Microchip & OnSemi want to buy Atmel?

On a sunny day (Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:02:23 +0200) it happened Frank Buss wrote in :

Yes I know, and have, that program. I find it a bit complicated and as long as bind works OK see no need to change.

I wrote a small name server myself, for the backup web server that runs from an SDcard in a Linksys wireless access point:

formatting link
As that name server is not finished (and perhaps never will) I am not releasing it and its source, also to protect myself against evil forces wanting to see where all the weak spots are. Now that runs the simplest web server you can imagine. Asking for a login keeps most of the bots out.

Well, some have 1 euro / minute help desks, and then once you get a line have to explain to THEM what they need to fix.... I tried more then 7 ISPs, now I have 'direct-adsl', faster, cheaper, better.

I have a bit different philosophy about all this.

These days it seems like the following tactics are used: A lock on every door in the house with 2 keys to open it, and an open front door.

I do prefer a good fence with a good lock, and doors and windows in the house that you just can open without locks.

No, I do not always check for buffer overflow [exploits], for example this news reader will likely crash if some overflow is deliberately created. So what. I do not know a lot about Java, in fact all I know is that it is slow, does not have pointers, that makes it not interesting for me. Now Java-people claim it is not slow, but some also claim the world is flat.

My view is that people who attack the internet, and its applications, an internet that is used by much of humanity, and many things that are becoming more and more essential to us are based on it, should get the death penalty.

Now that will help. And that also goes for those self serving people who publish new attacks every so often, like Kaspersky & friends, lock am up and execute them. It is just their ego and business, the virus writers are THEY, and lots of little script kiddies use their ideas and tools to create havoc.

Bit extreme POV I have, but alas, it is that way.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Loading thread data ...

If you don't have an ISP, how to get packets to/from the Internet?

--
Grant
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Turbo -several versions- and Delphi -several versions. Programming Pascal seems like walking in mud. Too many constraints. Can't do this, can't do that.

--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Reply to
Nico Coesel

On a sunny day (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:01:39 -0500) it happened Grant Edwards wrote in :

We have a special thing here, it is called 'direct-adsl', basically the telco gives you a direct line. It is cheaper then via ISP too. But no servers, no email server, no web server, no whatever else ISPs do..., no news server, but a fixed IP address. So I bought a domain, installed smtp, named, apache, proftpd, lots of other cool stuff, and pointed the domain to my IP address. And since then I have been online with this since 2004 without a problem. I can, from the notebook, ssh to my system from anywhere in the world, control the heating, house electronics, even grab satellite TV if the connection is fast enough (it can be compressed).

Also use the notebook as portable TV around the house via WiFi.. PC as media centre worldwide, MS is still dreaming about it... All runs Linux here of course.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

I really don't get all the PIC hatred. I've played around with quite a few different micros starting with the 1802. Every micro that I've used has its own set of crappy handicaps; PICs by no means have the market cornered on this. By far the best design I've ever worked with is the ARM.

Reply to
Anthony Fremont

The problem with PIC is that people who know PIC don't (want to) know anything else. If you only have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. If someone suggests to use more than 1 PIC in a design instead of a real microcontroller get rid of him/her. That's the first sign of trouble!

--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Reply to
Nico Coesel

I hate PICs, but one thing you got to admit is that they have much better support than any other micro. That is why they are successful.

Reply to
RumpelStiltSkin

If you're talking one of the truly miniscule devices like the 8-pin 1K parts used for PlayStation modchips and so forth - yes, an asm program, get in quickly, get out quickly.

But the braindead PIC architectural features are alive and well in devices up to 64K or even more. For my money, code volumes in excess of a few kilobytes are much easier to maintain, outsource and technology-transfer if they're in an HLL.

Once you get up to dsPIC, then yes you have a reasonable architecture. But dsPIC is not PIC.

ANY architecture with banked memory is simply not meant to be programmed in any language. There is absolutely no reason for it in this day and age.

Reply to
larwe

void func(const void *ptr);

--
John W. Temples, III
Reply to
John Temples

Atmel has a well known history of "Announce early, deliver late"...

--
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
Reply to
Uwe Bonnes

ADA is 3 of everyones favorite languages.

