Hi Paul,
> What specific example does IAR provide in the EW
package for the
> E2124/9? We supply header files for the LPC2129. The LPC-E2124/9 has a
> port of uIP that I did on our website.
LPC2K support in IAR EW-ARM v4.30A Kickstart
Headers:
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 34,751 iolpc210x.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 40,067 iolpc210x_old.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,446 iolpc2114.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 49,970 iolpc2119.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,447 iolpc2124.h
08/29/2005 09:46 AM 49,788 iolpc2129.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 44,208 iolpc2130.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 37,931 iolpc2131.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2132.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2134.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2136.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,108 iolpc2138.h
06/20/2005 07:50 AM 475 iolpc2142.h
11/08/2005 03:45 PM 50,903 iolpc2148.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,066 iolpc2194.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2212.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2214.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,497 iolpc2292.h
06/20/2005 08:24 PM 56,598 iolpc2294.h
Examples:
08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC210x
10/16/2005 11:57 AM <DIR> LPC212x
08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC213x
08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC214x
08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC22xx
Joel
Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex lpc2129 proto board
Started by ●November 22, 2005
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
Hi Joel,
That isn't an *example*, that's just a set of header files.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Winarske [mailto:joelw@joel...]
> Sent: 24 November 2005 21:10
> To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> and olimex lpc2129 proto board
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > What specific example does IAR provide in the EW package for the
> > E2124/9? We supply header files for the LPC2129. The
> LPC-E2124/9 has a
> > port of uIP that I did on our website.
>
> LPC2K support in IAR EW-ARM v4.30A Kickstart
>
> Headers:
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 34,751 iolpc210x.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 40,067 iolpc210x_old.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,446 iolpc2114.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 49,970 iolpc2119.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,447 iolpc2124.h
> 08/29/2005 09:46 AM 49,788 iolpc2129.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 44,208 iolpc2130.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 37,931 iolpc2131.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2132.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2134.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2136.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,108 iolpc2138.h
> 06/20/2005 07:50 AM 475 iolpc2142.h
> 11/08/2005 03:45 PM 50,903 iolpc2148.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,066 iolpc2194.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2212.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2214.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,497 iolpc2292.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 56,598 iolpc2294.h
>
> Examples:
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC210x
> 10/16/2005 11:57 AM <DIR> LPC212x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC213x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC214x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC22xx
>
> Joel >
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking.
> Stop slavery.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~- > Yahoo! Groups Links
That isn't an *example*, that's just a set of header files.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Winarske [mailto:joelw@joel...]
> Sent: 24 November 2005 21:10
> To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> and olimex lpc2129 proto board
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > What specific example does IAR provide in the EW package for the
> > E2124/9? We supply header files for the LPC2129. The
> LPC-E2124/9 has a
> > port of uIP that I did on our website.
>
> LPC2K support in IAR EW-ARM v4.30A Kickstart
>
> Headers:
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 34,751 iolpc210x.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 40,067 iolpc210x_old.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,446 iolpc2114.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 49,970 iolpc2119.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 38,447 iolpc2124.h
> 08/29/2005 09:46 AM 49,788 iolpc2129.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 44,208 iolpc2130.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 37,931 iolpc2131.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2132.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2134.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,067 iolpc2136.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 41,108 iolpc2138.h
> 06/20/2005 07:50 AM 475 iolpc2142.h
> 11/08/2005 03:45 PM 50,903 iolpc2148.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,066 iolpc2194.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2212.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 42,699 iolpc2214.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 53,497 iolpc2292.h
> 06/20/2005 08:24 PM 56,598 iolpc2294.h
>
> Examples:
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC210x
> 10/16/2005 11:57 AM <DIR> LPC212x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC213x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC214x
> 08/14/2005 12:58 PM <DIR> LPC22xx
>
> Joel >
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking.
> Stop slavery.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~- > Yahoo! Groups Links
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
Simon,
> Paul,
> could you do a 'reduced speed' version at a lower price? Just
> a thought.
That doesn't really address the root problems of the Hobbyist License.
Our Educational License software is identical to the Commercial License
software, only difference being the use that is made of it.
We have given a number of licenses to worthy users absolutely free of
charge so they can pursue projects that may or may not make money--on
the understanding that if the project starts coining it, then a license
is purchased. This has worked well for us. But this is different from
the Hobbyist License which is just a "I want to tinker" license.
