RiscOS/BBC - TCP/IP
|
Re contacting Justin. I’ll contact him unless someone else tells me they have recently done so. If they have so and don’t want to publicly give all the details please email me: chris@cjemicros.co.uk |
|
Worth a shot Chris. Maybe enough water has passed under the bridge. Even if source doesn’t exist at least with permission reverse engineering is an option. |
|
I still have the 32-bit clean source somewhere. It will have to be checked for ARMv7 compatibility, because I haven’t done anything with it in – bloody hell – twelve years. |
|
So now it’s permission the only obstacle. Cross fingers. |
|
Is it possible to distribute a patch for the original module to make it 32bit? |
|
A fallback option maybe, but first the end user has to get hold of a 26-bit version to be able to run the patch against. |
|
Correction: it is.
Correction; is is :) |
|
That’s off topic, but I repeat again that I would be very happy to pay for a special ‘features pack’ (let’s call it Select) made for RO5. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. A good occasion to thanks Andrew Rawnsley for all its work to revive old software… and make little money with it (that’s OK for me). |
|
I’ve just looked. Justin is nerdy so has done a pretty good job of scrubbing. Arcade BBS? Nope. Archive of Barnett? Nope. There are 47 archives from movspclr on wayback, but easysockets isn’t one of them. :-/ Win10 IoT could be released soon It is a public beta, and (usually) requires a proper Win10 machine to get it installed; though there have been varying levels of success using Win7/8. then RiscOS will be history again. RISC OS has always been in the minority. Nothing new there. ;-) Of course (to be even more off topic (!)), I am not overly impressed by Microsoft waking up and realising the Pi exists. Okay, it is a nice coup for the Pi2 to be supported by Microsoft’s W10IoT; but… I’m sorry… The Internet Of Things is a bit poo – implementations are half-assed, protocols are barely implemented, upgrades are rare, and security is woeful. Imagine how it will be when we get the pointy-clicky UI crowd on board. [yes, I’m the one with uPNP disabled on the router – plus I do not plan to ever purchase any IoT device that I don’t have the full (buildable) source code for…a fridge with a GMail calendar on it? What the hell for? I have a calendar on the wall and it only needs an upgrade once a year and you wouldn’t believe how long it can last without crashing or needing to be charged; plus the pictures are a pleasingly high resolution…not backlit though, but hey, that’s only a minor thing]
That’s what this is for: https://www.riscosopen.org/bounty/ Somebody is updating JPEG support, and it looks like they’ll net a nice £1,618.67 (weird amount!) when it is done. Nearly two grand awaits whoever updates the USB stack, and two and a half grand for he who implements partition support in FileCore.1 If you want to encourage work to be done to implement specific RISC OS Select features, why not ask ROOL about setting up a bounty for these? 1 I don’t understand why FileCore is the part that is supposed to be updated by this bounty. I remember hanging a partitioned 12GiB drive out the back of my RiscPC hooked to a Simtec IDE controller along with a partitioned 2GiB drive (2×1GiB plus 6×2GiB to be 8 partitions). This was all handled by the IDE software. FileCore just saw logical drives (which could be (auto)mounted and dismounted). With this in mind, shouldn’t it be up to SDFS/SCSIFS to deal with the partitioning and not FileCore? And… um…
Isn’t 2^0^ another way of saying none?!? Am I missing something obvious? Edit: Stuff with bat-wings like this is supposed to be subscript…and it works there. I hate Textile. Grrr… |
|
> Correction; is is :) I dont think so, because there is no concept like this for embedded – where is it ? |
|
It’s released as final version since 10 August.
Windows 10 IoT Core is free.
Linux is used for almost all embedded projects today. |
|
GPL ? ..I really hate viral licencing .. it is not an option for application developers. |
|
To use Linux as an OS does not mean that your solution must be GPLed. I use RISC OS and make GPL and non GPL software. The point is that a professional solution will be more successful under Linux than under RISC OS. That’s just reality. Not a big deal either. |
|
Really? I’m as certain as I can be that I dug around in the Wayback and found one of the archives live. More than one as I have v1.07 and v 1.08 zip files. Individually useful, without distribution generally useless. I’d much prefer if Frank had permission to work on and distribute. |
|
What is the latest version of easysockets? |
|
Seems right sort of version number – 1.07 was Jul 1998, 1.08 was Sept 1998 Gives an indication of the rate of revision Justin did. |
|
My 32-bit version was based on 1.18 (09 Feb 2002) but I’m not absolutely certain that was the last one Justin ever made. |
|
> The point is that a professional solution will be more successful under Linux than under RISC OS just in case you are able extracting a new OS .. but its technical … from an occidental point of view no application is possible with GPL – and what is occident ? .. well .. you just need to look at universities on the northern hemisphere .. and what kind of subjects were condensing there the last 2000 years – just in 14 years destroyed … and one of the reasons is viral licencing like GPL. |
|
I have v1.20 (17 Nov 2002) here, which I’ve successfully used via Aemulor on the Pi. |
|
There. Fixed that for you. ;-) Apparently there is one part that could be moved to an earlier version of Windows (in included in the IoT setup) but Microsoft don’t want to do that as, well, come on…go for Windows 10 and they can make money tracking your every fart.
