FAT16/32

Well, that's because _you_ aren't contributing!

Seriously, open source seems to be quite good for commodity software, but anything that doesn't have tens of thousands of users isn't going to get the support it needs -- so you have to spend tons of money on it.

Look on the Micrium website if you're willing to spend $$ on this. They'll have the lowest price point, and I can certainly vouch for their OS.

Hi Vladimir,

Have a look at On Time's RTFiles-32:

Peter

Hi,

suggest you look at this:

I have used it, and it works!

Regards JG

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" skrev i en meddelelse news:D97wi.1046$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

Of course not. This is a commercial world his time costs money. You might like to work for free but most don't.

These people don't work for free, the reward is in the fuzzy feeling that you're helping humanity :-)

Of course to quantify that in cash, putting a pound in the Lifeboat collection achieves similar levels of fuzziness.

Perhaps a more tangible benefit is in the boost to the contributer's CV (resumé) and the evidence of a commitment to the profession over and above their peers. Much like writing a paper.

In article , Tom Lucas writes

As does other charity work

I know many who would not see it as such. Certainly not as "commitment to the profession" I know many employers would see not see it as a positive point in a CV.

It is not like writing a paper.

Why would it be considered a negative point?

In evaluating potential engineers for my department then I generally like to see evidence of an interest outside of what they are required to do by their job description. Someone putting in their own time to further open source software shows that that person is genuinely interested in software engineering and is not just in it for the cash. It would be the same if they were to spend time building a Tesla coil or similar in their shed - it shows an engineering "dna" that sets the candidate apart from their peers.

Well OK, there are differences but there are plenty of similarities too. Prestige amongst peers and standing in the the industry may not be the prime drivers for authors of papers but it is certainly an influence. Open source software holds similar rewards. I'm sure Richard and Lewin weren't in it for the glory with their FreeRTOS and DosFS respectively but there's no denying that these things have boosted their standing and made their names more widely known. (I hasten to add that these esteemed gents should be noted for far more achievements than just the two I mentioned)

I feel that you are insinuating that people who devote their time to open source software should treat it like a shoe fetish - if you can't help it then do it in the privacy of your own home and with like minded people but don't bring it up when the vicar is round for tea ;-)

In article , Tom Lucas writes

Yes.

However there is the major danger that it is not just their own time. The other problem is that company IP can end up in the FOSS. Actually most contracts say that anything you do belongs to the company. So you may not be able to release FOSS without a change in your contract.

No it doesn't

Not usually unless you are an academic. They do papers for status though I have never understood the philosophy behind it..

AFAIK FreeRTOS is not FOSS

Not at all. Several of my customers has said that people into FOSS get distracted by it in working time. Also as you and others often point out you get the support of the community when you use FOSS... Many employers find that this support comes from their staff during working time.

Also many employers are worried about how much of the Sw and ideas at work will end up in FOSS.

You are going to have to expand on that. I've just spent 2 weeks in the US of A telling people it is. Is there something I should know?

-- Regards, Richard.

• formatting link
  A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.

• formatting link
  An IEC 61508 certified real time kernel for safety related systems.

In article , FreeRTOS.org writes

Sorry I thought it was not released under the Open Source GPl etc but that the source was available and it is free to use.. I found this

"FreeRTOS is licensed under a modified GPL and can be used in commercial applications under this license. An alternative commercial license option is also available in cases that: "

The same page also lists the differences between your modified GPL and the commercial version of the license. So it is not really FOSS in the same way other true FOSS is. EG GCC

not all Free software is equally free.

The modification to the GPL is designed to make it as easy as possible to use in commercial applications while maintaining the integrity of the GPL'ed code. The modification makes the end users application code exempt from the GPL. Its about as free and liberal as it can be.

While it is certainly true that some free software is more free than others, there is absolutely nothing to equate free software, open source software, or "free and open source" software with a pure GPL license. I think it might be worth your while reading up a little on what "open source" and "free software" actually mean. In particular, look up "open source" and why many people consider it a good development model both for end users, and for developers and their employers. It does not work for every type of software, but proponents recommend it for its economic and technical benefits in many situations - I'm sure that's why Richard chose the licenses he did for FreeRTOS. Don't bother trying to understand the philosophy of the dedicated "free software" (as opposed to *merely* open source software) - many open source advocates consider them fanatics (useful fanatics, but fanatics nonetheless).

Agreed on the OS; uC/OS is very good. I have used their proprietary (not the FAT version) form of their filesystem and had some issues with it. We purchased their NAND device driver layer along with the filesystem, and I never could get it to work; the contents of the NAND device always ended up getting trashed. After providing detailed explanations of the problems I was seeing to their technical support, and being told in response that "they had tested it" and it "worked fine," I eventually gave up and moved on to a different solution. About 6-8 months later, I get an email with a new release of their software, saying that they had rewritten the NAND driver, and asking if I could verify that my problems were fixed. Too late.

Jason

Equally likely, they're doing company stuff in their spare time (humans cannot flip a switch and from then on think something completely diffe- rent), and using code fragments written earlier for a FOSS package for the company (whereas the FOSS code sits on a website easily accessible from a company PC, one would have to explicitly steal the company code to use it at home).

Anything I do during the time I'm paid for belongs to my company. Everything else is mine. That's the theory. As I said, humans cannot flip a switch, and if I find the solution to a work problem on the way home, I'll happily use it next day, in much the same way I'll use a programming technique invented at work for hobby code.

Note that "using a programming technique" does NOT mean copying code. It means using brain. For example: I had to convert UTF-8 to UCS-4 at work, and wrote a nice set of C++ templates to do that. If I now have to do the same thing for hobby code, I'd probably end up writing templates again, and the functions would probably even have the same bodies (there's not much variation possible in the algorithm). I wouldn't sit down and invent a less elegant solution just to avoid IP clash. Saying that would be illegal use of company IP is nonsense. With the same argument, a painter wouldn't be allowed to paint his own house during the weekend using the efficient techniques he learned at work.

Stefan

It is more like painting is so much fun that he is going around painting the houses in the neighbourhood on weekends. Nothing says he can't do it and the weekend customers maybe getting a bargain maybe not.

Chris and others are pointing out that the FOSS label on much of what is out there is just a different business model to merchantize intellectual property. There is very little significant collaborative major works (GCC is an example of one which when benchmarked against similar well implemented commercial tools is lacking )

The issue with intellectual property is the implementation is a very small part of the actual work. If the IP can't be protected then the amount of affordable risk is much lower. Return on speculative development is only possible when the created IP benefits customers as well as providers.

w..