From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30091 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2007 14:33:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30074 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Dec 2007 14:33:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:33:14 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2p7J-00010s-JF for ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32:49 +0000 Received: from grante.dsl.visi.com ([208.42.141.248]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32:49 +0000 Received: from grante by grante.dsl.visi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32:49 +0000 To: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com From: Grant Edwards Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] Re: Is eCos project still alive? X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 On 2007-12-13, Loginov Alexander wrote: > ......... >> Because that's the last time somebody paid developers to do the >> work involved in a public "release". > > Thanks for your comments. Now a bit clearer why the releases > are not available. But it is quite strange: there is > eCosCentric but no releases. There are releases. That's what eCosPro is. > Normally the commercial companies that are at the back of the > open-source project, do this job. Check RTEMS for example. No thanks, I'm not going to check RTEMS. > ........ >> If you don't want to hear answers, then don't ask questions. > > Irrelevant note. Not all the phrases are to be understood > directly. There are idioms in each language. That was one of > them. Don't take it out of the context. In that context it > meant: "I don't think so" if you wish > > ........ >> Utter bullshit. They do have bugs, but so do releases. Neither >> is "supposed to have bugs". > > My mistake, I meant to say "expected to have bugs". Here is > the standard note from a standard open-source project CVS > tree: "...the CVS code is always moving in features and > stability. While very attempt is made to keep the CVS head > working on all targets, but there are no any guarantees". I wasn't aware that there was a standard for open-source projects. > ....... >> Bah. Nobody intentionally checks in bugs. > > Depends. In the area of safety-critical systems, it is a > standard debugging methodology: you intentionally introduce > bugs in the systems to see how it can recover itself . You don't check them into CVS. > ... ... >> There are no "stable releases" of Linux any more. Active >> development is being done in the "stable" tree. There are no >> more stable and development versions of Linux like there used >> to be. > > Linux itself - yes. But not its distros. The new releases are normally > produced every 3-6 months. If you want a stable release of eCos then use eCosPro and stop whinging at us. > ... ... >> On the contrary, we are all from the world of commercial >> products development. That's what eCos is used for: developing >> commercial products. I've been using eCos to develop >> commercial products for 7+ years, and the lack of "releases" >> hasn't been even the least bit of a problem. > > That is your personal experience and your personal area of > expertise in particular commercial product area. Products that > are expected to have high reliability standards are rarely > developed from CVS software snapshots. Products that have high reliability standards do their own testing and "releasing". They don't depend on the "releases" of open-source packages to be bug-free. >> If you feel you're not capable of working from a CVS repository >> and really want a "released" version, then that's what eCosPro >> is: http://www.ecoscentric.com/ecos/ecospro.shtml > > Thanks. I have already checked it. Definitely, if we stick to eCos we > will buy the support from eCosCentric. I'm glad to hear it. >> Perhaps one of those RTOSes will meet your privilege >> management requirement better than eCos. > > Unfortunately, they are either too expensive (the royalty fees > would cost us thousand or even millions of dollars) and most > of them normally don't provide source code. If they do provide > it, then it costs another hundreds of thousands. Releases cost money. > By the way, do you now any more-or-less free RTOS that > provides support for privilege levels and process protection? Nope, I can't afford the dollars or watts for processors that have those sorts of features. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm a fuschia bowling at ball somewhere in Brittany visi.com -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss