "having" the document was a problem then it was someone else who violated the NDA by giving it to you. -- Rick
Reply by ●January 5, 20162016-01-05
In article <n6h44s$d07$1@reader1.panix.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid says...> > On 2016-01-05, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester <wirklich@nicht.at> wrote: > > On January 5th, 2016, Grant Edwards sent: > >"On 2016-01-05, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester <wirklich@nicht.at> wrote: > >> > >>> During the previous decade I reported a mistake in documentation > >>> to STMicroelectronics therefore instead of deciding to simply add > >>> a correction, STMicroelectronics threatened to sue us. Grow up. > >> > >>STM threatened to sue you for reporting an STM documentation error > >>to STM?" > > > > Precisely. > > Except in a different sub-thread, you state that the phone call was > about your possession of a confidential document that STM didn't think > you should have. That's a bit different than threatening to sue you > for reporting a documentation error. > > I'm not saying that the phone call wasn't in error, but is it possible > they were calling because they thought you didn't have the proper NDA > in place to posess the document rather than because you reported a mistake? > > [Is there any way you can turn off the ASCII-box-drawing stuff for > quoted content and quote things the normal way? The box makes it hard > to re-flow quoted material.]Actually lone crusaders with very little circumstantial evidence, time for something I do rarely killfile a user. -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/pi/> Raspberry Pi Add-ons <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
On 04.01.2016 10:32, pozz wrote:> Il 26/12/2015 19:54, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto: >> There are a lot of RTOSes around. I wonder which are the most used ones. >> In particular, I'm interested in the free ones supporting the STM8, >> which currently are: >> >> * OSA >> * atomthreads >> * ChibiOS >> * ScmRTOS >> >> But I'd also like to know about the general 8/16-bit situation. > > Maybe you already made this question to yourself. Anyway I make it: why > do you need a RTOS on those kind of platforms? > >People are writing RTOSes for 8-bit platforms, so I guess there are people wanting to use them. So if I want a reasonably complete toolchain for those platforms to exist, some RTOSes should be ported to free compilers. Philipp
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:32:38 +0100, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:>Il 26/12/2015 19:54, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto: >> There are a lot of RTOSes around. I wonder which are the most used ones. >> In particular, I'm interested in the free ones supporting the STM8, >> which currently are: >> >> * OSA >> * atomthreads >> * ChibiOS >> * ScmRTOS >> >> But I'd also like to know about the general 8/16-bit situation. > >Maybe you already made this question to yourself. Anyway I make it: why >do you need a RTOS on those kind of platforms?Why not ? If you just have less than 10 KiB of code and a single programmer, some simple state machines would be enough. With tens of KiB of code or multiple programmers, the project management with a pre-emptive RTOS simplifies a lot. I have used small pre-emptive kernels at least for 8080/8085/6502/6809.
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:32:38 +0100, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Il 26/12/2015 19:54, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto: >>> There are a lot of RTOSes around. I wonder which are the most used ones. >>> In particular, I'm interested in the free ones supporting the STM8, >>> which currently are: >>> >>> * OSA >>> * atomthreads >>> * ChibiOS >>> * ScmRTOS >>> >>> But I'd also like to know about the general 8/16-bit situation. >> >> Maybe you already made this question to yourself. Anyway I make it: why >> do you need a RTOS on those kind of platforms? > > > Why not ? > > If you just have less than 10 KiB of code and a single programmer, > some simple state machines would be enough. > > With tens of KiB of code or multiple programmers, the project > management with a pre-emptive RTOS simplifies a lot. I have used small > pre-emptive kernels at least for 8080/8085/6502/6809. > >Preemptive opens up a lot of disparate and ugly cans of worms. With "run to completion". you can get a lot closer to proving the system correct to within some epsilon ( sometimes a rather large epsilon ). The only thing preemptive gets you is if somebody's thread is taking too long, you jerk the CPU away from them. Well, maybe you really want that to be an exception rather than a context switch. "Mulitple programmers" is more about configuration management discipline, unit and integration testing than architecture anyway. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
