I would also like to see posts from others about their experience with it. I posted my experiences with FreeRTOS (which is still evolving) but thought I should augment it below.
One thing I found interesting is that the tool / RTOS vendors were all over me when I was evaluating which path to go (commercial, free, etc). As soon as I indicated that we thought that the Eclipse/GNU+ARM/FreeRTOS path would satisfy our needs they simply stopped calling. They didn't even try to persuade me with the benefits their commercial offering. This seemed very odd to me and particularly so because multiple vendors responded in exactly the same way.
So, given my good experiences thus far coupled with the way that I fell off the radar of the commercial vendors, I have to conclude that this is a very viable path. One caveat however... I'm not using networking in my RTOS environment. If I were, I think I would have gone for a commercial offering.
That's the way of Usenet - sometimes a general question spawns branches with much more specific topics.
But this one *is* relevant to the original question - people have been saying that they could not consider FreeRTOS because of the license, and that is mostly because they don't understand the GPL in general, or the modified version in FreeRTOS, or their usage in commercial embedded development. If it goes on for much longer, however, it would make sense to change the topic title.
My experience so far has been downloading it, starting to try it out, but then getting too much time pressure on other projects. It's high on my "things to try when I get the time" list, and I could well imagine using it on some projects.
The "advertising" clause in BSD was a specific requirement to include a reference to the code's copyright message in material such as advertisements, manuals, and other documentation for projects using the code. For some uses, this can be much more of a problem than a requirement to provide source code for parts of the software (the part you got free from someone else, rather than wrote yourself) to customers who ask for it. With the GPL, you *do* have to inform customers that part of the code is under the GPL and available on request, but that does not intrude as much as the original BSD advertising clause.
Most modern "bsd-style" licenses no longer have such a clause - often as a result of the clause being incompatible with the GPL.
But don't confuse BSD-style licenses with "public domain code" - the copyright is still owned by the original author. That can cause restrictions on how you use it, or how you re-license it. It may be easier to deal with than (unmodified) GPL'ed code, but you still need to read the license and think about how it applies to what you want to do.
(fourth paragraph of section 2: "Your pages use frames"
That looks like a broken javascript detector to me. It also seems unlikely that you would get so many replies here from those who don't use Javascript.
Here are what I believe are accurate figures:
JavaScript On Off
2007 January 94% 6%
2006 July 92% 8%
2006 January 90% 10%
2005 July 90% 10%
2005 January 89% 11%
2004 July 90% 10%
2004 January 92% 8%
2003 July 89% 11%
2003 January 89% 11% Source:
The top of each page includes a link to the framed main page.
and?
The percentage of visitors who speak German as their native language is far greater than the percentage of visitors who decide not to use frames - but as the site designer I don't feel as if I "should" provide a German translation.
If you mean Google. no it doesn't. If you mean FreeRTOS.org, that link in no may mitigates the problems Google describes. As Google points out, "Frames tend to cause problems with search engines, bookmarks, emailing links and so on, because frames don't fit the conceptual model of the web (every page corresponds to a single URL)."
So? The arguments are just as valid now as they were then. The current location still cannot be expressed using a URL, thus breaking the linking that the WWW is based on.
Ah. I see that you are ineducable. Being ineducable, I don't expect the following to penetrate your skull, but for the record, here are the reasons you should stop using frames:
Breaking bookmarking.
Breaking the standard browser print buttons.
Breaking linking.
Breaking the URL system.
One can only hope that your attitude toward flaws in your RTOS is better than your attitude toward flaws in your webpages. I suspect that your reaction to criticism of your website is a good diagnostic of what my "Experiences with FreeRTOS" would be.
Here are some more URLS with excellent advice for you to ignore:
I took the time to read through the comments and links you posted despite them being irrelevant to the question to which you posted a response. I replied very politely to your original post. I have never made any claim as to my skill with writing WEB sites. Disagreeing with you does not make me ineducable, it means I have a different opinion to you. IMHO I have responded in a polite and respectful manner. Your response shows considerable arrogance.
