|
Hi Kevin, I agree with you on all counts - we used (and I still think they use them) VAX machines for structural calculations (very very large matrices), and they ran for weeks at a time without failing, churning away. Reliability was a priority, as the box failing would mean a lot of work would be lost. As for Linux, I have yet to see a computer where it installs "out of the box", so-to-speak. I'm sure there are some out there, but I don't know anyone in my friends / colleagues circle that has managed it. Hardware conflicts, etc. etc. Certainly you can get around most problems, but it usually means digging for hours and days through Google and hard-to-use help systems and HOWTOs, and sometimes finding some other guy that had the same problem and managed to fix it. The fix usually involves quite some command-line work, in a day where users expect GUIs. I love Linux, I love it's freedom, and the ability to tweak things that would be impossible to tweak in Windows, but it's certainly NOT an end-user OS. Regards, Mike if off_topic { go_back_on_topic } ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Van Winkle" <> To: <> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 12:56 AM Subject: [piclist] Was really OS bashing... Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader > Honestly guys, if you can get linux, bsd or whatever your working on to > where you pop in a CD and it loads and configures right with no knowledge of > the kernal, libraries, dependancies, etc., you have a winner. > > MS has gain it's position for many factors, even if product quality isn't > one of them. While the average user is challenged by dealing with > installing windows or frustrated by reinstalling, more often then not they > can do it themselves. > > Even Mandrake (which I consider the most user friendly version) is too > technically demanding for my Mom to install and use. If you could have it > load up and recognize just about any normal hardware without user > intervention, you'd go a long way to promoting the penetraction into the end > user market. I'm talking near idiot proof auto installing of Atheros with > the mystery HAl and Prism modules, Nvidia, ATI and GLX that fall into place > without a hammer, etc.... > > "But I load blah blah all the time and have no problem." I'd hazard to > guess the technical competence of this forum is much higher than your > average home user. > > If you want to talk uptime, I manage a herd of VAXen, and the worst of which > has an uptime of over 900 days without a reboot or any other attention > really. We have had some field units fail after uptimes over 10 years, upon > being opened up for autopsy, they were basically a solid cake of dust (Very > remote communication sites, no regular maintence.) > > Me? I use a variety of Windows, OpenVMS(dec and alpha), Solaris, Linux > since version .99p16, Torvalds was still a student. > > So back on topic, anyone port VMS to a 16F877 yet? :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
|
16F88 bootloader
Started by ●August 8, 2004
Reply by ●August 12, 20042004-08-12
Reply by ●August 12, 20042004-08-12
|
Linux unfortunately is suffering some of the same problems as Windows. The trouble actually started when IBM relinquished control of the PC architecture. DEC maintained control until the bitter end, so whatever you plugged into it was going to work, hardware or software. When you start down the road of the 'hardware interface of the week' group, it is all down hill. Linux may follow, but only if they go the way of Bill Gates. He invented the 'software interface of the week' group. How can any person/organization build reliable software that will interface to anything. When any of my DECs crashed, it was panic time, because I knew hardware died or was dying. Chad --- Kevin Van Winkle <> wrote: > Honestly guys, if you can get linux, bsd or whatever your working on > to > where you pop in a CD and it loads and configures right with no > knowledge of > the kernal, libraries, dependancies, etc., you have a winner. > > MS has gain it's position for many factors, even if product quality > isn't > one of them. While the average user is challenged by dealing with > installing windows or frustrated by reinstalling, more often then not > they > can do it themselves. > > Even Mandrake (which I consider the most user friendly version) is > too > technically demanding for my Mom to install and use. If you could > have it > load up and recognize just about any normal hardware without user > intervention, you'd go a long way to promoting the penetraction into > the end > user market. I'm talking near idiot proof auto installing of Atheros > with > the mystery HAl and Prism modules, Nvidia, ATI and GLX that fall > into place > without a hammer, etc.... > > "But I load blah blah all the time and have no problem." I'd hazard > to > guess the technical competence of this forum is much higher than your > > average home user. > > If you want to talk uptime, I manage a herd of VAXen, and the worst > of which > has an uptime of over 900 days without a reboot or any other > attention > really. We have had some field units fail after uptimes over 10 > years, upon > being opened up for autopsy, they were basically a solid cake of dust > (Very > remote communication sites, no regular maintence.) > > Me? I use a variety of Windows, OpenVMS(dec and alpha), Solaris, > Linux > since version .99p16, Torvalds was still a student. > > So back on topic, anyone port VMS to a 16F877 yet? :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on > how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement ===== My software has no bugs, only undocumented features. __________________________________ |
