LPC900/80C51 Compiler Toolchain

Chris Hills wrote:
> Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>> ChrisQuayle says...
>>
... snip ...
>
>>> so why should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought
>>> Keil C some years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra
>>> for an undongled version, not so we could steal it, but so that
>>> it could be installed at client and development sites. I was the
>>> only developer, so only a single copy would ever be used at once.
>>> This I would consider fair use within the license terms, though
>>> i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
> 
> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the
> only user I can't see the problem.

It seems that making a policy of never buying anything dongle
protected is going to be much more reliable.  When did you last
move a dongle from an XT parallel printer port to a modern Dell,
for example?

-- 
"Vista is finally secure from hacking. No one is going to 'hack'
 the product activation and try and steal the o/s. Anyone smart
 enough to do so is also smart enough not to want to bother."



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Chris Hills wrote:

> 
> 
> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only 
> user I can't see the problem.
> 

Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that 
irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to 
shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and 
accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that 
they don't trust me. It's for this reason that I refuse to buy into it, 
even if it means using a different processor and toolchain. After all, 
there's plenty of choice out there these days.

That's quite apart from the dongle and flexlm hassles. If your machine 
or flexlm server crashes, it can take a lot of time to get everything 
working again, with obvious impact on timescales if a team of 6 is 
sitting idle. Have had this experience while working on more than one 
client site, where flexlm files have become confused for whatever reason 
and the tool vendor having very bad attitude when you call them to 
resolve the problems. The clients were not one man outfits either, but 
major names in the networking and telco fields. Who do these people 
think they are ?, never use them again etc, was the general reaction in 
the dev team..

The ideal situation would be no dongles, where the tool vendor really 
does offer added value, whether from a support or added functionality 
point of view. Share their improvements whith the wider software 
community to improve the state of the art generally and get a lot kudos, 
more sales and business goodwill in the process. Sure, you will get a 
few people making copies, but they wouldn't have bought the license 
anyway, so you could argue that it has near zero impact on revenue.

So, there's a business ethics issue here - modes of the past and there's 
no excuse for it. It's strange in life how the people who always make 
the most noise about being ripped off tend to be the most dishonest 
themselves.

Chris



-- 

----------------------
Greenfield Designs Ltd
Electronic and Embedded System Design
Oxford, England
(44) 1865 750 681

In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle 
<nospam@devnul.co.uk> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>>   Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the 
>>only  user I can't see the problem.
>>
>
>Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that 
>irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to 
>shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely 
>and accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me 
>that they don't trust me.

The proof is there that without a dongle their software will be stolen. 
As it is there are lots of people using cracked software illegally.

How would you feel if, because some other people were stealing what your 
employer produces he says he will have to cut your wages?

>That's quite apart from the dongle and flexlm hassles. If your machine 
>or flexlm server crashes, it can take a lot of time to get everything 
>working again, with obvious impact on timescales if a team of 6 is 
>sitting idle.

I am not a fan of FlexLm

>The ideal situation would be no dongles,
And honest users.....
You can't have one without the other.

>support or added functionality point of view. Share their improvements 
>whith the wider software community to improve the state of the art

Why?   That is a completely naive scenario that does not work anywhere 
in business.

>generally and get a lot kudos, more sales and business goodwill in the 
>process. Sure, you will get a few people making copies, but they 
>wouldn't have bought the license anyway, so you could argue that it has 
>near zero impact on revenue.

This is NOT TRUE.  The main commercial tools have a lot of IP that cost 
them a lot to develop they are not going to give that away.

What you are suggesting will have a MAJOR impact on revenue and you end 
up with a lot of mediocre tools


>no excuse for it. It's strange in life how the people who always make 
>the most noise about being ripped off tend to be the most dishonest 
>themselves.

This is not true either.....

