Joel,
> > > 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?
I believe uIP is now used in a number of commercial products and I'd say
that it isn't just for a hobby market. I have uIP running on an EDTP
AirDrop-A with a WiFi driver I wrote and integrated into uIP so I can
telnet into the AVR wirelessly and run my NetBASIC interpreter on it.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex lpc2129 proto board
Started by ●November 22, 2005
Reply by ●November 25, 20052005-11-25
Reply by ●November 25, 20052005-11-25
Paul
Is it possible to run Airdrop (after some modifications) on an SD Wlan card?
Adrop has a top priority on my to do list, but I don't like compact flash
cards.
A SD card is so much easier to work with.
Cheers
Michael >From: "Paul Curtis" <plc@plc@...>
>Reply-To: lpc2000@lpc2...
>To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
>Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
>lpc2129 proto board
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:52:13 -0000
>I believe uIP is now used in a number of commercial products and I'd say
>that it isn't just for a hobby market. I have uIP running on an EDTP
>AirDrop-A with a WiFi driver I wrote and integrated into uIP so I can
>telnet into the AVR wirelessly and run my NetBASIC interpreter on it.
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Is it possible to run Airdrop (after some modifications) on an SD Wlan card?
Adrop has a top priority on my to do list, but I don't like compact flash
cards.
A SD card is so much easier to work with.
Cheers
Michael >From: "Paul Curtis" <plc@plc@...>
>Reply-To: lpc2000@lpc2...
>To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
>Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
>lpc2129 proto board
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:52:13 -0000
>I believe uIP is now used in a number of commercial products and I'd say
>that it isn't just for a hobby market. I have uIP running on an EDTP
>AirDrop-A with a WiFi driver I wrote and integrated into uIP so I can
>telnet into the AVR wirelessly and run my NetBASIC interpreter on it.
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Reply by ●November 25, 20052005-11-25
Michael,
> Is it possible to run Airdrop (after some modifications) on
> an SD Wlan card?
I'm sure it is. If you are a member of the AirDrop Yahoo! hroup, then
you'll have seen that some people are working on using SDIO. The
AirDrop itself doesn't have an SD connector, so that hardware platform
is not likely to help you.
> Adrop has a top priority on my to do list, but I don't like
> compact flash cards. A SD card is so much easier to work with.
The WiFi adapters that are readily available are all SDIO as far as I
can tell. There was some e-mails on the AirDrop group about
publicly-available information on SD/SDIO. However, concensus was that
you'd probably need to stump up the cash to become a member of the SDIO
club. I'm not sure how far that will get you because the SDIO interface
is one thing, the way to access the chipset/firmware is another which
may require vendor support.
The nice thing about the CF cards available is they all use one or other
of the two available chipsets, and a lot of work has been put into the
AirDrop PRISM drivers by quite a number of people, so that does work.
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
> Is it possible to run Airdrop (after some modifications) on
> an SD Wlan card?
I'm sure it is. If you are a member of the AirDrop Yahoo! hroup, then
you'll have seen that some people are working on using SDIO. The
AirDrop itself doesn't have an SD connector, so that hardware platform
is not likely to help you.
> Adrop has a top priority on my to do list, but I don't like
> compact flash cards. A SD card is so much easier to work with.
The WiFi adapters that are readily available are all SDIO as far as I
can tell. There was some e-mails on the AirDrop group about
publicly-available information on SD/SDIO. However, concensus was that
you'd probably need to stump up the cash to become a member of the SDIO
club. I'm not sure how far that will get you because the SDIO interface
is one thing, the way to access the chipset/firmware is another which
may require vendor support.
The nice thing about the CF cards available is they all use one or other
of the two available chipsets, and a lot of work has been put into the
AirDrop PRISM drivers by quite a number of people, so that does work.
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Reply by ●November 26, 20052005-11-26
Paul,
>However, I really do need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
OK, let me try. You've expressed a number of concerns:
1. Abuse mitigation
2. Perception management
3. The business case
Regarding abuse mitigation - I think hobbyists would be happy to sign a document promising to upgrade to a commercial license if their use of the product led in a for-profit direction. I would. It might, however, be costly to administer. You could also require proof of membership in an established hobby group. The Dallas Personal Robotics Group (autonomous, not remote control oriented robots) has a membership page on their website - http://www.dprg.org/members.html. Most established groups have a similar way to verify membership as it's not new to offer discounts to club members. This approach would, however, lock out some legitimate but unaffiliated intense hobbyists. But we can't complain if that's the route you take.
Regarding perception management. I don't think it's a big issue. Your own perception of Introl seems mostly due to your knowledge of their failure and that the move was a desperation measure. It was particularly desperate if they were needing to get real immediate revenue from the hobby market - it just isn't there. In your case, it's known that crossworks is doing well. If you decide to support the hobbyist market, it'll be seen as a sign of strength, you can commit to a move that has insignificant immediate benefit, but could have a longer term payoff. You can afford to invest in good will.