Reply by ●August 12, 20042004-08-12
|
I couldn't get ICSP to work with a 16F628 and an Olimex PG-2C so I decided on a 16F88 with a bootloader: <http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorial/Bloader/bloader.htm> I have it working on a breadboard right now. It is so much faster than regular programming. If anyone has trouble with the tutorial on Spark Fun just email me or post here; I can write up a quick how-to. Mike |
Reply by ●August 13, 20042004-08-13
|
> I love Linux, I love it's freedom, and the ability to tweak > things that > would be impossible to tweak in Windows, but it's certainly > NOT an end-user > OS. On the other hand: I doubt Windows is a (end) user-OS either! I use Netscape on my PC because I can't get IE back to work without re-installing XP, every time I start a Microsoft program (outlook, word, etc) it starts bugging me about training the speech-recognition, and for some totally mysterious reason the system has soundcard drivers installed and working OK but I have no sound output device. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
Reply by ●August 13, 20042004-08-13
|
--- In , "Kevin Van Winkle" <kvwinkle@h...> wrote: > Honestly guys, if you can get linux, bsd or whatever your working on to > where you pop in a CD and it loads and configures right with no knowledge of > the kernal, libraries, dependancies, etc., you have a winner. As I see the 'problem' is that the guys in the OS software know should dictate a motherboard, a video card, sound card and so one. Then just offer the simple install CD that will work on that MB on that Video card, on that sound card.... In otherwords, if you go middle of the road, you get it easy. if you want some cutting edge video, you have to learn the OS to install it. IF, and here is the thing soooo many people can't wrap their minds aroud. IF, the software guys laid out that spec, the motheboard guys would meet it ! If you notice, they all meet the spec for getting windoz to work. AND, they would all be better off ! and they know it. It's that lack of leadership or authority. since the OSF if in many ways against authority, they cannot bring themselves to lay out that spec. All they need to do is to spec ONE set of stuff, it would sell in the aftermarket more than any other set of hardware, meaning it would get the attention of other MB makers.... Maybe someday... Dave |
|
|
Reply by ●August 13, 20042004-08-13
|
Duh, I think that is what I said. IBM had control, when they let go, all hell broke loose. No one owns the archtecture to take control of it, it is purely market driven at this point. What the comsumer wants someone will supply. Compatiblity is not a concern. Chad --- Dave Mucha <> wrote: > --- In , "Kevin Van Winkle" <kvwinkle@h...> > wrote: > > Honestly guys, if you can get linux, bsd or whatever your working > on to > > where you pop in a CD and it loads and configures right with no > knowledge of > > the kernal, libraries, dependancies, etc., you have a winner. > > > > > > As I see the 'problem' is that the guys in the OS software know > should dictate a motherboard, a video card, sound card and so one. > > Then just offer the simple install CD that will work on that MB on > that Video card, on that sound card.... > > In otherwords, if you go middle of the road, you get it easy. if you > > want some cutting edge video, you have to learn the OS to install it. > > IF, and here is the thing soooo many people can't wrap their minds > aroud. IF, the software guys laid out that spec, the motheboard > guys would meet it ! > > If you notice, they all meet the spec for getting windoz to work. > > AND, they would all be better off ! and they know it. > > It's that lack of leadership or authority. since the OSF if in many > > ways against authority, they cannot bring themselves to lay out that > spec. > > All they need to do is to spec ONE set of stuff, it would sell in the > > aftermarket more than any other set of hardware, meaning it would get > > the attention of other MB makers.... > > Maybe someday... > Dave ===== My software has no bugs, only undocumented features. __________________________________ |
Reply by ●August 13, 20042004-08-13
|