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <xSZ243AJsFtGFAtH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <MPG.211d8cdcf9b0608b989786@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >In article <HjGsi.5021$vi3.1415@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle
> >says...
> >> should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought Keil C some
> >> years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra for an undongled
> >> version, not so we could steal it,
> >> but so that it could be installed at
> >> client and development sites. I was the only developer, so only a single
> >> copy would ever be used at once. This I would consider fair use within
> >> the license terms, though i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
> 
> 
> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only 
> user I can't see the problem.

Perhaps it's not possible?  I know with dongle schemes like FlexLm 
that's the case.

I agree it shouldn't really be a problem but that doesn't appear to be 
the attitude of many merchants in the embedded tool areana.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...
> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that 
> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to 
> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and 
> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that 
> they don't trust me. 

Absolutely. 

There is also some element of self fulfilling prophecy here.  A "If I'm 
going to be treated as a wolf I might a well behave as one" reaction 
some people will have.  Others will react as you and I and simply start 
discounting commercial software for its treatment of customers.

Certainly piracy occurs.  I would, maybe naively, hope that embedded 
development tools would be less prone to that than desktop software. 
Strangely though the two subsets have move in opposite directions 
although MS seems to be moving back.

There are some good guys out there.  Gimpel comes to mind although they 
are affected by the fact that their tools are not primarily aimed at 
embedded work.


Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <MPG.211e86c672d0c2db989789@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
<sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...
>> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that
>> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to
>> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and
>> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that
>> they don't trust me.
>
>Absolutely.
>
>There is also some element of self fulfilling prophecy here.  A "If I'm
>going to be treated as a wolf I might a well behave as one" reaction
>some people will have.

You are very naive.

> Others will react as you and I and simply start
>discounting commercial software for its treatment of customers.

How silly.

>Certainly piracy occurs.  I would, maybe naively, hope that embedded
>development tools would be less prone to that than desktop software.

Not in the slightest. It is just as prone to it. In some areas it is 
worse  In some ways PD, Sharware and FOSS has made it worse in that many 
now expect all SW to be free

>Strangely though the two subsets have move in opposite directions
>although MS seems to be moving back.

MS is playing a different game of world domination. Enough people pay so 
they can give it away thus swamping the competition. You will find that 
the activation/tracking and projection starts to take a much stronger 
hold with MS stuff once they have "everyone" using it.

>There are some good guys out there.  Gimpel comes to mind although they
>are affected by the fact that their tools are not primarily aimed at
>embedded work.

Gimpel are victims of piracy but their PC tools are very inexpensive. 
For most industrial users it is easier to buy it than not

However their Flexe Lint (for unix/linux) is over 10 times the price of 
the PC version


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <MPG.211e81cec8c4494e989788@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
<sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>In article <xSZ243AJsFtGFAtH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
>> In article <MPG.211d8cdcf9b0608b989786@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
>> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>> >In article <HjGsi.5021$vi3.1415@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle
>> >says...
>> >> should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought Keil C some
>> >> years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra for an undongled
>> >> version, not so we could steal it,
>> >> but so that it could be installed at
>> >> client and development sites. I was the only developer, so only a single
>> >> copy would ever be used at once. This I would consider fair use within
>> >> the license terms, though i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
>>
>>
>> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only
>> user I can't see the problem.
>
>Perhaps it's not possible?  I know with dongle schemes like FlexLm
>that's the case.

Flexlm is not a dongle system.

The keil system was either a parallel or USB dongle. Easy to move . I 
know many who did just that.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <jPziftAh4YtGFA$y@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <MPG.211e86c672d0c2db989789@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...
> >> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that
> >> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to
> >> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and
> >> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that
> >> they don't trust me.
> >
> >Absolutely.
> >
> >There is also some element of self fulfilling prophecy here.  A "If I'm
> >going to be treated as a wolf I might a well behave as one" reaction
> >some people will have.
> 
> You are very naive.

You don't think some people will have that reaction?

> > Others will react as you and I and simply start
> >discounting commercial software for its treatment of customers.
> 
> How silly.

