On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:09:56 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:><snip>>If the world was perfect and could be trusted then there would be no >need for copy protection.Perhaps. But most copy protection I've experienced seriously impacts well-intentioned, paying customers (me.) I've discussed some of the issues in fair detail before and I know you've already read them, so I'm under no illusion that anything I'll say will change your mind on this. But suffice if that I tend to believe that those vendors who choose to injure their customers and place them at risk in order to protect themselves from perceived risks by 3rd parties, who are obviously neither the intended customer nor the vendor, will tend to find themselves with _less_, not _more_, revenue over the long haul. How would you feel about marrying someone who had been burned a dozen times in the past and decided that you need to sign an iron-clad contract because of all that prior "baggage," about which you had no part at all? Frankly, there is some measure of trust to be expected in any truly healthy relationship. It goes both ways. Those who spend a lot of effort guarding themselves against the perceived and real harms of the world around them will often find themselves more isolated, if also more protected. Locking yourself in a room does protect you from being mugged on the street. But it is no way to live life and it's lonely there. Just my opinion. Jon
8051 C Compiler
Started by ●August 23, 2006
Reply by ●August 24, 20062006-08-24
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
Chris Hills wrote:> In article <44ed98b5$0$5108$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Alf Katz > <alfkatz@iremove.the.bloody.obvious.ieee.org> writes<snip>>> I sympathise with their desire to protect their intellectual >> property, but it's cost them a number of purchases (8051 and ARM in the last >> year alone) from me. > > They would prefer to loose those few rather than loose many many more if > their systems were not locked. >I understand the principle of wanting to protect your software, but I wonder how much this is based on reality. Software producers and resellers are fond of estimating illegal copies and claiming loses equivalent to full purchase price per illegal copy. The very term "piracy" (invented by Microsoft - a company that always encouraged that attitude that they'd rather you used an illegal copy of *their* software than a legal copy of someone else's software) is designed to invoke irrational and totally disproportional fear of illegal copying. The fact is that in most western countries, companies would normally pay honestly for their business software. There will be some exceptions, but most people prefer honesty when they can manage it. Most of those today who use copied software could not afford to pay for it (a $5000 dollar program might be a minor expense in the west - in some countries, it would pay several salaries) - so their choice regarding expensive packages is copied software or no software. In other words, a top-tier vendor like IAR or Kiel loses little from illegal copies - the users would never have paid the full price anyway. The people that really lose out from illegal copying are the small middle-tier vendors, along with open source developers (sometimes they sell support, and even if no money changes hands, users are still important). If a small-time developer wants a good AVR compiler, he might consider IAR (excellent code, high price), ImageCraft (user friendly, medium quality, low price) and avr-gcc (harder to use, excellent code, zero price). If he can't afford IAR, then obviously one of the other two would be a better choice. But if he can get hold of a copy of IAR for nothing, it is very tempting - whereas with ImageCraft's prices, he would probably have paid up honestly. The cost of enforcing licensing systems is large. I doubt if there is anyone here who has used licensing systems and never had trouble with it. It doesn't take too many days wasted from fighting licensing systems, or waiting for registrations, before you've thrown away more money than the software cost in the first place. Vendors have whole departments whose job is nothing but helping people with licensing problems - how much of a waste is that? And of course there is the customer relations loss of a business model which assumes your customers are criminals and thieves until proved otherwise. It may well be that dongled software is the right model overall for development tool vendors, but sometimes I wonder if their assumptions about copying and customer honesty are based on reality.
