RISC OS Open
Safeguarding the past, present and future of RISC OS for everyone
ROOL
Home | News | Downloads | Bugs | Bounties | Forum | Documents | Photos | Contact us
Account
Forums → Community Support →

RiscOS/BBC - TCP/IP

Subscribe to RiscOS/BBC - TCP/IP 97 posts, 17 voices

Posts per page:

Pages: 1 2 3 4

 
Aug 29, 2015 3:56pm
Avatar Chris Evans (457) 1603 posts

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

 
Aug 29, 2015 4:16pm
Avatar Steve Pampling (1551) 7334 posts

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.

 
Aug 29, 2015 4:57pm
Avatar Frank de Bruijn (160) 212 posts

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.
I seem to remember it looks at a zero page location, so that’s another thing to check.

 
Aug 29, 2015 5:13pm
Avatar Steve Pampling (1551) 7334 posts

I still have the 32-bit clean source somewhere.

So now it’s permission the only obstacle. Cross fingers.

 
Aug 29, 2015 5:16pm
Avatar Rob Heaton (274) 500 posts

Is it possible to distribute a patch for the original module to make it 32bit?

 
Aug 29, 2015 5:42pm
Avatar Steve Pampling (1551) 7334 posts

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.
There is no official source for the 26 bit version. The Wayback machine doesn’t count as official.

 
Aug 29, 2015 6:50pm
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

Win10 IoT could be released soon

Correction: it is.

then RiscOS will be history again.

Correction; is is :)

 
Aug 29, 2015 7:10pm
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

RO5 has a long way to go before it can match the things Select offered, but we can at least start together, can’t we?

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).

 
Aug 29, 2015 9:12pm
Avatar Rick Murray (539) 12213 posts

There is no official source for the 26 bit version.

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. :-/
I might have to start digging around to see if I have any AcornUser CD-ROMs to look upon.

Win10 IoT could be released soon

Correction: it is.

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.

Correction; is is :)

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]

I repeat again that I would be very happy to pay for a special ‘features pack’

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
The thing is, we are looking for somebody who is well versed in C or ARM code, who has deep knowledge of USB / FileCore / filing systems, and who has plenty of time to design and develop and test. That’s got to narrow down the candidate list to…uh… zero?

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…

It is not expected that the native RISC OS format, FileCore, will be extended in this bounty. Therefore its limitation of 2^29^ sectors, 2^12^ bytes per sector, 2^0^ partitions per drive, and 2^3^ logical drives will be retained.

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…

 
Aug 29, 2015 9:40pm
Avatar Mark (2784) 22 posts

> Correction; is is :)

I dont think so, because there is no concept like this for embedded – where is it ?
Pico is free – GPL not, Win IoT not … for 99% of occident applications it would be enough … just the communication part is missing ;)

 
Aug 30, 2015 12:07pm
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

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.

It’s released as final version since 10 August.
And yes, it will ALWAYS need a PC with Visual Studio to make applications. Windows 10 IoT is not a desktop OS.

Win IoT not

Windows 10 IoT Core is free.

I dont think so, because there is no concept like this for embedded – where is it ?

Linux is used for almost all embedded projects today.

 
Aug 30, 2015 2:01pm
Avatar Mark (2784) 22 posts

GPL ? ..I really hate viral licencing .. it is not an option for application developers.
How can you be successful with GPL ? .. lets say you was able implementing a solution for architects .. i have one: statical calculations .. and mathematical not easy.
I actually would prefer sitting on it, then paying for viral licencing later on.
I dont see any better concept then RiscOS till now … distributing Risc PICO free is quite fair

 
Aug 30, 2015 2:17pm
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

To use Linux as an OS does not mean that your solution must be GPLed.
Look at Android. It’s Linux.

I use RISC OS and make GPL and non GPL software.
I could do the same with Linux, but I choose not to do it.
Not a big deal.

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.

 
Aug 30, 2015 2:28pm
Avatar Steve Pampling (1551) 7334 posts

There are 47 archives from movspclr on wayback, but easysockets isn’t one of them. :-/

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.

 
Aug 30, 2015 3:04pm
Avatar Rob Heaton (274) 500 posts

What is the latest version of easysockets?
I managed to find v1.12 on my Risc PC. The module is dated 06 Mar 1999.

 
Aug 30, 2015 3:19pm
Avatar Steve Pampling (1551) 7334 posts

I managed to find v1.12 on my Risc PC. The module is dated 06 Mar 1999.

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.

 
Aug 30, 2015 4:26pm
Avatar Frank de Bruijn (160) 212 posts

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.

 
Aug 30, 2015 4:53pm
Avatar Mark (2784) 22 posts

> 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.
We shouldnt complain

 
Aug 30, 2015 4:57pm
Avatar Andrew Conroy (370) 697 posts

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.

I have v1.20 (17 Nov 2002) here, which I’ve successfully used via Aemulor on the Pi.

 
Aug 30, 2015 5:11pm
Avatar Rick Murray (539) 12213 posts

And yes, it will ALWAYS need a Windows 10 PC with Visual Studio to make applications.

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.

Windows 10 IoT is not a desktop OS.

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.
That isn’t to say that W10IoT isn’t going to be powerful, it looks like WiFi/Bluetooth is either supported or will be soon (we’re nowhere near…) but I’m wondering ultimately if an essentially single-tasking system won’t end up being limiting? Or maybe they will compromise and multitask in a manner similar to iOS?

Windows 10 IoT Core is free.

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.

Linux is used for almost all embedded projects today.

Yup – on either ARM or MIPS. You can kind of see why Microsoft want to get involved. There is life beyond Intel.

GPL ? ..I really hate viral licencing .. it is not an option for application developers.

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.
Why? Well, let’s see. Technically the GNU/Linux project (to give it the Stallman approved name) is in contravention with itself (specifically a GPLv2 only kernel and numerous GPLv3 parts – the literal interpretation of the wording of the GPL is not possible to satisfy when both are running alongside). Technically several of the kernel devs and GPL people consider kernel modules to be “derivative” using a very very loose definition of “derivative” that doesn’t require any code to actually be derived from the kernel. The side effect of this is that in a strict sense, every single closed source kernel module (which is pretty much every ARM land GPU driver) is in contravention. The Linux approach is to tell you the kernel is “tainted” and refuse to deal with issues that might arise from the use of a tainted kernel. And, if we follow it to its extremes, what is it that gets used in the building of kernel modules that is considered “derivative”? Well, after reading lots of boring forum posts and heated arguments, it appears to boil down to the use of kernel headers. Headers that typically provide values to a compiled program, maybe a few macros, but rarely any actual code. Right – so they would say the use of kernel headers implies a kernel derivative that should be licensed under the GPL? In truth, they aren’t going to want to do anything more than weak threats and public screaming – because if they actually manage to pull it off, one could extrapolate that anything built using GCC would by consequence need to be GPL. Same logic, right? And with that, the GPL project would keel over within the hour…
And don’t even get me started in the ridiculous notions of the “linking” rubbish. ;-)

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…

Look at Android. It’s Linux.

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

I use RISC OS and make GPL and non GPL software.

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…

The point is that a professional solution will be more successful under Linux than under RISC OS.

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.
The use of Linux is also going to be simpler because a lot of the typical hardware devices are already supported. Not so much for RISC OS.

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.

What is the latest version of easysockets?

1.18 is the latest I can see: https://web.archive.org/web/20030605111352/http://www.movspclr.co.uk/software/internet.html#easysocket
That’s June 2003. By October, it’s all gone. :-(

 
Aug 30, 2015 6:34pm
Avatar Mark (2737) 44 posts
Isn’t 2^0^ another way of saying none?!? Am I missing something obvious?

x^0 = 1

 
Aug 30, 2015 8:10pm
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

from an occidental point of view no application is possible with GPL

Not true. See Android. Not Open Source and relies on GPL kernel.
GPL does not mean that your software needs to be GPL.
And GPL companies can be successful too. See Red Hat… Facebook… Google…. Microsoft (yes, too).

every single closed source kernel module (which is pretty much every ARM land GPU driver

Closed source GPU drivers are not kernel modules, but binary blobs for a GPL wrapper.
That’s allowed, as it’s possible to write module drivers for a peripheral that is not open hardware.

Of course, we should avoid binary blobs.

So the GPL says a lot of things that many developers ignore.

Hum. There are much more people that believe things GPL is not.

Is it the same project is the only question to ask.
- module = same project as kernel (extension of kernel), so GPL.
- frontend for wget = different project from wget, so no need to be GPLed.

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.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html

Don’t make confusion with GPL (a clear license) and GNU (fear, doubt and politic).
As for ecologists/green there is a good part (green) and a to be killed one (ecologists) :)

then it simply would NOT matter whether it is running RISC OS, Linux, or W10IoT.

Yes and no. In modern companies with modern clients, closed source OSes are not accepted any more for embedded projects.
(as proprietary hardware is not accepted since 20 years in business computing).

Everyone knows that some RTOS are better than Linux, but the rule is to avoid them if possible.
So there is still (a lot of) room VxWorks, but Linux solutions means more success from a commercial point of view (and with the same project).
Now, some people, as editors or clients, don’t want Linux… and some others even use RISC OS.