I would like to help hobbyists, for sure, as we have done for university
and research work with our very generous educational discounts (they are
just 20% of our commercial prices). The educational licenses have been
very popular, being taken up by a wide range of universities and
research institutes around the world.
The problems are as I stated, a hobbyist license is open to abuse by
companies masquerading as hobbyists and also the perception of squeezing
the last drop of money out of our customer base by offering hobbyists
licenses to prop up sales. I can't see how to resolve the hobbyist
license other than by having the hobbyist sign a document (as CadSoft do
for example). And we don't need revenue from hobbyists because
CrossWorks is successful enough on its own.
We have had endless conversations about the hobbyist license here and
although I'd like to be philanthropic and introduce such a license, the
last throes of Introl hoping hobbyists would help prop up the company is
strongly implanted in my mind.
So, tell me how can I be persuaded on this? My leaning would be to
introduce a hypothetical "hobbyist license" at, say, 99 and require the
user to sign an undertaking of no commercial use. However, I really do
need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> Hi,
>
> > Yes - I went back to the original modern laptop and it works
> > with Rowley! Must've had something off on the parallel port
> > on the older system (though I can use it for other
> > bidirectional, non ecp applications). Still can't use the
> > newer system with IAR or OCDCommander - it doesn't even
> > recognize the wiggler. At least I know the jtag hardware works.
> >
> > So Rowley works like a dream - I can connect via the wiggler,
> > I can download and I can set hardware breakpoints and debug
> > from flash in it. Goes back to the old price problem for
> > hobbyists. Maybe they'll sell me an academic licence.
>
> We have considered a low-cost Hobbyist license, but this
> opens us up to
> abuse of our licensing terms. I also have the very real
> concern that
> this would be perceived as a "Well, they must be in
> trouble, trying to
> squeeze the hobbyist market to make ends meet..." Introl introduced
> hobbyist licenses just before they went south for winter and stayed
> there. I would really need to be persuaded that a hobbyist
> license is a
> viable product.
>
> > The other problem is that there are many fewer examples.
>
> Pardon? We support a wider range of boards than IAR do
> with examples
> for each one of them. In the v1.6 release it will be even wider.
>
> > There's
> > no complete set of header files and examples for the olimex
> > 2129 proto board like there are in IAR.
>
> What specific example does IAR provide in the EW package for the
> E2124/9? We supply header files for the LPC2129. The
> LPC-E2124/9 has a
> port of uIP that I did on our website.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors > SPONSORED LINKS Microprocessor Microcontrollers Pic
> microcontrollers
> 8051 microprocessor > --------------------------
> ----------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. > --------------------------
> ---------------- >
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!
> your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~- > Yahoo! Groups Links
> Paul,
> could you do a 'reduced speed' version at a lower price? Just
> a thought.
That doesn't really address the root problems of the Hobbyist License.
Our Educational License software is identical to the Commercial License
software, only difference being the use that is made of it.
We have given a number of licenses to worthy users absolutely free of
charge so they can pursue projects that may or may not make money--on
the understanding that if the project starts coining it, then a license
is purchased. This has worked well for us. But this is different from
the Hobbyist License which is just a "I want to tinker" license.
I would like to help hobbyists, for sure, as we have done for university
and research work with our very generous educational discounts (they are
just 20% of our commercial prices). The educational licenses have been
very popular, being taken up by a wide range of universities and
research institutes around the world.
The problems are as I stated, a hobbyist license is open to abuse by
companies masquerading as hobbyists and also the perception of squeezing
the last drop of money out of our customer base by offering hobbyists
licenses to prop up sales. I can't see how to resolve the hobbyist
license other than by having the hobbyist sign a document (as CadSoft do
for example). And we don't need revenue from hobbyists because
CrossWorks is successful enough on its own.
We have had endless conversations about the hobbyist license here and
although I'd like to be philanthropic and introduce such a license, the
last throes of Introl hoping hobbyists would help prop up the company is
strongly implanted in my mind.
So, tell me how can I be persuaded on this? My leaning would be to
introduce a hypothetical "hobbyist license" at, say, 99 and require the
user to sign an undertaking of no commercial use. However, I really do
need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> Hi,
>
> > Yes - I went back to the original modern laptop and it works
> > with Rowley! Must've had something off on the parallel port
> > on the older system (though I can use it for other
> > bidirectional, non ecp applications). Still can't use the
> > newer system with IAR or OCDCommander - it doesn't even
> > recognize the wiggler. At least I know the jtag hardware works.
