Req: (Free) Embedded Platforms for Education

It looks like it costs $3500:

Ulf Samuelsson wrote: ... >>> Check out the CAP products on the

website. >> any price guidelines on these yet Ulf ? >>

kind regards,

Glenn

This is an example of the down side of FOSS, this was an excellent piece of software for education and I am sure that that the author got tired of the

100 emails a day each asking just one tiny support question. After weeks of not being able to get anything done, put the whole thing in the public domain just so the problems would go away. I'll bet they haven't, the flip side is if he wanted to charge what it would actually cost to support XINU there would be very loud screams of protest.

It's too bad he should have been encouraged to continue with a craft that he is clearly good at but he had to choose to feed his family.

Walter Banks

Jon,

All of my comments need to be put in the context of software for an advanced university level lab whose initial criterion was "free and open source" (software) FOSS. In the original post both the curriculum and the lab requirements list were missing and so the thread has become what can they get for free and I assume the course ware will be created around the availability of free tools.

My argument is a requirements list should be created first.

J> >

There was another thread to the conversation concerning reference design material with either restrictive or non public licences. Major customers generally are covered by a comprehensive contract that licences reference material, technical information and use of silicon. The argument was this same material is not easily licensed for other uses.

I will agree, curriculum development does require effort and FOSS is often out of date or the develops do not have the incentive to maintain or continue product development.

The Universities have the responsibility to provide well developed material to eager young students in return to the student tuition and grants that they receive. At the extreme there is an ethics problem of trying to fulfil a commitment with no cost sources as a higher priority than a clear list of curriculum requirements. (I wonder if they have a law school)

Solid curriculum foundations and good teaching staff.

I agree. Minix has gone on to provide a social objective. I also know why some really good commercial educational software ran to the end of its useful life and was not replaced by developers skilled in creating pedagogical materials. We are collectively at loss because they are no longer there.

Walter..

I don't have the motivation to add much. (Not in a bad way, just in being able to find an appropriate and clear avenue to address.) So I will leave it here.

Thanks, Jon

One could also say that even though the author got tired of supporting his software, the permissive BSD-style license he used allowed others to continue his valuable work. Now imagine he would have used a less free license, one that allows use but denies redistribution. If for whatever reason the author stopped caring about his software, it would have been lost.

Best regards,

Dominic Rath

If it was valuable perhaps he could have charged for it and continued to develop it. Why should he have to give his work away?

With such a license he could have charged, earned living at it and continued to develop it. We would al have been better off.

It seems that FOSS Devotees are only happy when good engineers give their work away for them to play with. As I keep saying FOSS values a developers time and efforts at zero... so do most accountants these days.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

I consider my own free software project valuable, and the growing number of users seems to support this. I decided to release it under the terms of the GPL because of all the things I like about free software, and because I could afford it. Nothing forced me, I didn't have to give it away, it was just my own decision. The project's success shows me it was the right thing to do.

That argument only works when you assume that it was a lack of money that made him stop working on it, and if you assume the project would have gained as much acceptance even if it wasn't licensed under a BSD style license. As it stands, the project was released under its free license, and even though the original author apparently stopped maintaining it someone else had the chance to take over.

Sorry, but I really can't see what made you so bitter about free software.

Regards,

Dominic

You have made a personal choice. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of clever ways to make money off free stuff. As the popularity of your software grows other people will make money off that choice selling advertising on hosted web sites incorporating it into products. You will increasingly will be doing the not so interesting parts, answering emails fixing code that could have been better written in the first place. More exciting fun projects will appeal to a curious mind. You will start to ask some very hard questions.

How is your project financially supported, who buys the computers and pays the cost of developing and supporting the product? What happens when you are forced to choose, are you going to make a career out of a hobby like Jean Labrosse did with uc/OS-II or abandon it like others have done. What is your responsibility to the users of your software after you no longer want to support it?

When software is developed that needs to be supported out of the revenue that is produced then two things happen very quickly. 1) The software will die quickly if it doesn't fulfil a real need. or 2) It will continue to be developed with the specialized skills of the developer as long as it fills a need.

w..