Regarding the business case. I'd think of it as developing long-term market potential and brand recognition more than direct revenue. In the robot hobbyist culture, folks can't afford traditional high-end development environments, much as we desire them. In fact, the availability of a suitable development environment is the most restrictive factor in moving to newer microcontrollers like the ARM family. I'm certain that 32bit microcontrollers have many advantages over the PICs and AVRs most used for autonomous robots, and I'm eager to lead us in that direction. If DPRG had a couple of licenses for use in our lab (we have a dedicated warehouse with a number of machines for programming where members meet at least weekly), then more folks would become aware of the possibilities. But they'd still need access to the discussed hobbyist license so they could take their work home and really commit to the switch. Some will still go the gnuarm route either for a totally free solution or because of open-source religion, but most of us would be drooling to use a truly professional environment.
Regarding potential. Many of these folks will remain hobbyists, but some will move on to become professionals in the field. It's happened many times at DPRG. We have about 60 members right now, but hundreds more worldwide participate on our list. Seattle Robotics is even bigger and there are numerous other significant groups in this one hobby alone. A very large percentage of us are programmers or electrical engineers. It wouldn't hurt to develop a reputation among this crowd. And ultimately it will lead to commercial conversion sales. Possibly at a similar rate that your educational license does. It'll also lead to a larger base of shared code examples written for your environment. It's an investment in momentum.
It's also reasonable to expect that you might limit costs by limiting support (telephone and email - something worth paying for in for-profit settings) for this license. I'd still hope that you would offer free minor version upgrades and forum-based support. I'd also suggest targeting $99 US as the price tag - 3 figures throw up a real mental block for most hobbyists. These individuals are not in the same category as educational institutions.
So that's my spiel. Best wishes,
Karim Virani
-----Original Message-----
From: lpc2000@lpc2... [mailto:lpc2000@lpc2...]On Behalf
Of Paul Curtis
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:41 PM
To: lpc2000@lpc2...
Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
lpc2129 proto board 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
Yahoo! Groups Links
>However, I really do need to be convinced that this is a good thing...
OK, let me try. You've expressed a number of concerns:
1. Abuse mitigation
2. Perception management
3. The business case
Regarding abuse mitigation - I think hobbyists would be happy to sign a document promising to upgrade to a commercial license if their use of the product led in a for-profit direction. I would. It might, however, be costly to administer. You could also require proof of membership in an established hobby group. The Dallas Personal Robotics Group (autonomous, not remote control oriented robots) has a membership page on their website - http://www.dprg.org/members.html. Most established groups have a similar way to verify membership as it's not new to offer discounts to club members. This approach would, however, lock out some legitimate but unaffiliated intense hobbyists. But we can't complain if that's the route you take.
Regarding perception management. I don't think it's a big issue. Your own perception of Introl seems mostly due to your knowledge of their failure and that the move was a desperation measure. It was particularly desperate if they were needing to get real immediate revenue from the hobby market - it just isn't there. In your case, it's known that crossworks is doing well. If you decide to support the hobbyist market, it'll be seen as a sign of strength, you can commit to a move that has insignificant immediate benefit, but could have a longer term payoff. You can afford to invest in good will.
Regarding the business case. I'd think of it as developing long-term market potential and brand recognition more than direct revenue. In the robot hobbyist culture, folks can't afford traditional high-end development environments, much as we desire them. In fact, the availability of a suitable development environment is the most restrictive factor in moving to newer microcontrollers like the ARM family. I'm certain that 32bit microcontrollers have many advantages over the PICs and AVRs most used for autonomous robots, and I'm eager to lead us in that direction. If DPRG had a couple of licenses for use in our lab (we have a dedicated warehouse with a number of machines for programming where members meet at least weekly), then more folks would become aware of the possibilities. But they'd still need access to the discussed hobbyist license so they could take their work home and really commit to the switch. Some will still go the gnuarm route either for a totally free solution or because of open-source religion, but most of us would be drooling to use a truly professional environment.
Regarding potential. Many of these folks will remain hobbyists, but some will move on to become professionals in the field. It's happened many times at DPRG. We have about 60 members right now, but hundreds more worldwide participate on our list. Seattle Robotics is even bigger and there are numerous other significant groups in this one hobby alone. A very large percentage of us are programmers or electrical engineers. It wouldn't hurt to develop a reputation among this crowd. And ultimately it will lead to commercial conversion sales. Possibly at a similar rate that your educational license does. It'll also lead to a larger base of shared code examples written for your environment. It's an investment in momentum.
It's also reasonable to expect that you might limit costs by limiting support (telephone and email - something worth paying for in for-profit settings) for this license. I'd still hope that you would offer free minor version upgrades and forum-based support. I'd also suggest targeting $99 US as the price tag - 3 figures throw up a real mental block for most hobbyists. These individuals are not in the same category as educational institutions.
So that's my spiel. Best wishes,
Karim Virani
-----Original Message-----
From: lpc2000@lpc2... [mailto:lpc2000@lpc2...]On Behalf
Of Paul Curtis
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:41 PM
To: lpc2000@lpc2...
Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Problems with olimex (wiggler) jtag and olimex
lpc2129 proto board 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
Yahoo! Groups Links
