Lpc2000

I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful products, but 
then cripple them and make developers lives needlessly unpleasant by 
only offering their products only on MS Windows.

Messages like this one, on one toolset provider's web page bug me:
"We are considering a Mac OSX / Linux port of our compiler tools, 
including ICCV7 for ARM. There is no firm commitment yet and nothing 
likely to be done until toward the end of 2005."

Take note! You will not get my business then. Don't call me, I'll call you.

Those who use both (I have a Linux and Windows system on my desk) will 
know that M$ Windows is an inferior development environment. Take just 
one example: For years now, the Linux desktop has outperformed a Windows 
interface that has remained stagnant more than 10 years. Both KDE or 
GNOME have offered a far more usable desktop, with basic features like 
multiple desktops and window layer control, for years.

Then there is Linux's excellent networking, many choices of graphical 
file browsers, command line access, umpteen other included free tools, 
robustness and fundamentally designed-in defense against viruses, 
adware...  And why use cygwin when you can run native?

If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many basic 
windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting should 
_not_ be a major issue at all.

Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some vendors are 
way more worried about copy-protection than building an excellent 
product that sells itself and that everyone will want to buy.

In my opinion, toolset developers will lose more and more (profitable) 
market to embedded Linux, its variants and gcc because they are 
invisible on the Linux development platform. This is not to say that 
embedded Linux or complex variants are appropriate for many lower-end 
embedded applications. But wake up and smell the coffee! As we witness 
with the LPC series, silicon capability and complexity continues to 
increase, making higher-end environments more and more appropriate for 
many applications. Toolset developers stuck only on MS Windows (and 
sticking their customers with MS Windows) will increasingly be caught 
between Linux for larger apps (anyone see which way cell phone companies 
are heading these days?) and gcc-based tools for both upper and lower 
end applications.

Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development going on, but 
it's wasted. I would like to see some serious competition on the Linux 
platform and have vendors to choose from.

  Brett

Brett, 

> I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful 
> products, but then cripple them and make developers lives 
> needlessly unpleasant by only offering their products only on 
> MS Windows.

It's where the market is.

> If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of 
> many basic windowing libraries and with portability in mind 
> then porting should _not_ be a major issue at all.

A toolset and IDE?  No, not a difficult thing to do at all.  All that
fluff that interacts with hardware on which debuggers much?  More
difficult, but doable.

> Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some 
> vendors are way more worried about copy-protection than 
> building an excellent product that sells itself and that 
> everyone will want to buy.

Some tools don't come with dongles and are dual-licensed, so you can run
them both on Windows or Linux or both--you choose.  For some tools, you
don't pay twice for a license on Linux and a license on Windows, and nor
are the prices inflated for Unix-style operating systems.

> Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development 
> going on, but it's wasted. I would like to see some serious 
> competition on the Linux platform and have vendors to choose from.

Yeah, would love to offer a toolset on the Mac--we have even ported our
IDE to the Mac, but performance out of Qt is abysmal on Mac, so we just
can't release it.  That same toolset works nicely on SPARC Solaris too,
but zero interest outside silicon manufacturers.

Regards,

-- Paul.

Brett Delmage wrote:

[lots of typical linux-biased windows bashing]

> If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many basic 
> windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting should 
> _not_ be a major issue at all.

You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on 
Windows and Linux.

Good support as well.

Richard

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "haare_in_der_dusche@y..."
<haare_in_der_dusche@y...> wrote:

> Brett Delmage wrote:
> 
> [lots of typical linux-biased windows bashing]
> 
> > If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many basic 
> > windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting should 
> > _not_ be a major issue at all.
> 
> You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on 
> Windows and Linux.

>> Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development going on, 
but  it's wasted. I would like to see some serious competition on the 
Linux  platform and have vendors to choose from. <<

Have a look at www.rowley.co.uk

Crossworks available for ARM, and MSP430 and hopefully soon AVR. (Hint, 
hint, Rowley ;-)

I have both the ARM and the MSP430 running on Mandrake and they work a 
treat. My only gripe would be lack of USB JTAG interface. Apart from 
that, they're really good development tools.

haare_in_der_dusche@... wrote:
> Brett Delmage wrote:
> 
> [lots of typical linux-biased windows bashing]
> 
> 
>>If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many basic 
>>windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting should 
>>_not_ be a major issue at all.
> 
> 
> You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on 
> Windows and Linux.

That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.

At 09:11 AM 3/23/2005, Brett Delmage wrote:
>I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful products, but
>then cripple them and make developers lives needlessly unpleasant by
>only offering their products only on MS Windows.
>
>Messages like this one, on one toolset provider's web page bug me:
>"We are considering a Mac OSX / Linux port of our compiler tools,
>including ICCV7 for ARM. There is no firm commitment yet and nothing
>likely to be done until toward the end of 2005."
>
>Take note! You will not get my business then. Don't call me, I'll call you.

That's fine. Our philosophy is always that we can't satisfy everyone on the 
planet, we just need to satisfy enough of them to make a good business case.

Having said that, we are interested in doing OSX/Linux at some point in the 
future. Do you know that we use to sell our compilers under Linux, back in 
1998 or so? It's only command line on the Linux, but then again, 1998, most 
people did not (and may still not) care. However, our total Linux sales in 
about 2 years were less than 20 copies. It's always chicken and egg 
problem. The command line compilers take may be a day or two to port, but 
then there's the GUI issues. Nowadays we can use Qt, VxWindow etc., and 
that's probably what we will do. Those options are not available then.

>...
>
>Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some vendors are
>way more worried about copy-protection than building an excellent
>product that sells itself and that everyone will want to buy.

Speaking for ImageCraft, and I know a number of you would disagree, our 
reasons for copy protection is that we can then always put the latest 
update on the web and any customer can update without contacting us. With 
the V7, we even have the demo to become code size limited after 45 days and 
the users can use it for non commercial use, again without contacting us. 
We are not interested in getting your email so we can send you sales 
literatures etc., our products should stand for themselves. The demo is the 
real thing and the license keys unlock the features. This is really bad 
from a copy protection point of view. Copy protection SW companies advise 
people not to do this sort of thing. Why do we do it? Because we care more 
about getting the latest products out to as many people as possible. We 
trust that if someone were to use the product, then they will buy a legit 
license, rather than looking for ways to hack the demo or use the code size 
limited without paying. It is risky for us, and no doubt there are people 
out there using pirated copies. However, we feel that it's the right thing 
for us to do. It doesn't work for every business, but I think it works for 
us. For us, the dongle is the optional feature that allows a customer to 
install on as many machines as they want.

>...
>Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development going on, but
>it's wasted. I would like to see some serious competition on the Linux
>platform and have vendors to choose from.

I hope you're right :-) May be when we release the products, and if sales 
do not meet the expectations, I will send you a reminder message :-)

>   Brett
>

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Schwarz <usenet@a...> wrote:
> haare_in_der_dusche@y... wrote:
> > Brett Delmage wrote:
> > 
> > [lots of typical linux-biased windows bashing]
> > 
> > 
> >>If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many
basic 
> >>windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting
should 
> >>_not_ be a major issue at all.
> > 
> > 
> > You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both
on 
> > Windows and Linux.
> 
> That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.

It is competition for GCC - because we offer a nice IDE, a whole set
of examples, 
integrated flashing and debug, and our own tailored C library.  We
only use GCC for ARM 
as a compiler and GLD as a linker, nothing else.

If you want to build your own tools and roll your own, fine, go right
ahead, nobody is 
stopping you.  But enough people see value in what we add to grace
our store.

Regards,

-- Paul.

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Schwarz <usenet@a...> wrote:

> > You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on 
> > Windows and Linux.
> 
> That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.

Things change.  Take Keil, for instance.

-- Paul.

At 03:22 PM 3/23/2005, Paul wrote:

>--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Schwarz <usenet@a...> wrote:
>
> > > You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on
> > > Windows and Linux.
> >
> > That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.
>
>Things change.  Take Keil, for instance.

Take Keil what? That they are switching to their own compiler? Or that they 
are moving to Linux? Or...?


// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Richard <richard-lists@i...> wrote:

> At 03:22 PM 3/23/2005, Paul wrote:
> 
> >--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Schwarz <usenet@a...> 
wrote:
> >
> > > > You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available 
both on
> > > > Windows and Linux.
> > >
> > > That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.
> >
> >Things change.  Take Keil, for instance.
> 
> Take Keil what? That they are switching to their own compiler? Or 
that they 
> are moving to Linux? Or...?

Paranoid, Richard?  ;-)

Keil started with a GNU compiler.  That didn't last long.  Things 
change.

-- Paul.

At 04:53 PM 3/23/2005, Paul Curtis wrote:
>...
> > > > That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.
> > >
> > >Things change.  Take Keil, for instance.
> >
> > Take Keil what? That they are switching to their own compiler? Or
>that they
> > are moving to Linux? Or...?
>
>Paranoid, Richard?  ;-)

Nah :-)

>Keil started with a GNU compiler.  That didn't last long.  Things
>change.

My English isn't so great, so it's best if people spell things out for me :-)


// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

I am getting tired of Linux users claiming that Linux is so much better than
Windows/OSX/QNX/Unix whatever. The market decides which OS a development
tool company will support. 

If Linux was so good, then why isn't there more Linux support from
development tool companies?

I lived through the MAC/PC OS Wars of the '90s. I'll say it now and as I
said it back then the market will ultimately decide which platform is
better.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Delmage [mailto:BDelmage@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:11 PM
> To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpc2000] Vendors: no business without a LINUX-based product
> 
> 
> I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful 
> products, but then cripple them and make developers lives 
> needlessly unpleasant by only offering their products only on 
> MS Windows.
> 
> Messages like this one, on one toolset provider's web page bug me:
> "We are considering a Mac OSX / Linux port of our compiler 
> tools, including ICCV7 for ARM. There is no firm commitment 
> yet and nothing likely to be done until toward the end of 2005."
> 
> Take note! You will not get my business then. Don't call me, 
> I'll call you.
> 
> Those who use both (I have a Linux and Windows system on my 
> desk) will know that M$ Windows is an inferior development 
> environment. Take just one example: For years now, the Linux 
> desktop has outperformed a Windows interface that has 
> remained stagnant more than 10 years. Both KDE or GNOME have 
> offered a far more usable desktop, with basic features like 
> multiple desktops and window layer control, for years.
> 
> Then there is Linux's excellent networking, many choices of 
> graphical file browsers, command line access, umpteen other 
> included free tools, robustness and fundamentally designed-in 
> defense against viruses, adware...  And why use cygwin when 
> you can run native?
> 
> If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of 
> many basic windowing libraries and with portability in mind 
> then porting should _not_ be a major issue at all.
> 
> Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some 
> vendors are way more worried about copy-protection than 
> building an excellent product that sells itself and that 
> everyone will want to buy.
> 
> In my opinion, toolset developers will lose more and more 
> (profitable) market to embedded Linux, its variants and gcc 
> because they are invisible on the Linux development platform. 
> This is not to say that embedded Linux or complex variants 
> are appropriate for many lower-end embedded applications. But 
> wake up and smell the coffee! As we witness with the LPC 
> series, silicon capability and complexity continues to 
> increase, making higher-end environments more and more 
> appropriate for many applications. Toolset developers stuck 
> only on MS Windows (and sticking their customers with MS 
> Windows) will increasingly be caught between Linux for larger 
> apps (anyone see which way cell phone companies are heading 
> these days?) and gcc-based tools for both upper and lower end 
> applications.
> 
> Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development 
> going on, but it's wasted. I would like to see some serious 
> competition on the Linux platform and have vendors to choose from.
> 
>   Brett
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