On 16-01-06 20:09 , Les Cargill wrote:> upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:32:38 +0100, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Il 26/12/2015 19:54, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto: >>>> There are a lot of RTOSes around. I wonder which are the most used >>>> ones. >>>> In particular, I'm interested in the free ones supporting the STM8, >>>> which currently are: >>>> >>>> * OSA >>>> * atomthreads >>>> * ChibiOS >>>> * ScmRTOS >>>> >>>> But I'd also like to know about the general 8/16-bit situation. >>> >>> Maybe you already made this question to yourself. Anyway I make it: why >>> do you need a RTOS on those kind of platforms? >> >> >> Why not ? >> >> If you just have less than 10 KiB of code and a single programmer, >> some simple state machines would be enough. >> >> With tens of KiB of code or multiple programmers, the project >> management with a pre-emptive RTOS simplifies a lot. I have used small >> pre-emptive kernels at least for 8080/8085/6502/6809. >> >> > > > Preemptive opens up a lot of disparate and ugly cans of worms. With > "run to completion". you can get a lot closer to proving the system > correct to within some epsilon ( sometimes a rather large epsilon ).Without preemption, how are you going to combine sporadic or periodic short, urgent computations, with longer, less urgent computations? By using interrupt handlers (i.e. pre-emption of a sort) for all the urgent stuff? Or by manually slicing the longer computations into short "run to (intermediate) completion" steps? The latter leads to a real mess, IMO. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
Op 06-Jan-16 om 7:09 PM schreef Les Cargill:> upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:32:38 +0100, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Il 26/12/2015 19:54, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto: >>>> There are a lot of RTOSes around. I wonder which are the most used >>>> ones. >>>> In particular, I'm interested in the free ones supporting the STM8, >>>> which currently are: >>>> >>>> * OSA >>>> * atomthreads >>>> * ChibiOS >>>> * ScmRTOS >>>> >>>> But I'd also like to know about the general 8/16-bit situation. >>> >>> Maybe you already made this question to yourself. Anyway I make it: why >>> do you need a RTOS on those kind of platforms? >> >> >> Why not ? >> >> If you just have less than 10 KiB of code and a single programmer, >> some simple state machines would be enough. >> >> With tens of KiB of code or multiple programmers, the project >> management with a pre-emptive RTOS simplifies a lot. I have used small >> pre-emptive kernels at least for 8080/8085/6502/6809. >> >> > > > Preemptive opens up a lot of disparate and ugly cans of worms. With > "run to completion". you can get a lot closer to proving the system > correct to within some epsilon ( sometimes a rather large epsilon ). > > The only thing preemptive gets you is if somebody's thread is taking too > long, you jerk the CPU away from them. Well, maybe you really want that > to be an exception rather than a context switch. > > "Mulitple programmers" is more about configuration management > discipline, unit and integration testing than architecture > anyway.Note that there is a middle way between pre-emptive (with the nice can of worms labeled '(absence of) mutual exclusion errors') and run-to-competion (with the headache pills labeled 'where do I store my context'): cooperative. Wouter van Ooijen
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
On 06.1.2016 г. 19:35, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:> ... I have used small > pre-emptive kernels at least for 8080/8085/6502/6809. >And no 6800 or HC11? Come on :-). The first MT kernel I wrote was for the 6809... maintained a bitmap of memory clusters to allocate/deallocate on dynamic requests by tasks (there was no need for that but I was doing what I thought was interesting to do...). My second one was 68020, a one-off thingie which I did for my then employer in Cologne (late 80-s). Oops, I never wrote a 6800 kernel really :D. Just a HC11 - no dynamic RAM allocation of its 512 bytes though... I never touched a 6502/80xx part though. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
Reply by ●January 6, 20162016-01-06
On 06.1.2016 г. 20:09, Les Cargill wrote:> ... > Preemptive opens up a lot of disparate and ugly cans of worms.> ... Not really if you know what you are doing. Processors have user and supervisor levels for a reason, there is nothing special about switching user level tasks without them needing to know it (i.e. preemptively). Can be useful under severe system load and is definitely a remedy against poorly written code which tries to hog the system for no good reason. And even for good code for good reason, say computationally intensive tasks - they don't have to bother how much system time they take, just get on with it while the system takes care of the scheduling. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