I shall not be responding to any further comments on this.
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
Is MSIE really worse than the others - or just targeted more because it has the most users. How do you find browsing without javascript enabled - do you have problems with many sites? (I'm asking questions because I'm interested before anybody gets on my case).
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
In Firefox, each new site you visit is default blocked for all scripts. If you go to a new site which has scripts, an icon appears in the tray, indicating that scripts were blocked. Clicking on that item, you can enable each individual script, either for this moment or until you manual switch it off. In general you only have to switch on the script from the base address, preventing all the adds !! So it's very easy to manipulate and you have full control, and (almost) no add at all. I have to enable about 1% of my web visits.
If a product really needs constant critical security updates, the underlying architecture is not very healthy. Even with daily security updates, there is a few days unsafe window between someone detecting a hole and before the fix arrives.
There are quite a lot of sites that do not work properly with JavaScript, Java, ActiveX and cookies disabled, which I keep disabled in any browser by default. I only activate session cookies when I am going to actually buy something from a shopping cart application.
If the site does not work properly, I simply ignore the site or send a message to the webmaster. Some sites have even fixed their pages, when they realise that they loose customers otherwise :-).
Hmm, all I see is a global enable/disable, no disable by default - enable for specific sites. Where have they hidden that I'd much prefer it to a global switch.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
, IE6 is at 42% and FF at 31%, so the division is changing. Of course, it depends on the type of site, the type of user (Europeans use IE much less than Americans, for example), and the way usage statistics are recorded (virtually all Opera clients claim to be IE to fool browser-dependent sites, and may not be counted properly).
Yes, MSIE really *is* worse than all the others. It's mainly a combination of bad design philosophy (far too tight integration with the system, and too much emphasis on ease-of-use and automation makes it easy to use and automate for the bad guys too), bad management (vulnerability reports lead initially to denials and shoot-the-messenger reactions rather than fast fixes), and closed-source attitudes (the bad guys always know about the problems, but *you* don't - with open source development models, information is not kept secret). It is not so much that MSIE has more security flaws than, say, FF - it does not, at least not significantly more (although they are on average more critical). Part of the problem is the integration in the system means that a flaw in MSIE equates to a flaw in the whole OS, not just your browser. And you (or MS) can't fix just that flaw - the fix affects the whole OS.
For those of us working in mixed environments, with a variety of vintages of operating systems in a range of different states of service packs and patching (with good reasons not to mess with working systems), trying to keep IE up to date is impossible. But with FF (or Opera, or anything else), it's a matter of clicking on the browser's little red "update" icon, downloading a three or four MB, and restarting the browser - regardless of the system.
A useful statistic is how much time is spent with unpatched, known critical flaws in the browser. Last year, FF had a single case of 9 days between finding a flaw and issuing an update. IE was known to be unsafe in use for 284 days of the year.
We have a lot going on at the moment - unfortunately that is not one of them :-( [unless you can persuade Fujitsu to fund a port?].
I have a correspondence from somebody that ported to a MB90F574A using the Softune compiler, but I don't know enough about the product range to know if this is close to what you want - actually I cannot find any source anyway just at the moment.
I would be pleased to assist in the creation of a port, but not having the specific MCU knowledge, or time at the moment to learn it, this assistance would be somewhat limited.
Sorry -
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
Alas, FreeRTOS.org isn't one of them. When I pointed out that the website breaks bookmarking, printing and linking, the webmaster ignored my advice and called me arrogant for daring to criticise his work. One can only hope that the webmaster (who is also the RTOS author) has a better attitude towards reported bugs in the RTOS code than he has towards reported flaws in his HTML code.
Fundamental Problems with Frames
formatting link
Why Frames Are A Bad Idea
formatting link
Framed No More
formatting link
Web Design Group: What's wrong with frames?
formatting link
alt.html FAQ: Why are frames so evil?
formatting link
Google Information for Webmasters
formatting link
(fourth paragraph of section 2: "Your pages use frames"
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.