Comments on: LINUX catch-22 http://blog.flyingpic24.com/2008/04/04/linux-catch-22/ Programming 16 and 32-bit microcontrollers in C. Sat, 19 May 2012 23:27:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: dbishop http://blog.flyingpic24.com/2008/04/04/linux-catch-22/#comment-169 dbishop Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:38:04 +0000 http://blog.flyingpic24.com/2008/04/04/linux-catch-22/#comment-169 Catch-22 indeed. But I don't understand the reluctance to release the tools/IDE source to the Linux community, especially the IDE. The tools are largely free already, and the open source improvements could feed right back into the Windows versions. For commercial product companies, using PICs with the "Pro C" would be a license issue, just as it is now -- if you want to use it for a production pay or face potential legal complications. For home project folks and students and the like, what difference to Microchip's commercial viability could it make to use the full compiler free of charge? I am reminded of Bill Hewlett and David Packard who encouraged engineers at Hewlett-Packard to take parts home for whatever use they could find -- they knew that it created a more productive environment and everyone benefited. I can't conceive of a scenario in which the Pro C tools or the IDE source, in and of itself, could mean the difference to Microchip's commercial viability or failure. If there truly are no Linux users, then releasing the tools source will be 'the sound of one hand clapping'; but if, on the other hand, there are people that will make it thrive, it will likely draw more users to the product line. Either way, it is a boon for all concerned. As an aside, I can tell you that I use many proprietary Windows-only tools -- Solidworks, Altium, etc -- but whenever there is a Linux alternative such as ModelSim, Xilinx and Altera tools, and the like, I always choose the Linux tools. And so does everyone I know. Catch-22 indeed. But I don’t understand the reluctance to release the tools/IDE source to the Linux community, especially the IDE. The tools are largely free already, and the open source improvements could feed right back into the Windows versions. For commercial product companies, using PICs with the “Pro C” would be a license issue, just as it is now — if you want to use it for a production pay or face potential legal complications. For home project folks and students and the like, what difference to Microchip’s commercial viability could it make to use the full compiler free of charge? I am reminded of Bill Hewlett and David Packard who encouraged engineers at Hewlett-Packard to take parts home for whatever use they could find — they knew that it created a more productive environment and everyone benefited. I can’t conceive of a scenario in which the Pro C tools or the IDE source, in and of itself, could mean the difference to Microchip’s commercial viability or failure. If there truly are no Linux users, then releasing the tools source will be ‘the sound of one hand clapping’; but if, on the other hand, there are people that will make it thrive, it will likely draw more users to the product line. Either way, it is a boon for all concerned. As an aside, I can tell you that I use many proprietary Windows-only tools — Solidworks, Altium, etc — but whenever there is a Linux alternative such as ModelSim, Xilinx and Altera tools, and the like, I always choose the Linux tools. And so does everyone I know.

]]> By: dmcomer http://blog.flyingpic24.com/2008/04/04/linux-catch-22/#comment-163 dmcomer Sat, 17 May 2008 18:58:24 +0000 http://blog.flyingpic24.com/2008/04/04/linux-catch-22/#comment-163 Interesting thread. I've often thought about adapting the C# Develop (or in Linux, the Mono Develop) environment, adapting the IDE for use with GNU C and Microchip tools. Better yet, wouldn't it be great if Microchip worked with the PIC community on such a project in a vein similar to Microsoft's open source initiative (e.g. nUnit, sandcastle, etc.). The usability issues MPLAB has (no, I'm not trashing MPLAB, it's a good tool and the price is right), feature enhancement, etc. may be resolved quicker and allow the user to tailor the environment to suite their needs. I realize that MPLAB has IP build in, but it seems that there must be a way (obfuscated code in a Microchip supplied dll for example) that remain IP yet stream line the IDE. This would seem to reduce cost of development for Microchip. By the way, will we see you at this years Master's? Interesting thread. I’ve often thought about adapting the C# Develop (or in Linux, the Mono Develop) environment, adapting the IDE for use with GNU C and Microchip tools. Better yet, wouldn’t it be great if Microchip worked with the PIC community on such a project in a vein similar to Microsoft’s open source initiative (e.g. nUnit, sandcastle, etc.). The usability issues MPLAB has (no, I’m not trashing MPLAB, it’s a good tool and the price is right), feature enhancement, etc. may be resolved quicker and allow the user to tailor the environment to suite their needs. I realize that MPLAB has IP build in, but it seems that there must be a way (obfuscated code in a Microchip supplied dll for example) that remain IP yet stream line the IDE. This would seem to reduce cost of development for Microchip.

By the way, will we see you at this years Master’s?

]]>