No sillier than discounting suppliers for lack of support in other 
areas.  It doesn't mean they won't get used just that it becomes a 
consideration when determining what SW supplier and even what micro 
architecture to use.

> >Certainly piracy occurs.  I would, maybe naively, hope that embedded
> >development tools would be less prone to that than desktop software.
> 
> Not in the slightest. It is just as prone to it. In some areas it is 
> worse  In some ways PD, Sharware and FOSS has made it worse in that many 
> now expect all SW to be free

I'm afraid your are probably right.  There have certainly been a number 
of requests for how to get free copies of commercial compilers, they do 
seem to have been uncommon though.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <6fhk7NBo5YtGFAd5@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <MPG.211e81cec8c4494e989788@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >In article <xSZ243AJsFtGFAtH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> >> In article <MPG.211d8cdcf9b0608b989786@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
> >> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >> >In article <HjGsi.5021$vi3.1415@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle
> >> >says...
> >> >> should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought Keil C some
> >> >> years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra for an undongled
> >> >> version, not so we could steal it,
> >> >> but so that it could be installed at
> >> >> client and development sites. I was the only developer, so only a single
> >> >> copy would ever be used at once. This I would consider fair use within
> >> >> the license terms, though i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only
> >> user I can't see the problem.
> >
> >Perhaps it's not possible?  I know with dongle schemes like FlexLm
> >that's the case.
> 
> Flexlm is not a dongle system.

Sure it is, it just happens to be implemented in SW and they generally 
charge extra for you to be able to move from machine to machine.  Oh 
and, of course, some marketers will use the lack of a physical dongle to 
claim SW thus equipped is 'dongle free'.

And as CB Falconer pointed out, there are cases where a physical dongle 
cannot be tranfered either.


Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <MPG.211fbe251df443b898978c@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
<sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>In article <6fhk7NBo5YtGFAd5@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
>> In article <MPG.211e81cec8c4494e989788@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
>> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>> >In article <xSZ243AJsFtGFAtH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
>> >> In article <MPG.211d8cdcf9b0608b989786@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
>> >> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>> >> >In article <HjGsi.5021$vi3.1415@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle
>> >> >says...
>> >> >> should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought Keil C some
>> >> >> years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra for an undongled
>> >> >> version, not so we could steal it,
>> >> >> but so that it could be installed at
>> >> >> client and development sites. I was the only developer, so only 
>> >> >>single
>> >> >> copy would ever be used at once. This I would consider fair use within
>> >> >> the license terms, though i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only
>> >> user I can't see the problem.
>> >
>> >Perhaps it's not possible?  I know with dongle schemes like FlexLm
>> >that's the case.
>>
>> Flexlm is not a dongle system.
>
>Sure it is,

No. A dongle is a piece of HW.

FlexLM is something else....
>it just happens to be implemented in SW and they generally
>charge extra for you to be able to move from machine to machine.
Some do and some don't
I have never understood why they charge for this.
One compiler vendor lets you change it (FOC) via the web site

The solution I have seen is to lock thelicens to the MAC of the network 
adaptor. I have a USB-Ethernet network adapter that work just fine for 
that and in effect will give me a movable dongle for a node lock system

The problem is that I have seen people who buy one copy of the SW and 
use a printer switch box to have 2-4 people sharing the same license.

> Oh
>and, of course, some marketers will use the lack of a physical dongle to
>claim SW thus equipped is 'dongle free'.

I know what you mean... it is "dongle free" but it is also "Node Locked" 
Marketing people need shooting. (and a good kicking)

>And as CB Falconer pointed out, there are cases where a physical dongle
>cannot be tranfered either.

There are? I thought the whole point of the physical dongle was to 
permit movement of the license.  I am trying to remember if any [hw] 
dongle systems I know would not let you move and I can't think of any. 
Though I don't doubt there must have been some.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/