Reply to
MooseFET

On a sunny day (Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:34:07 -0700 (PDT)) it happened MooseFET wrote in :

Hell I can do that from the command line:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1 (1)

You mean Pascal is so limited you cannot even do anything with your hd?

GRIN

(1) Warning: Do NOT run that line.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT)) it happened MooseFET wrote in :

I have a 20 year old boook about ADA, wanna buy it?

20 years onward I still have no use for it.
Reply to
Jan Panteltje

g=c800:5

Reply to
Anthony Fremont

[....]

I agree. The trashing of your hard disk is the default behavior of a C program with a bug in it. People can write C programs that do far worse things.

Yes, this is a very big problem. Doubly so on OSes where large sections of the code run with all permissions. Modern CPUs can make things a little safer by protecting sections of the system from the buggy C code.

Pascals checking, assuming a correct compiler, does the check correctly. When the programmer has to code it, you are allowing the same mistake to be made in two places near each other to cause troubles. Having the range checking built into the language means that someone else has done the check on a different day.

Yes, this shows the danger of allowing any important program to be written in C.

The checking does not prevent you from checking your inputs. It protects the machine against trouble on the things that the programmer missed.

It is better that the user become confused than having their machine taken over or vital data going missing.

Again there is nothing preventing a programmer from checking things in Pascal.

BTW: I code imbedded stuff in ASM.

I program in C a fair amount too. I also have to root out the drains here at home sometimes too.

Reply to
MooseFET

On Oct 6, 6:57 pm, "Wilco Dijkstra" wrote: [....]

The google groups interface does some silly things.

Pascal prevents you from doing things that you shouldn't do so yes it is more restrictive but other than that it lets you write correct programs so it isn't really restrictive. C requires you to declare a variable before you use it. This is a restriction in C. I don't see people complaining about it much.

I find no such problem on any program I wish to write.

And many problems

I don't want to write a memcpy. It is a subroutine that someone might use in a C program. I want to write a program that does something useful.

[..C program failing..]

Oh yes it can. It may not format it correctly but it most certainly can reformat the hard disk. When you write off the end of the array, the return address is overwritten. Depending on what you wrote over the return address, the code can jump anywhere. The result in at least one case on a DOS machine was a jump into the midst of the BIOS.

The programmer is allowed to fix a bug in any language. We are talking about the damage done by the bug before it is fixed.

The specification was "go to the top of the mountain". In C you have to crawl up the side slowly and with great effort.

The checking in Pascal catches the most commonly made sorts of mistakes. You may consider these as "stupid bugs" but they are still important ones.

happened?

I can't give you a link because I didn't create a web page for the case where it happened to me.

Reply to
MooseFET

I see. Around here we call someplace that sells Internet connectivity an ISP -- they provide the service of connecting you to the Internet. Some ISPs provide other services as well [mine doesn't, I get Usetnet, e-mail, Web space, ftp space from somebody other than my ISP].

--
Grant
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Ulf Samuelsson ha scritto:

well, this is a meaningless (and politically uncorrect) example: may be it was 700 byte of NOP.

I'm not a good programmer as you are. I'm quite sure that I can schrink your 400 bytes using asm. I'm quite sure that your C can't schrink my asm anymore.

regards

Reply to
lowcost

I didn't see your original post, but you (Ulf) should take a look at Atmel's example for the USB162 composite device (Mouse, Keyboard and Mass Storage):

#define MEM_DF1 1 #define MEM_DF2 2 #define MEM_DF3 3 #define MEM_DF4 4

case 0: df_select = MEM_DF0; break; case 1: df_select = MEM_DF1; break; case 2: df_select = MEM_DF2; break; case 3: df_select = MEM_DF3; break;

Spi_write_dummy(); Usb_write_byte(Spi_read_data()); repeat 63 times

Spi_write_data(Usb_read_byte()); repeat 63 times

etc

I reduced the C code by 1.5K (10K to 8.1K) using C, since I am trying to fit it in At90USB82.

Perhaps Atmel should be taken over by a software company.

Reply to
linnix

...

Its only a demo, I think they make it readable and don't worry about the performance/size too much. If everyone was giving away best optimized code as demos what would we do for living... paste and copy?

Tom

Reply to
Tom

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.