> >
> > So Rowley works like a dream - I can connect via the wiggler,
> > I can download and I can set hardware breakpoints and debug
> > from flash in it. Goes back to the old price problem for
> > hobbyists. Maybe they'll sell me an academic licence.
>
> We have considered a low-cost Hobbyist license, but this
> opens us up to
> abuse of our licensing terms. I also have the very real
> concern that
> this would be perceived as a "Well, they must be in
> trouble, trying to
> squeeze the hobbyist market to make ends meet..." Introl introduced
> hobbyist licenses just before they went south for winter and stayed
> there. I would really need to be persuaded that a hobbyist
> license is a
> viable product.
>
> > The other problem is that there are many fewer examples.
>
> Pardon? We support a wider range of boards than IAR do
> with examples
> for each one of them. In the v1.6 release it will be even wider.
>
> > There's
> > no complete set of header files and examples for the olimex
> > 2129 proto board like there are in IAR.
>
> What specific example does IAR provide in the EW package for the
> E2124/9? We supply header files for the LPC2129. The
> LPC-E2124/9 has a
> port of uIP that I did on our website.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors > SPONSORED LINKS Microprocessor Microcontrollers Pic
> microcontrollers
> 8051 microprocessor > --------------------------
> ----------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. > --------------------------
> ---------------- >
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!
> your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~- > Yahoo! Groups Links
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
Hi Joel,
> Ah yes. I'm too quick with the fingers and not quick enough
> in the head
> sometimes. IAR has no example for the the LPC-E2124. Your link is
> prominently displayed on olimex.com for the LPC-E2124 product.
>
> What sort of through put are you able to sustain with your
> code on this board?
Good question, never bothered to test it. Note that uIP has some
restrictions and doesn't interoperate well with delayed-ACK
implementations as uIP can only have a single segment in flight at any
one time. If you don't understand this implication, you'll need to have
a look at a good book on Internet protocols or the RFCs.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> Ah yes. I'm too quick with the fingers and not quick enough
> in the head
> sometimes. IAR has no example for the the LPC-E2124. Your link is
> prominently displayed on olimex.com for the LPC-E2124 product.
>
> What sort of through put are you able to sustain with your
> code on this board?
Good question, never bothered to test it. Note that uIP has some
restrictions and doesn't interoperate well with delayed-ACK
implementations as uIP can only have a single segment in flight at any
one time. If you don't understand this implication, you'll need to have
a look at a good book on Internet protocols or the RFCs.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
Hi Paul,
Ah yes. I'm too quick with the fingers and not quick enough in the head
sometimes. IAR has no example for the the LPC-E2124. Your link is
prominently displayed on olimex.com for the LPC-E2124 product.
What sort of through put are you able to sustain with your code on this
board?
Joel
Ah yes. I'm too quick with the fingers and not quick enough in the head
sometimes. IAR has no example for the the LPC-E2124. Your link is
prominently displayed on olimex.com for the LPC-E2124 product.
What sort of through put are you able to sustain with your code on this
board?
Joel
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
> So, tell me how can I be persuaded on this? My leaning would be to
> introduce a hypothetical "hobbyist license" at, say, 99 and
require the
> user to sign an undertaking of no commercial use. However, I
really do
> need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
From a business point of view, a larger user base is a good thing;
any level of user. Hobbyists probably break down into two
categories: those who are working in industry in a different but
vaguely related field and may someday develop commercial
applications with the software and those, like me, who are retired
or working in an unrelated field and will never contribute to your
profits.
I don't see how it would make sense to provide a hobbyist license to
those who will never develop commercial applications. But, if you
do, sign me up!
Richard
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
I can only speak for myself. I'm a professional programmer of
vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
linear algebra (for vision processing).
So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
(regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
license for the tools I'm using. --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:
>
>
> > So, tell me how can I be persuaded on this? My leaning would be
to
> > introduce a hypothetical "hobbyist license" at, say, 99 and
> require the
> > user to sign an undertaking of no commercial use. However, I
> really do
> > need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> > CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> From a business point of view, a larger user base is a good thing;
> any level of user. Hobbyists probably break down into two
> categories: those who are working in industry in a different but
> vaguely related field and may someday develop commercial
> applications with the software and those, like me, who are retired
> or working in an unrelated field and will never contribute to your
> profits.
>
> I don't see how it would make sense to provide a hobbyist license
to
> those who will never develop commercial applications. But, if you
> do, sign me up!
