From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12002 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2005 15:04:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11954 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2005 15:03:52 -0000 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:03:52 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Dlpie-0001UQ-00 from Khurram_Ali@mentor.com ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:03:48 -0700 Received: from SVR-ALH-EXC-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([134.86.109.198]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:03:48 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <32A0F6EE19ECF646A9CF370C3AB15EBE016A9104@SVR-ALH-EXC-02.mgc.mentorg.com> From: "Ali, Khurram" To: "K. Sinan YILDIRIM" , "Grant Edwards" , Subject: RE: [ECOS] Re: ECOS - MIPS X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 I recently had an opportunity to work with eCos. It is a wonderful technolo= gy. Unfortunately, to do anything significant you will need to spend a good amo= unt of time to get familiar with the technology before you can actually sta= rt on your own application. -----Original Message----- From: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org [mailto:ecos-discuss-owner@eco= s.sourceware.org] On Behalf Of K. Sinan YILDIRIM Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:50 AM To: Grant Edwards; ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: ECOS - MIPS Cuma 24 Haziran 2005 05:08 =F6s tarihinde, Grant Edwards =FEunlar=FD yazm= =FD=FEt=FD:=20 > In gmane.os.ecos.general, you wrote: > > I just mention that eCOS didnt fullfill my needs. The only > > thing eCOS provides is using reusable components like the ones > > in visual programming languages. > > Huh? I've no idea what you mean. What are "visual" programming > languages? Things like LabVIEW and IBM Data Explorer? > - I said visual programming languages. Not tools! If you say "tools" that= =20 means you have an idea. This is a contradiction, isn't it ? :P Some visual programming environments have component based SW development, l= ike=20 VB. You drag and drop components, use them, change them. I just wanted to=20 mean that eCOS components are ,in mentality, like that. I didn't want to sa= y=20 that "eCOS" is bad. An advantage of eCOS is its components. It includes man= y=20 components. Having components is not a bad idea.It is not new also... Isnt = it=20 ? Why do you misunderstand me ? May be your english is not so good... Go an= d=20 take courses. I advice you... > > If u substract components, uCOS is much more usable than it if > > I can't take it any more. The word is _you_! > > > I compare it with eCOS. > > That statement puzzles me as well. I've used both uCOS and > eCos (and I mean shipped products containing both -- not just > played with them for an afternoon). They're intended for much > different markets. You're comparing apples and oranges. > > > uCOs is small, deterministic etc... > > You probably find it "more usable" simply because it has so > many fewer available features. It includes driver models for > no peripherals, no networking, no filesystem, and only one > scheduler. You should be comparing uCOS to just the eCos > kernel with about half of it's available features removed. > - eCOS is much more bigger, it is still groving. There may be many commerci= al=20 products that uses it. But there are OS'es that do the same on the embedd= ed=20 world ( May be you will misunderstand me again. Let me explain. I mean=20 kernel, not components... ). I just wanted to give an example. uCOS is not= =20 apple and eCOs is not orange. I am not a child that plays operating systems= =20 on the afternoons. I am not a uCOS fan or an anti-eCOS man. I just tried eC= OS=20 and saw that it is not really configurable. This is my idea. I wish it=20 changes in the future... > > For example i may write components to uCOS and then it becomes > > eCOS :P (just a joke...) > > OK > > > Just examine the books : > > > > + Real Time Design Patterns > > + Patterns for Small Memory Systems > > + Pattern Oriented SW Architecture .. > > > > they are the experiences of embedded SW developers. There are > > the things that they know much better... I think Operating > > systems are the products that must live longer. If you want > > your SW to live longer, you must learn new SW concepts, you > > must apply them... > > So tell us, how many embedded OSes have you written? How many > different emebdded SW projects have you shipped? Did you use > all those "patterns"? > + I have shipped 1 million embedded products and i have written 1 million=20 embedded operating systems. I have been using patterns for a million of=20 years. Patterns doesnt solve everything but it increases reusability. If a= n=20 operating system says "I am configurable" or " I may be used with many=20 projects." it must , at least in the future , use some new SW techniques. > > For example having an HAL layer as an architecture is not a > > new concept. > > Nobody said it was. New doesn't not always mean better, and > old does not always mean worse. + Yes. You are really right at that point. > > > Unix, Linux and also Windows have HAL layers. Also HAL layer > > is a must for embedded systems. eCOS is written in C++ . You > > may use Bridge or Adapter pattern to build an HAL layer. > > ("Program for interfaces, not for the implementation" is the > > main concept of modern SW. ) > > I simply don't see how you think eCos violates that statement. > The interfaces between eCos and various hardware drivers is > well defined. > + Yes. You are right too. I just mean that, i think in modern object orient= ed=20 manner and the code and design of eCOS has some design based lacks. > > There are many operating systems that are done with C++. Have > > u ever examined them ? For example Chorus, L4, Amobea... etc. > > They have new ideas,they try to use new SW techniques. > > And how many products in the field contain those OSes? > > -- > Grant Edwards grante Yow! LOOK!!! I'm > WALKING at in my SLEEP again!! visi.com + You must learn that many contain these OS'es. I know the internals of=20 embedded products. I know what sort of bugs they have... Commercially used= =20 operating systems doesnt meand that they are the best. If eCOS wasnt open=20 source or free, how many users will choose eCOS instead of Nucleus, uCOS, Q= NX=20 etc... ?=20 --=20 Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss