I propose making a new sub-group under this heading for the device-driver writers across embedded platforms especially for those who find writing the lowest physical layer (where hardware meets the software ) the most interesting aspect of the product development. K V
Sounds good. You have my support.
Ian
-- Ian Bell
Frankly, I think that is the true definition of embedded software, and a sub-group would only serve to dilute the usefulness of the group as is.
--Gene
Gene S. Berkowitz said
And the sub-group would have a far lower base of readers.
Ask a question about device drivers in a subgroup, and probably only people who are currently focussing on device drivers will see and perhaps respond.
As the same question here to a larger audience and you might catch the attention of several people who can help you from their past experiences.
Casey
To form a new group and have it accepted for listing by most ISP administrators, you must pass through a formal proposal process starting with a message posted to news.groups. After much discussion (30-90 days is typical) and drafting a formal proposal, there will be a vote in which any interested person with usenet access can vote. To be accepted, there must be at least 100 YES votes, 100 more YES votes than NO votes, and the number of YES votes must be at least twice the number of NO votes.
There are many reasons people will vote NO. Some people vote NO every time.
I am interested in the device drives group ... Its great to have a specific group like this.
And I'd be one of the ones voting "no" to this. Most of this code, if not all of it, is going to be very specific to a particular embedded OS. This means that most of the messages in your proposed new NG belong rightfully in the NGs for those particular OSes.
Either people will crosspost - in which case your new NG is a waste of time, or there will be attrition out of existing NGs. Either way, you just multiplied the number of places people have to search for information on a specific topic.
Casey does have a valid point in there as do most of you ; maybe seeing everything in black&white and micro-classification is not such a good idea after all - but I would prefer having a loose confederation of programmers specializing in hardware programming in C - if anyone can point out existing groups which though not devoted to device-drivers do have a high volume of software issues closely related to hardware - preferably on NoOS platforms - which deal with ISR issues ; buffer management fot real-time data- flow etc.- it would indeed be very helpful. K V
Casey does have a valid point in there as do most of you ; maybe seeing everything in black&white and micro-classification is not such a good idea after all - but I would prefer having a loose confederation of programmers specializing in hardware programming in C - if anyone can point out existing groups which though not devoted to device-drivers do have a high volume of software issues closely related to hardware - preferably on NoOS platforms - which deal with ISR issues ; buffer management fot real-time data- flow etc.- it would indeed be very helpful. K V
Comp.arch.embedded is an appropriate forum for such topics. The volume may not be what you would like, but creating a new group is not likely to gnerate additional volume. A far better reason to create a new group is because the existing volume warrants it.
So, start talking about close-to-the-hardware coding here and, if such discussions overwhelm the group you may then have a valid case for a new group.
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mkesti@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
Any particular OS in mind?
Paul Burke
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.