So, you would eliminate innovation by simply saying that the OS can now and forever only operate on a given platform, sort of like VMS. Do you really want to use that old IBM PC circa 1980? If it wasn't for the success of Microsoft at developing software that can run on divergent hardware that is exactly where we would be. The true genius is in the hardware abstraction layer where Microsoft clearly lays down guidelines for hardware/driver design. Linux has that problem today - every time I decide to give it another chance something doesn't work. The last try was Debian about 3 months ago and it wouldn't handle the embedded sound system. Fortunately, it was essentially free. Actually Red Hat 7.3 worked pretty well except Konqueror, the only decent web browser on Linux, can't handle secure sites. How can they even claim to have a browser if it can't handle secure sites? Mozilla is a joke and Netscape is obsolete. In general the underlying OS was ok albeit damn difficult to get set up. It will never make prime time until you can literally drop a CD in the drive, boot and install without intervention. Then Red Hat decides that upgrades will have a fee (or be difficult to get) and the kernel is updated so often it is hard to keep up. I had 3 systems running Red Hat so its not like I didn't give it a shot - heck, I started fooling with this when 386BSD was first released back in 1991 or so and have gone through a few iterations. It has never compared well with Windows and the Office suite - never. Windows XP does not crash - period! I have it on 5 machines at home and 3 run continuous for months on end without a problem. And on my personal machine I run everything from IE to the Microsoft Office Suite to Xilinx Web Pack for FPGAs - a gigantic software package. Applications may crash but XP stays up! I had an NT 4.0 server at work that ran for years without shutting down. If it wasn't for planned electrical shutdowns I wouldn't have even remembered we had the server - well, except for random tape backups. And that was true of all the other servers on site and there were a bunch. In fact, it was true for all the NT 4.0 workstations as I recall. I wish Linux well but I'm going to stay with the marketplace leader. That's where success is judged - in the marketplace. We should probably get back to PICs - the Microsoft bashing is so tiring... > As I see the 'problem' is that the guys in the OS software know > should dictate a motherboard, a video card, sound card and so one. > > Then just offer the simple install CD that will work on that MB on > that Video card, on that sound card.... > > In otherwords, if you go middle of the road, you get it easy. if you > want some cutting edge video, you have to learn the OS to install it. > > IF, and here is the thing soooo many people can't wrap their minds > aroud. IF, the software guys laid out that spec, the motheboard > guys would meet it ! > > If you notice, they all meet the spec for getting windoz to work. > > AND, they would all be better off ! and they know it. > > It's that lack of leadership or authority. since the OSF if in many > ways against authority, they cannot bring themselves to lay out that > spec. > > All they need to do is to spec ONE set of stuff, it would sell in the > aftermarket more than any other set of hardware, meaning it would get > the attention of other MB makers.... > > Maybe someday... > Dave |
Reply by ●August 13, 20042004-08-13
|
Ah, VMS. Those were heady days! BRW > If you want to talk uptime, I manage a herd of VAXen, and the worst of which > has an uptime of over 900 days without a reboot or any other attention > really. We have had some field units fail after uptimes over 10 years, upon > being opened up for autopsy, they were basically a solid cake of dust (Very > remote communication sites, no regular maintence.) > > Me? I use a variety of Windows, OpenVMS(dec and alpha), Solaris, Linux > since version .99p16, Torvalds was still a student. > > So back on topic, anyone port VMS to a 16F877 yet? :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement |
Reply by ●September 2, 20042004-09-02
|
Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >On the other hand: I doubt Windows is a (end) user-OS either! I use >Netscape on my PC because I can't get IE back to work without >re-installing XP, every time I start a Microsoft program (outlook, word, >etc) it starts bugging me about training the speech-recognition, and for >some totally mysterious reason the system has soundcard drivers >installed and working OK but I have no sound output device. > I suspect that if you go into CONTROL PANEL / REGIONAL and LANGUAGE OPTIONS / LANGUAGES / DETAILS, and remove everything but the "keyboard" option, your nagging will end. Charles Linquist |
|
|
Reply by ●September 2, 20042004-09-02
|
> and for > >some totally mysterious reason the system has soundcard drivers > >installed and working OK but I have no sound output device. > > I suspect that if you go into CONTROL PANEL / REGIONAL and LANGUAGE > OPTIONS / LANGUAGES / DETAILS, and remove everything but the > "keyboard" > option, your nagging will end. 1. wowsers, that seems to work, thanks! 2. IMHO this does prove my point: I consider myself a power user in some sense (I am the kind of guy that writes his own (PIC) compiler when he does not like what is available), but I would not have guessed that there was an easy way to switch this speech thing off, or where such a way would be hidden. A sufficiently complex system will almost always be either user-unfriendly, or unflexible. Linux and Windows use different ways to harness their inherent complexity, but neither achieves real user-friendliness. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