>
> Richard
>
vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
linear algebra (for vision processing).
So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
(regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
license for the tools I'm using. --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:
>
>
> > So, tell me how can I be persuaded on this? My leaning would be
to
> > introduce a hypothetical "hobbyist license" at, say, 99 and
> require the
> > user to sign an undertaking of no commercial use. However, I
> really do
> > need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> > CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> From a business point of view, a larger user base is a good thing;
> any level of user. Hobbyists probably break down into two
> categories: those who are working in industry in a different but
> vaguely related field and may someday develop commercial
> applications with the software and those, like me, who are retired
> or working in an unrelated field and will never contribute to your
> profits.
>
> I don't see how it would make sense to provide a hobbyist license
to
> those who will never develop commercial applications. But, if you
> do, sign me up!
>
> Richard
>
Reply by ●November 24, 20052005-11-24
This is the sort of feedback that is useful. I think we've been very
good in providing free licenses and (in some cases) hardware to many
users for their use--but we don't shout about it. I may actually put a
page up on the website with the more interesting projects we have
supported, but we have sent more keys to "intense hobbyists" that have
the front to contact us directly. I'm getting soft... :-)
I *know* that I'd like to do something for hobbyists, but I'm really
unsure as to what the impression would be. The current company policy
is to offer what *I* would like to see from a company if I used its
tools. That is, we fix bugs free of charge because we made the mistake,
and we offer e-mail support that isn't limited because if users have
problems then it's a documentation issue or should be covered by a FAQ.
In the three years that we've been selling CrossWorks for MSP430, our
original users have never needed to pay for an upgrade. However, I can
say now, that when v2 ships, there *will* be a small cost associated
with it because it's a major upgrade in function.
Sorry, I'm rambling.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: compuguru64 [mailto:karim@kari...]
> Sent: 25 November 2005 00:24
> To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> and olimex lpc2129 proto board
>
> I can only speak for myself. I'm a professional programmer of
> vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
> student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
> the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
> personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
> in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
> point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
> the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
> taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
> linear algebra (for vision processing).
>
> So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
> difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
> (regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
> models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
> Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
> that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
> possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
> hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
> commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
> license for the tools I'm using.
good in providing free licenses and (in some cases) hardware to many
users for their use--but we don't shout about it. I may actually put a
page up on the website with the more interesting projects we have
supported, but we have sent more keys to "intense hobbyists" that have
the front to contact us directly. I'm getting soft... :-)
I *know* that I'd like to do something for hobbyists, but I'm really
unsure as to what the impression would be. The current company policy
is to offer what *I* would like to see from a company if I used its
tools. That is, we fix bugs free of charge because we made the mistake,
and we offer e-mail support that isn't limited because if users have
problems then it's a documentation issue or should be covered by a FAQ.
In the three years that we've been selling CrossWorks for MSP430, our
original users have never needed to pay for an upgrade. However, I can
say now, that when v2 ships, there *will* be a small cost associated
with it because it's a major upgrade in function.
Sorry, I'm rambling.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: compuguru64 [mailto:karim@kari...]
> Sent: 25 November 2005 00:24
> To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> and olimex lpc2129 proto board
>
> I can only speak for myself. I'm a professional programmer of
> vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
> student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
> the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
> personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
> in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
> point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
> the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
> taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
> linear algebra (for vision processing).
>
> So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
> difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
> (regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
> models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
> Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
> that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
> possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
> hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
> commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
> license for the tools I'm using.
Reply by ●November 25, 20052005-11-25
> > What sort of through put are you able to sustain with your
> > code on this board?
>
> Good question, never bothered to test it. Note that uIP has some
> restrictions and doesn't interoperate well with delayed-ACK
> implementations as uIP can only have a single segment in flight at any
> one time. If you don't understand this implication, you'll need to have
> a look at a good book on Internet protocols or the RFCs.
Yes, yes I'm aware of all the latter. I'm just looking for a rough unit of
measure; To determine if it might be applicable in a commercial product.
Perhaps it's a better fit for the hobby market? Joel
> > code on this board?
>
> Good question, never bothered to test it. Note that uIP has some
> restrictions and doesn't interoperate well with delayed-ACK
> implementations as uIP can only have a single segment in flight at any
> one time. If you don't understand this implication, you'll need to have
> a look at a good book on Internet protocols or the RFCs.
Yes, yes I'm aware of all the latter. I'm just looking for a rough unit of
measure; To determine if it might be applicable in a commercial product.