Joe Hlebasko wrote:

> I am getting tired of Linux users claiming that Linux is so much 
> better than
> Windows/OSX/QNX/Unix whatever. The market decides which OS a development
> tool company will support.
>
> If Linux was so good, then why isn't there more Linux support from
> development tool companies?
>
> I lived through the MAC/PC OS Wars of the '90s. I'll say it now and as I
> said it back then the market will ultimately decide which platform is
> better.

Windows won the OS wars for one simple reason. The MAC was a closed 
architecture, the PC was an open arhcitecture. Everybody and their 
uncles was building add on cards and writing code for windows, noboday 
could afford a licence for MAC. You could get free, or effectively free 
software to do anything on a PC, and find hardware for just about any 
imaginable extension, MAC software and hardware was both rare and 
grossly overpriced.

Windows is an absolute piece of crap, it's bloated, it's slow, and it's 
riddled with bugs, but it's also used by 90% of all businesses, so if my 
clients have to be able to run the same stuff I do, and they run Windows 
I can either piss them off or bite my tongue and use the same piece of 
crap they do.

Now that I've quit contracting I no longer care, so I 'm probably going 
to convert an old system to Linux. I still won't get rid of Windows 
though, simply because all the best games are written for it.

Al

>
>
> Joe
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brett Delmage [mailto:BDelmage@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:11 PM
> > To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpc2000] Vendors: no business without a LINUX-based product
> >
> >
> > I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful
> > products, but then cripple them and make developers lives
> > needlessly unpleasant by only offering their products only on
> > MS Windows.
> >
> > Messages like this one, on one toolset provider's web page bug me:
> > "We are considering a Mac OSX / Linux port of our compiler
> > tools, including ICCV7 for ARM. There is no firm commitment
> > yet and nothing likely to be done until toward the end of 2005."
> >
> > Take note! You will not get my business then. Don't call me,
> > I'll call you.
> >
> > Those who use both (I have a Linux and Windows system on my
> > desk) will know that M$ Windows is an inferior development
> > environment. Take just one example: For years now, the Linux
> > desktop has outperformed a Windows interface that has
> > remained stagnant more than 10 years. Both KDE or GNOME have
> > offered a far more usable desktop, with basic features like
> > multiple desktops and window layer control, for years.
> >
> > Then there is Linux's excellent networking, many choices of
> > graphical file browsers, command line access, umpteen other
> > included free tools, robustness and fundamentally designed-in
> > defense against viruses, adware...  And why use cygwin when
> > you can run native?
> >
> > If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of
> > many basic windowing libraries and with portability in mind
> > then porting should _not_ be a major issue at all.
> >
> > Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some
> > vendors are way more worried about copy-protection than
> > building an excellent product that sells itself and that
> > everyone will want to buy.
> >
> > In my opinion, toolset developers will lose more and more
> > (profitable) market to embedded Linux, its variants and gcc
> > because they are invisible on the Linux development platform.
> > This is not to say that embedded Linux or complex variants
> > are appropriate for many lower-end embedded applications. But
> > wake up and smell the coffee! As we witness with the LPC
> > series, silicon capability and complexity continues to
> > increase, making higher-end environments more and more
> > appropriate for many applications. Toolset developers stuck
> > only on MS Windows (and sticking their customers with MS
> > Windows) will increasingly be caught between Linux for larger
> > apps (anyone see which way cell phone companies are heading
> > these days?) and gcc-based tools for both upper and lower end
> > applications.
> >
> > Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development
> > going on, but it's wasted. I would like to see some serious
> > competition on the Linux platform and have vendors to choose from.
> >
> >   Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1296o0kos/M=298184.6191685.7192823.3001176/D=groups/S=1706554205:HM/EXP=1111714249/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
>  
>

I think it is time to take this discussion out of the LPC2000 group.