And right there you have a difference between W10IoT and the rest. W10IoT can run “a task” (with UI and such) developed on a PC and deployed to the hardware. RISC OS, on the other hand, is a full OS with proper (co-operative) multitasking so you can actually develop on the machine itself if you wish, or distribute applications built elsewhere to run on the machine. And Linux? Linux on the Pi is a full OS with all the background services that Linux is known for.
Depends upon your definition of free. You need to sign up with the developer programme to get access to the software, and at the moment it is aimed very much at the individual hacker; they probably haven’t yet figured out how to handle volume licensing if somebody builds a commercial device using it.
Yup – on either ARM or MIPS. You can kind of see why Microsoft want to get involved. There is life beyond Intel.
Me too. And I loathe GPL with a passion. The problem is, apart from threats and foaming at the mouth, practically none of the terms of the GPL have actually been tested “in court”. Sure, they’ll go after clear abuses, but for the rest, FUD works wonders. So the GPL says a lot of things that many developers ignore. Pretty much every ARM board contains proprietary kernel modules that are not GPL, almost every home router has some build of Linux inside and if you manage to get any of the source code from the manufacturer, it will be only the existing stuff like busybox or ffmpeg and never anything that would be enough to rebuild your device’s firmware (re. http://opensource.orange.com/software/home/livebox/Livebox-2-Sagem/FAST3XXX_68141C). Still, there is enough uncertainty that some projects (such as RISC OS) prefer to err on the side of caution and use no GPL code whatsoever. You can’t be held in non-compliance of something you aren’t using…
Sort of. It contains the Linux kernel. That’s about where the similarities between Android and “Linux” (as a whole) end. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html
There is no question about whether or not you can run GPL software on RISC OS. The thing is, you cannot bake any software into the ROM image; and looking at the text of the GPL, you possibly couldn’t supply a GPL product along with RISC OS except in the form of some sort of disc image. The FAQ seems to want to prevent even that much, but, whatever, the FAQ is irrelevant as it isn’t the core licence…
Yup. But, then, it depends upon what the solution is. I mean, if you are aiming for the banking sector then surely it is OS/2 and Win2000 all the way? :-P I suspect deployment and maintenance would be easier under Linux as this have been a standard feature for some 40 years. RISC OS? Well, there’s no standard way to get to a command line without being present at the machine. All that said – if your “professional solution” is done well, then it simply would NOT matter whether it is running RISC OS, Linux, or W10IoT. I know several devices are running Linux. My Livebox? Yes. My PVR? Yes. What about others? My satellite receiver? The other PVR? My scanner/copier/printer? My LivePhone? They are all sophisticated enough that they will be running some sort of operating system. And they will be doing so with ARM (LivePhone, other PVR) or MIPS (sat box) or unknown (printer). But they power up. They do their job. And most people don’t know (or care) what is going on inside, just that the device functions.
1.18 is the latest I can see: https://web.archive.org/web/20030605111352/http://www.movspclr.co.uk/software/internet.html#easysocket |
|
Isn’t 2^0^ another way of saying none?!? Am I missing something obvious? x^0 = 1 |
|
Not true. See Android. Not Open Source and relies on GPL kernel.
Closed source GPU drivers are not kernel modules, but binary blobs for a GPL wrapper. Of course, we should avoid binary blobs.
Hum. There are much more people that believe things GPL is not. Is it the same project is the only question to ask. Problem is linking, since linking is used to modularize a project (so GPL should be viral) and is here to be used by other projects (GPL should not be viral). So community invented LGPL. Problem solved.
Don’t make confusion with GPL (a clear license) and GNU (fear, doubt and politic).
Yes and no. In modern companies with modern clients, closed source OSes are not accepted any more for embedded projects. Everyone knows that some RTOS are better than Linux, but the rule is to avoid them if possible. Good for me. I use Linux for server and Windows for Office and SSH. RISC OS for all other projects. |
|
I think there could be a slight irony in those two statements being in the same post… :-) |
|
RedHat – doesn’t sell software.
Only if the licence in use is LGPL. If it isn’t, follow the snake back to square 1.
GPL is one of the less clear OSS licences around. Try EUPL or CDDL for an exercise in clarity.
Depends on context. I work in a factory. In France. Huge amounts of embedded devices and process controllers and such. Not a bit of it is open source.
Taken to Aldershot… |
|
If it isn’t, you must comply or forget. Nothing new. For a non Open Source product I could even ask you money to use my code. Where is the problem?
It’s absolutely simple and clear. Now, a lot of people try to guess what it implies. A mistake. A license is simple: what is said is and what is not said isn’t. Point.
Open Source on desktop is basically a bad idea.
Ah, the classic mistake of MySQL. Problems all flies away with PostgreSQL and a good database manager.
… and a good database manager. Next time try Digora (with Oracle DB or PostgreSQL). You’ll see the difference.
Of course they don’t, and they don’t have too. For embedded projects they use more Linux than other embedded RTOS, simply because Linux is available on more motherboards. Point. Nothing more, nothing less. I was just reacting about the ‘I hate GPL’ statement. It’s a non sense. Companies don’t care. Even software developers don’t have to care if they don’t want too. Dammit, it’s just a license. Tools as GCC use it. Is it a problem for users?
A bit of provocation, just to say that FSF is all about politics and not commerce, and GPL all about commerce and not politics. |