Perhaps it's a better fit for the hobby market? Joel
Reply by ●November 25, 20052005-11-25
Hi Paul
I think your free licences requests will explode after this email ;-)
I am also thinking to take heart to send one.
Cheers
Michael
>From: "Paul Curtis" <plc@plc@...>
>Reply-To: lpc2000@lpc2...
>To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
>Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
>lpc2129 proto board
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:31:52 -0000
>
>This is the sort of feedback that is useful. I think we've been very
>good in providing free licenses and (in some cases) hardware to many
>users for their use--but we don't shout about it. I may actually put a
>page up on the website with the more interesting projects we have
>supported, but we have sent more keys to "intense hobbyists" that have
>the front to contact us directly. I'm getting soft... :-)
>
>I *know* that I'd like to do something for hobbyists, but I'm really
>unsure as to what the impression would be. The current company policy
>is to offer what *I* would like to see from a company if I used its
>tools. That is, we fix bugs free of charge because we made the mistake,
>and we offer e-mail support that isn't limited because if users have
>problems then it's a documentation issue or should be covered by a FAQ.
>
>In the three years that we've been selling CrossWorks for MSP430, our
>original users have never needed to pay for an upgrade. However, I can
>say now, that when v2 ships, there *will* be a small cost associated
>with it because it's a major upgrade in function.
>
>Sorry, I'm rambling.
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: compuguru64 [mailto:karim@kari...]
> > Sent: 25 November 2005 00:24
> > To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> > Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> > and olimex lpc2129 proto board
> >
> > I can only speak for myself. I'm a professional programmer of
> > vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
> > student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
> > the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
> > personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
> > in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
> > point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
> > the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
> > taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
> > linear algebra (for vision processing).
> >
> > So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
> > difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
> > (regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
> > models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
> > Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
> > that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
> > possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
> > hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
> > commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
> > license for the tools I'm using.
>
I think your free licences requests will explode after this email ;-)
I am also thinking to take heart to send one.
Cheers
Michael
>From: "Paul Curtis" <plc@plc@...>
>Reply-To: lpc2000@lpc2...
>To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
>Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
>lpc2129 proto board
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:31:52 -0000
>
>This is the sort of feedback that is useful. I think we've been very
>good in providing free licenses and (in some cases) hardware to many
>users for their use--but we don't shout about it. I may actually put a
>page up on the website with the more interesting projects we have
>supported, but we have sent more keys to "intense hobbyists" that have
>the front to contact us directly. I'm getting soft... :-)
>
>I *know* that I'd like to do something for hobbyists, but I'm really
>unsure as to what the impression would be. The current company policy
>is to offer what *I* would like to see from a company if I used its
>tools. That is, we fix bugs free of charge because we made the mistake,
>and we offer e-mail support that isn't limited because if users have
>problems then it's a documentation issue or should be covered by a FAQ.
>
>In the three years that we've been selling CrossWorks for MSP430, our
>original users have never needed to pay for an upgrade. However, I can
>say now, that when v2 ships, there *will* be a small cost associated
>with it because it's a major upgrade in function.
>
>Sorry, I'm rambling.
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: compuguru64 [mailto:karim@kari...]
> > Sent: 25 November 2005 00:24
> > To: lpc2000@lpc2...
> > Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag
> > and olimex lpc2129 proto board
> >
> > I can only speak for myself. I'm a professional programmer of
> > vertical business applications. I also consider myself a perpetual
> > student. My hobby is robotics and I take it seriously. I consider
> > the hobby to be preparation for an alternate career path. If
> > personal robotics ever takes off enough and can support more people
> > in the field, then I would be happy to make a career move. At that
> > point I would be happy to pay for the professional tools needed. In
> > the meantime I'm always a student, even if I'm only sporadically
> > taking courses at community college to refresh atrophied skills like
> > linear algebra (for vision processing).
> >
> > So I guess I'm saying that I don't see much of a neccessary
> > difference between intense hobby and more formal student activities
> > (regarding learning intent - I'm not talking about business
> > models). Not everyone into hobbies is retired. I'm a member of the
> > Dallas Personal Robotics Group, and only a couple of the guys in
> > that group are retired. The rest are like me - eager to learn,
> > possibly in preparation for a career move, or otherwise hoping to
> > hit on a commercial angle. If I got lucky and built something with
> > commercial potential I'd be happy to opt into a full commercial
> > license for the tools I'm using.
>