//Helge



-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Onestone [mailto:onestone@bigpond.net.au] 
Skickat: den 24 mars 2005 07:17
Till: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: Re: [lpc2000] Vendors: no business without a LINUX-based product


Joe Hlebasko wrote:

> I am getting tired of Linux users claiming that Linux is so much 
> better than Windows/OSX/QNX/Unix whatever. The market decides which OS 
> a development tool company will support.
>
> If Linux was so good, then why isn't there more Linux support from 
> development tool companies?
>
> I lived through the MAC/PC OS Wars of the '90s. I'll say it now and as 
> I said it back then the market will ultimately decide which platform 
> is better.

Windows won the OS wars for one simple reason. The MAC was a closed
architecture, the PC was an open arhcitecture. Everybody and their uncles
was building add on cards and writing code for windows, noboday could afford
a licence for MAC. You could get free, or effectively free software to do
anything on a PC, and find hardware for just about any imaginable extension,
MAC software and hardware was both rare and grossly overpriced.

Windows is an absolute piece of crap, it's bloated, it's slow, and it's
riddled with bugs, but it's also used by 90% of all businesses, so if my
clients have to be able to run the same stuff I do, and they run Windows I
can either piss them off or bite my tongue and use the same piece of crap
they do.

Now that I've quit contracting I no longer care, so I 'm probably going to
convert an old system to Linux. I still won't get rid of Windows though,
simply because all the best games are written for it.

Al

>
>
> Joe
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brett Delmage [mailto:BDelmage@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:11 PM
> > To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpc2000] Vendors: no business without a LINUX-based 
> > product
> >
> >
> > I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful products, but 
> > then cripple them and make developers lives needlessly unpleasant by 
> > only offering their products only on MS Windows.
> >
> > Messages like this one, on one toolset provider's web page bug me:
> > "We are considering a Mac OSX / Linux port of our compiler tools, 
> > including ICCV7 for ARM. There is no firm commitment yet and nothing 
> > likely to be done until toward the end of 2005."
> >
> > Take note! You will not get my business then. Don't call me, I'll 
> > call you.
> >
> > Those who use both (I have a Linux and Windows system on my
> > desk) will know that M$ Windows is an inferior development 
> > environment. Take just one example: For years now, the Linux desktop 
> > has outperformed a Windows interface that has remained stagnant more 
> > than 10 years. Both KDE or GNOME have offered a far more usable 
> > desktop, with basic features like multiple desktops and window layer 
> > control, for years.
> >
> > Then there is Linux's excellent networking, many choices of 
> > graphical file browsers, command line access, umpteen other included 
> > free tools, robustness and fundamentally designed-in defense against 
> > viruses, adware...  And why use cygwin when you can run native?
> >
> > If an ARM cross-compiler toolset is developed using one of many 
> > basic windowing libraries and with portability in mind then porting 
> > should _not_ be a major issue at all.
> >
> > Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some vendors 
> > are way more worried about copy-protection than building an 
> > excellent product that sells itself and that everyone will want to 
> > buy.
> >
> > In my opinion, toolset developers will lose more and more
> > (profitable) market to embedded Linux, its variants and gcc because 
> > they are invisible on the Linux development platform.
> > This is not to say that embedded Linux or complex variants are 
> > appropriate for many lower-end embedded applications. But wake up 
> > and smell the coffee! As we witness with the LPC series, silicon 
> > capability and complexity continues to increase, making higher-end 
> > environments more and more appropriate for many applications. 
> > Toolset developers stuck only on MS Windows (and sticking their 
> > customers with MS
> > Windows) will increasingly be caught between Linux for larger apps 
> > (anyone see which way cell phone companies are heading these days?) 
> > and gcc-based tools for both upper and lower end applications.
> >
> > Too bad. There's some useful toolset product development going on, 
> > but it's wasted. I would like to see some serious competition on the 
> > Linux platform and have vendors to choose from.
> >
> >   Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1296o0kos/M=298184.6191685.7192823.300117
> 6/D=groups/S=1706554205:HM/EXP=1111714249/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/
> *http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
>  
>



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Andreas Schwarz wrote:
>>You know Rowley Crossworks? That's using QT and is available both on 
>>Windows and Linux.
> 
> 
> That's no real competition for GCC - because it is GCC.