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
Op Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:58:34 +0200 schreef Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl>:> "Elan Magavi" <Elan@nomailnospam.com> schreef in bericht > news:SO%Gg.12399$kO3.9370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >> Falconer.. ease up on the etiquette.. you do it in every friggin post. >> (top posted for your convenience) > > Plonk! (for top posting).Plonk! (for being an etiquette nazi). -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
Op Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:01:57 +0200 schreef seba <seba@nospam>:> <cbarn24050@aol.com> wrote: >> >> C and 8051 are a very poor marriage especially it terms of speed. >> Unless you have some overwheming reason to use both together find >> another option. > > I'm just looking for a list of C compilers compatible with Aduc8xx > microcontrollers; I think I will use Keil compiler but, before starting > development, I liked to know if there are good substitutes, other than > Keil...Keil is about to die. But how about the first ever 8051 C-compiler? http://www.iar.com/ew8051 -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
In article <sh3se2higujot2jp1hmvep0sat5hc01jb4@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:09:56 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> >wrote: > >><snip> > >>If the world was perfect and could be trusted then there would be no >>need for copy protection. > >Perhaps. But most copy protection I've experienced seriously impacts >well-intentioned, paying customers (me.) I've discussed some of the >issues in fair detail before and I know you've already read them, so >I'm under no illusion that anything I'll say will change your mind on >this. But suffice if that I tend to believe that those vendors who >choose to injure their customers and place them at risk in order to >protect themselves from perceived risks by 3rd parties, who are >obviously neither the intended customer nor the vendor, will tend to >find themselves with _less_, not _more_, revenue over the long haul. > >How would you feel about marrying someone who had been burned a dozen >times in the past and decided that you need to sign an iron-clad >contract because of all that prior "baggage," about which you had no >part at all?Sadly pre-nuptual agreements are quite common. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
In article <op.tetyxsu3y6p7a2@ragnarok.lan>, Boudewijn Dijkstra <boudewijn@indes.com> writes>Op Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:01:57 +0200 schreef seba <seba@nospam>: >> <cbarn24050@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> C and 8051 are a very poor marriage especially it terms of speed. >>> Unless you have some overwheming reason to use both together find >>> another option. >> >> I'm just looking for a list of C compilers compatible with Aduc8xx >> microcontrollers; I think I will use Keil compiler but, before starting >> development, I liked to know if there are good substitutes, other than >> Keil... > >Keil is about to die.Highly unlikely. Why would ARM kill it? The Keil 8051 and C166 are stable and mature products. I can see they may not do much more development but I can't see them disappearing.... They are a good revenue stream. What makes you thing Keil is about to disappear? Even if Keil/ARM push the Cortex in favour of the 166, the 51 market will still continue.>But how about the first ever 8051 C-compiler? >http://www.iar.com/ew8051The IAR 51 compiler is now on a par with the Keil for size and speed optimisation in general. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
"Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn@indes.com> schreef in bericht news:op.tetyehezy6p7a2@ragnarok.lan...> Op Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:58:34 +0200 schreef Frank Bemelman > <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl>: >> "Elan Magavi" <Elan@nomailnospam.com> schreef in bericht >> news:SO%Gg.12399$kO3.9370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >>> Falconer.. ease up on the etiquette.. you do it in every friggin post. >>> (top posted for your convenience) >> >> Plonk! (for top posting). > > Plonk! (for being an etiquette nazi).And Plonk! for having a problem with that. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
> >> Plonk! (for top posting). > > > > Plonk! (for being an etiquette nazi). > > And Plonk! for having a problem with that.Public plonking: The usenet equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears, stamping his feet, humming and yelling, "I can't hear you".
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
steve_schefter@hotmail.com wrote:> >>>> Plonk! (for top posting). >>> >>> Plonk! (for being an etiquette nazi). >> >> And Plonk! for having a problem with that. > > Public plonking: The usenet equivalent of a child putting his > fingers in his ears, stamping his feet, humming and yelling, > "I can't hear you".And all for the wrong reasons. -- Some informative links: news:news.announce.newusers http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Reply by ●August 25, 20062006-08-25
<steve_schefter@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1156512814.030042.187760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> >> Plonk! (for top posting). >> > >> > Plonk! (for being an etiquette nazi). >> >> And Plonk! for having a problem with that. > > Public plonking: The usenet equivalent of a child putting his > fingers in his ears, stamping his feet, humming and yelling, > "I can't hear you".I have a low treshold, my kill file is very large. From time to time we see people complaining about top posting, and quite frankly I don't understand why they bother to explain why. Top posters are all idiots and belong in a kill file. There is absolutely nothing to be learned from top posters, they have already shown their stupidity by top posting. So, in the kill file they go. If my reader had an option to do that automatically, I would turn it on. The only case where top posting is unavoidable and allowed, is when someone *starts* a thread. That is bad enough as it is ;) -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
