Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Ya know, all our problems would be gone by now if Emu had just opened 
the code for the OS on the command station.  I mean, we still have to 
buy the hardware, be it a sampler, synth or the command stations, so 
they'll still make their money.  Hell, we'd be up to OS 10 by now.  
An internet community of programmers is always gonna be a hell of 
alot better than one or two programmers, especially concerning bugs.  
But that's just my opinion....

sapo

> An internet community of programmers is always gonna be a hell of 
> alot better than one or two programmers, especially concerning bugs.  

One word: Mozilla.

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "joesapo <joesapo@y...>" <joesapo@y...> wrote:
> all our problems would be gone by now if Emu had just opened 
> the code for the OS on the command station.
> An internet community of programmers is always gonna be a hell of 
> alot better than one or two programmers, especially concerning bugs.  
> But that's just my opinion.... 
> sapo

yes...it would be nice IF everything was open source.
but that means we would need the specs on the ASIC chips inside in
which EMU did not make.....so than we would need a SDK based toolkit
to start off with.
and as with most toolkits these days its either made for WINDOWS or MAC.
and that just defeats the PURPOSE of Open Source.
it would be cool if we had that power to do so but it would take time
away from making music!
oh ya if your going to quote a Open Source advocate dont try to take
credit......because thats closed source mentlity.

<?php
     echo"<P align>$bekenone</P>";
?>

> "joesapo <joesapo@y...>" wrote:
> > all our problems would be gone by now if Emu had just
> > opened the code for the OS on the command station.

--- "BEKEN ONE <bekenone@...>" <bekenone@...> wrote:
> but that means we would need the specs on the ASIC chips inside in
> which EMU did not make.....

Actually, we did make them.  All of them.  And no, we're certainly not
going to be releasing programming info for them!  =)

> so than we would need a SDK based toolkit to start off with.

You'd also need several thousands of dollars of third party tools like
cross-compilers, target-based debuggers, etc.

In short, you'd probably have far more problems trying to develop for
the XL-7 than you would making music with it!  =)

-Aaron

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

> and as with most toolkits these days its either made for WINDOWS or MAC.
> and that just defeats the PURPOSE of Open Source.

Open Source applications can be hosted on proprietary operating
systems.

But that's an aside: Open Source doesn't have a "purpose". It has
business and operational benefits (and some drawbacks).

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

> Actually, we did make them.  All of them.

Apart from the Xilinx control chips, presumably.

> And no, we're certainly not
> going to be releasing programming info for them!  =)

Is that for reasons of IP protection? Or because supporting such tools
would be something of a resource drain?

(Korg have taken the same stance with their OasysPCI card in order to
protect the IP of their filter algorithms, for example.)

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

I would have thought that everyone here understands the value of a secret recipe. Why would you spend MILLIONS to do something and just piss it away to your competitors so they can save money and reap your rewards. Do not compare hardware and software synthesizer and sequencing solutions to webbrowsers given away for free to promote other things . . . .

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nick Rothwell 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: Open source the OS


  > Actually, we did make them.  All of them.

  Apart from the Xilinx control chips, presumably.

  > And no, we're certainly not
  > going to be releasing programming info for them!  =)

  Is that for reasons of IP protection? Or because supporting such tools
  would be something of a resource drain?

  (Korg have taken the same stance with their OasysPCI card in order to
  protect the IP of their filter algorithms, for example.)

  -- 

    nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Nick Rothwell <nick@...> wrote:
> > Actually, we did make them.  All of them.
> 
> Apart from the Xilinx control chips, presumably.

We made all of the ASICs.  There is the occasional other chip on there
like the control CPU (motorola) and the Xilinx FPGA (but of course, you
have to program those!), but all of the 7 ASICs on there are ours.

> Is that for reasons of IP protection? Or because supporting such
> tools would be something of a resource drain?

Both, and more.  Releasing technical documentation would be of no use
to someone without the whole programming environment and source code. 
As Ravi amusingly pointed out (and I paraphrase) "this ain't no
stinkin' webbrowser"...  =)

-Aaron

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

>I would have thought that everyone here understands the value of a
>secret recipe. Why would you spend MILLIONS to do something and just
>piss it away to your competitors so they can save money and reap your
>rewards. Do not compare hardware and software synthesizer and
>sequencing solutions to webbrowsers given away for free to promote
>other things . . . .


Not that I feel strongly about open sourcing the code, BUT if you're going
to use a "secret recipe" analogy, don't forget that the recipe only works
on one brand of stove.

---
* just-john@...  http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml *

On 1/21/03 2:25 PM, "just john" <just-john@...> wrote:

> Not that I feel strongly about open sourcing the code, BUT if you're going
> to use a "secret recipe" analogy, don't forget that the recipe only works
> on one brand of stove.
> 

Not necessarily true.  OpenSource only foster support for multiple
platforms.  There are many other ways to accomplish this while still
retaining the "secret recipe".

drk

Don´t talk shit, man! Every company has to earn money to survive. If 
you wanna programm your own synth, build a VSTi or buy a chameleon 
(http://www.soundart-hot.com).