Yeah, it uses gcc as it's compiler backend. As does IAR. And Keil.

What makes Crossworks stand out is both the IDE and the integrated debugger.

At least on Windows, the latter seems to be the _only_ debugger that 
works with a parallel port JTAG interface ("Wiggler") with acceptable 
speed. Macraigor's "OCD Commander" might be seen as proof of concept, 
but it's incapable of transferring more than about 30 bytes/sec, even on 
  a decent and pretty fast machine. No, that was not tested using a 
clone, but a trusty (?) original Wiggler.

Paul Curtis wrote:
> nor are the prices inflated for Unix-style operating systems.

Gimpel's policy is very irritating in this respect. I asked them why 
they did it and they claimed it's because users of Unix based systems 
are more expensive to support (we ask over four times as many questions 
as programmers who work on Windows?). I ended up buying PC-Lint and 
running it under Virtual-PC, which is about as fast as an old 486 on my 
Mac and quite inconvenient too. I'm also running a Windows-only 8051 
compiler in the same way (its developer didn't even bother replying to a 
query about the possibility of an OSX port of the command line parts).

> Yeah, would love to offer a toolset on the Mac--we have even ported our
> IDE to the Mac, but performance out of Qt is abysmal on Mac, so we just
> can't release it.

Cadsoft use the X11 version of Qt in their OSX port for this very 
reason. It's not as pretty as a native Cocoa app but it's perfectly usable.

I'm planning to use WxWidgets together with the WxDesigner RAD tool for 
a cross platform GUI program I (reluctantly) need to create soon.

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:47:10PM +1030, Onestone wrote:

> Windows won the OS wars for one simple reason. The MAC was a closed 
> architecture, the PC was an open arhcitecture. Everybody and their 
> uncles was building add on cards and writing code for windows, noboday 
> could afford a licence for MAC. You could get free, or effectively free 
> software to do anything on a PC, and find hardware for just about any 
> imaginable extension, MAC software and hardware was both rare and 
> grossly overpriced.

The reason for the Windows success was DOS compatibility. You could use
Windows as task switcher for DOS applications, until this applications were
rewritten in windows. This simplified the chicken/egg problem of the new OS.
(I remember that GEM(?) was available for IBM-PC's before Windows - but GEM
had no success). And the success of DOS (or the IBM-PC) was the availability
of cheap "compatible" clones made in Taiwan. Price was the reason, simply
the money...

        Matthias

>> I lived through the MAC/PC OS Wars of the '90s. I'll say it now and 
as I said it back then the market will ultimately decide which platform 
is better. <<

Yeah, but just because a market decides something is better, doesn't 
mean it *is*. Take VHS/Betamax, V2000 for example.

Brett

> I am getting tired of toolset vendors who offer useful products, but
> then cripple them and make developers lives needlessly unpleasant by
> only offering their products only on MS Windows.

For new tools, I agree. Today it is very easy to write multiplatform code.
The company I work for uses Qt, and had no problem to port our PC based 
tools
  from Windows to Linux (porting meant: compiling it.)

Also the otherway round. Some non-GUI software we developed on Linux works 
w/o any problem on Windows, either with Cygwin or even compiled with MinGW 
(i.e. native win32).

Normaly my first questions to tool vendors is: Do you support Linux ?
And I repeat this question louder and louder each time I place it.

