Open source embedded C ; appropiate group?

[may_2005]

Hello,

I am working on a piece of (open source) hardware, which needs a
certain amount of (open source) embedded C code developed for the
hardware to perform a useful task. I am looking for people to
contribute to the writing of this software. It is not commercial in
the sense that contributors will be paid for code written, but I expect
to equally share the profits made from selling the hardware with the
people who develop the software.

Is comp.lang.c an appropriate group to post a more detailed explanation
of the device and software required, as a result of which I may find
people interested in contributing?

Thank you.

Paul.

 

[bjrnove]

Hi.

I'm not shure if this group is the right place to post more
information, but I could definitly be interested in a project like
that.

 

[gooch]

Hello,

I am working on a piece of (open source) hardware, which needs a
certain amount of (open source) embedded C code developed for the
hardware to perform a useful task. I am looking for people to
contribute to the writing of this software. It is not commercial in
the sense that contributors will be paid for code written, but I expect
to equally share the profits made from selling the hardware with the
people who develop the software.

Is comp.lang.c an appropriate group to post a more detailed explanation
of the device and software required, as a result of which I may find
people interested in contributing?

Thank you.

Paul.

I might be interested. Depends on the details of the project. Have you
checked out a site like sourceforge.net?

 

[Robert Gamble]

Hello,

I am working on a piece of (open source) hardware, which needs a
certain amount of (open source) embedded C code developed for the
hardware to perform a useful task. I am looking for people to
contribute to the writing of this software. It is not commercial in
the sense that contributors will be paid for code written, but I expect
to equally share the profits made from selling the hardware with the
people who develop the software.

Is comp.lang.c an appropriate group to post a more detailed explanation
of the device and software required, as a result of which I may find
people interested in contributing?

Although some people here may be interested in the project, comp.lang.c
is not the place to discuss this, check out sourceforge.net and
freshmeat.net.

Robert Gamble

 

[Chris Croughton]

Is comp.lang.c an appropriate group to post a more detailed explanation
of the device and software required, as a result of which I may find
people interested in contributing?

No, it is not an appropriate group (comp.lang.c is for discussing the C
language as defined in the standard). Try comp.programming?

(I'd love to see the "open source" for your hardware, though, it's a
fascinating concept <g>...)

Chris C

 

[Paul Olley]

Many thanks for your feedback.

I will take a look at sourceforge.net and freshmeat.net

Paul.

 

[Robert Gamble]

No, it is not an appropriate group (comp.lang.c is for discussing the C
language as defined in the standard). Try comp.programming?

(I'd love to see the "open source" for your hardware, though, it's a
fascinating concept <g>...)

"open source hardware" usually refers to hardware whose interface
specifications and the information needed to make full use of the
hardware is available to the public as opposed to proprietary hardware
where you either need to purchase access to such information or reverse
engineer existing software that utilizes the hardware.

Robert Gamble

 

[Dan Henry]

Hello,

I am working on a piece of (open source) hardware, which needs a
certain amount of (open source) embedded C code developed ...

Is comp.lang.c an appropriate group to post ... ?

No. Post in comp.arch.embedded.

 

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

Chris Croughton wrote on 01/06/05 :

(I'd love to see the "open source" for your hardware, though, it's a
fascinating concept <g>...)

Could be Open Source VHDL ... IP's blocks are so expensive...

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

"There are 10 types of people in the world today;
those that understand binary, and those that dont."

 

[Paul Olley]

Chris Croughton wrote on 01/06/05 :

Could be Open Source VHDL ... IP's blocks are so expensive...

In my case I intend to make "all" the hardware design openly available.
This includes the cirucit diagram, PCB layout, and the programmable logic
device source code.

Paul.

 

[Chris Croughton]

In my case I intend to make "all" the hardware design openly available.
This includes the cirucit diagram, PCB layout, and the programmable logic
device source code.

OK, I'd call that "open source" <g>. I'm impressed...

(Possibly on-topic for comp.arch.embedded?)

Chris C

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

In my case I intend to make "all" the hardware design openly
available. This includes the cirucit diagram, PCB layout, and
the programmable logic device source code.

20 or 25 years ago virtually ALL hardware came that way.

 

[Chris Croughton]

20 or 25 years ago virtually ALL hardware came that way.

1980-85? Er, no, there were still a number of prominent manufacturers
who went as far as to relabel chips on their boards so that it couldn't
be determined what they were (DEC (or were they calling themselves
'Digital' by then?) for instance). I don't remember any major computer
manufacturer who made their detailed hardware designs accessible until
IBM did it with the PC (which led to the 'clones' and price wars -- and
to the success of that platform, eventually). Many wouldn't even
publish the interfaces. I don't think I've come across any major
hardware manufacturer in the last 25+ years which published the source
for its programmable logic devices.

Chris C

 

[Joe Wright]

1980-85? Er, no, there were still a number of prominent manufacturers
who went as far as to relabel chips on their boards so that it couldn't
be determined what they were (DEC (or were they calling themselves
'Digital' by then?) for instance). I don't remember any major computer
manufacturer who made their detailed hardware designs accessible until
IBM did it with the PC (which led to the 'clones' and price wars -- and
to the success of that platform, eventually). Many wouldn't even
publish the interfaces. I don't think I've come across any major
hardware manufacturer in the last 25+ years which published the source
for its programmable logic devices.

Chris C

I think Chuck is right. I got into this stuff in 1980 and bought an
S-100 system from California Computer Systems and an Intellec II from
Intel Corp. Both machines were completely documented to the board layout
and circuit schematic level. Both CCS and Intel provided source code
listings of the BIOS.

Some time later, I wrote the BIOS and system utilities for the Ampro
Little Board. Full docs, layout, schematic and source code was included
with each machine. The Micromint SBC: same thing.

 

[CBFalconer]

1980-85? Er, no, there were still a number of prominent
manufacturers who went as far as to relabel chips on their boards
so that it couldn't be determined what they were (DEC (or were
they calling themselves 'Digital' by then?) for instance). I
don't remember any major computer manufacturer who made their
detailed hardware designs accessible until IBM did it with the
PC (which led to the 'clones' and price wars -- and to the
success of that platform, eventually). Many wouldn't even
publish the interfaces. I don't think I've come across any major
hardware manufacturer in the last 25+ years which published the
source for its programmable logic devices.

IBM simply followed industry practice at the time. There was no
problem getting schematics, bioses, etc. for S100 systems,
Kaypros, Osbornes, even if you limit it to personal computers.
Things were usually available in the instrumentation field also. I
could refuse to buy things that didn't come with proper
documentation, so that we could handle service and/or modification
in house. The usual Tek scope had full schematics available,
although many parts were not available on the general market.

I recall getting the firmware for a 6502 based Teleray terminal. I
modified it for some convenient reason, installed the result in all
our terminals, and everybody was happy.

 

[Chris Croughton]

IBM simply followed industry practice at the time. There was no
problem getting schematics, bioses, etc. for S100 systems,
Kaypros, Osbornes, even if you limit it to personal computers.

If you limit it to personal and 'hobbyist' computers, it was indeed
available. For commercial computers, however, it was a different story,
a number of manufacturers were still trying to block 3rd-party addons.

And not all personal computers published specifications -- Apple, for
instance, were always cagy about such things and although there were
plenty of people 'disassembling' both hardware and software it was
generally against the terms and conditions (although not illegal, at
least in Europe).

Things were usually available in the instrumentation field also. I
could refuse to buy things that didn't come with proper
documentation, so that we could handle service and/or modification
in house. The usual Tek scope had full schematics available,
although many parts were not available on the general market.

I take it you didn't touch HP instrumentation, then. That, like DEC
kit, was designed to only be "field servicable" in the sense that a
technician would swap PCBs and send the possibly faulty ones back to the
lab for checking.

I recall getting the firmware for a 6502 based Teleray terminal. I
modified it for some convenient reason, installed the result in all
our terminals, and everybody was happy.

I had (possibly still have somewhere) firmware for several terminals, but
it wasn't published (copied and disassembled, probably against the terms
of purchase).

It certainly wasn't "virtually all hardware".

Chris C