Good for me. I use Linux for server and Windows for Office and SSH. RISC OS for all other projects.

 
Aug 30, 2015 8:51pm
Avatar Steve Fryatt (216) 1804 posts

And I loathe GPL with a passion.

By October, it’s all gone. :-(

I think there could be a slight irony in those two statements being in the same post… :-)

 
Aug 30, 2015 10:29pm
Avatar Rick Murray (539) 12213 posts

And GPL companies can be successful too. See Red Hat… Facebook… Google…. Microsoft (yes, too).

RedHat – doesn’t sell software.
Facebook – the product is you.
Google – see Facebook.
Microsoft – apparently following suit (though their core money maker has never been open source).

So community invented LGPL. Problem solved.

Only if the licence in use is LGPL. If it isn’t, follow the snake back to square 1.

Don’t make confusion with GPL (a clear license)

GPL is one of the less clear OSS licences around. Try EUPL or CDDL for an exercise in clarity.

In modern companies with modern clients, closed source OSes are not accepted any more for embedded projects.
(as proprietary hardware is not accepted since 20 years in business computing).

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.
While I’m not privvy to the internal details (I’m just a lowly charlotte-bleue wearer), the company went fully OSS and rolled out Ubuntu on the desktops and some sort of web-based Linux client for the stock control and management (everything gets a little yellow barcode sticker). The open source solutions were a disaster – whatever version of SQL they were using seemed absolutely unable to reliably cope with beeping in stuff on-site and recording these changes at head office (some 30km up the road). Am oldish bloke with white hair turned up, looked around, and sold them a Microsoft-based solution. Dunno how much all those licences cost, but the entire site was converted over a weekend and the stock control system “just works”.
Give them credit, they tried the OSS route. And it really didn’t work out for them. You see, David, companies that turn over millions per year don’t care about politics and whether or not OSS is better or worse. They care about budgets and maximising profits. Somebody probably figured using Linux would be cheaper than all those Windows licences (more secure too) and they got burned. So they are back to a closed source setup. Why? When you weigh the price of a custom stock control system and a load of workstation licences against the cost of not having a clue what is and isn’t in stock, not to mention missing production items and things that were apparently never made (which would mess up the required traceability) you can understand that such things are way more important to get right.
No politics, just commerce.

As for ecologists/green there is a good part (green) and a to be killed one (ecologists) :)

Taken to Aldershot…

 
Aug 31, 2015 5:00am
Avatar David Feugey (2125) 2626 posts

Only if the licence in use is LGPL. If it isn’t, follow the snake back to square 1.

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?

GPL is one of the less clear OSS licences around.

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.
The problem with GPL is not GPL, but FSF, who imagines all sort of implications. Law VS politic.

The open source solutions were a disaster

Open Source on desktop is basically a bad idea.

whatever version of SQL they were using seemed absolutely unable to reliably cope with beeping in stuff on-site

Ah, the classic mistake of MySQL. Problems all flies away with PostgreSQL and a good database manager.

Am oldish bloke with white hair turned up, looked around, and sold them a Microsoft-based solution.

… and a good database manager. Next time try Digora (with Oracle DB or PostgreSQL). You’ll see the difference.

You see, David, companies that turn over millions per year don’t care about politics and whether or not OSS is better or worse.

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?

Taken to Aldershot…

A bit of provocation, just to say that FSF is all about politics and not commerce, and GPL all about commerce and not politics.

Next page

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Reply

To post replies, please first log in.

Forums → Community Support →

Search forums

Social

Follow us on and

ROOL Store

Buy RISC OS Open merchandise here, including SD cards for Raspberry Pi and more.

Donate! Why?

Help ROOL make things happen – please consider donating!

RISC OS IPR

RISC OS is an Open Source operating system owned by RISC OS Developments Ltd and licensed primarily under the Apache 2.0 license.

Description

Community-provided support for all users of RISC OS.

Voices

  • Chris Evans (457)
  • Steve Pampling (1551)
  • Frank de Bruijn (160)
  • Rob Heaton (274)
  • David Feugey (2125)
  • Rick Murray (539)
  • Mark (2784)
  • Andrew Conroy (370)
  • Mark (2737)
  • Steve Fryatt (216)

Options

  • Forums
  • Login
Site design © RISC OS Open Limited 2018 except where indicated
The RISC OS Open Beast theme is based on Beast's default layout

Valid XHTML 1.0  |  Valid CSS

Powered by Beast © 2006 Josh Goebel and Rick Olson
This site runs on Rails

Hosted by Arachsys