The problem is rather simple: No market-pressure no will.
(Only one I talked to said, they will _never_ support Linux, let's wait :-)

> interface that has remained stagnant more than 10 years. Both KDE or
> GNOME have offered a far more usable desktop, with basic features like
> multiple desktops and window layer control, for years.

I have this on Windows as well. KDE and GNOME e.g. are much to overloaded 
with
features so I kicked it from my Linux-Box and use icewm instead.

> Following the recent thread on dongles, It seems that some vendors are
> way more worried about copy-protection than building an excellent
> product that sells itself and that everyone will want to buy.

Don't forget, the embedded market is no mass-market. So ROI is very small 
if
you do not protect your software esp. because many (not you of course) tend
to take it as a kind of friendlyness to "lend" some software to a friend
or co-worker.

Just my 2cents
-- 
42Bastian Schick

> Yeah, it uses gcc as it's compiler backend. As does IAR. And Keil.

I am quiete sure, IAR does not use gcc, and the newer Keil doesn't either 
(I am pretty sure).

-- 
42Bastian Schick

> I am getting tired of Linux users claiming that Linux is so much better than
> Windows/OSX/QNX/Unix whatever. The market decides which OS a development
> tool company will support.

Trust me, Linux, and UNIX systems in general, are indeed MUCH better since 
they are more reliable and powerful than any microsoft based system (mind 
you, not as easy to use, for most users at least).

At work I have both a winxp and Linux box. I just rebooted the winxp on 
Thursday night box because a dos prompt hung the machine. On my Linux box 
that app would have been killed in 2 seconds with a quick command line.

Besides reliability, what about tools? With Linux I get lots of great 
terminal emulators, TFTP/NFS servers, and compilers and debug tools for 
free.

I could give you a 1000 more examples of why Linux/UNIX is better, yet it 
would just bore you to death. Instead, how about trying it out before 
complaining some more?

If you want to know why most tool companies don't support Linux, it is 
simply because there aren't enough paying Linux users (as a commercial 
tool vendor rep pointed out recently on this list). And why are there not 
enough Linux users willing to pay $$$? Not because they are cheap, it's 
because most people are too lazy to learn a new OS (and especially one 
that takes a little more work to manage like a Linux/UNIX box). They want 
point and click and no RTFM. And more importantly, many IT departments 
don't want the extra effort of supporting non-windows boxes. In my 
situation I support my Linux boxes myself (as do my peers) because our it 
staff won't (some companies do, mind you).

It's that simple. More people need to wake up and realize windows is 
indeed crappy and unreliable, and that there are other better 
alternatives.

Just on a side note, all the development I do is Linux based when I can, 
and windows when I have no other choice. For example, all of my AVR ARM 
GCC based development is done using Linux (see my site for the tool-chain 
build scripts), as is most of my QNX work (on a side note, their tools 
actually come on CDs for windows/Linux/MAC and even QNX-self hosted). All 
the boards I design are done with eagle under Linux, and most of my 
Verilog work is simulated under Linux with wine helping helping out the 
rest (Xilinx tools).

Personally, I would like to see more companies porting their debug tools 
to Linux. Macraigor and Abatron (two vendors I use) have been doing a good 
effort making their tools work under Linux (as for Macraigor, everything 
except their wiggler will work under Linux, although I like the Macraigor 
mpdemon and Abatron bdi2000 which allow a simple gdb connection over a LAN 
so I can use my Linux based GDB/Insight).

- Rod

You are correct in that Keil does not use GCC as a back end or front 
end or anything else.  The KEIL IDE lets you choose which compiler
you will use:  KEIL CARM, GCC CYGNUS, or ARM ADS/RealView.

Jon Ward
Keil Software


--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, 42Bastian Schick <bastian42@m...>
wrote:
> > Yeah, it uses gcc as it's compiler backend. As does IAR. And Keil.
> 
> I am quiete sure, IAR does not use gcc, and the newer Keil doesn't 
either 

> (I am pretty sure).
> 
> -- 
> 42Bastian Schick