Subject:
|
Re: Microsoft and LEGO Company Announce a Shared Doom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:59:48 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <SJBAKER1@AIRMAIL.stopspamNET>
|
Reply-To:
|
sjbaker1@airmail.net=NoMoreSpam=
|
Viewed:
|
1082 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > > * BFD, as far as I'm concerned. There's no mention of it being an
> > > > exclusive deal either, so they will in all probability continue to write
> > > > it for home computers as well. They may even write for other platforms
> > > > like the PS2.
> > > And MacOS and Linux?
> > Not supporting MacOS and Linux (or in fact any Unix) is different from
> > the present how?
>
> All possible hope now squashed.
The difference is that now, Lego are reasonably open about letting people
build their own tools like NQC that use the firmware inside the box.
Most Linux enthusiasts would tell you that we don't especially need
Lego to release all their software as OpenSource - or even make
closed-source versions of their software that runs under Linux.
What we *DO* want/need/expect is to have the specifications of the
interfaces defined and clearly documented so that we can write our
own software to interface with the RCX and other intelligent components.
If (as an earlier post suggested) Lego have agreed to write their code
to Microsoft interface standards then they will certainly have to sign
away their rights to release interface information to the world in the
form of an NDA (Non-Disclosure-Agreement) because that's the only way
that Microsoft release that kind of information.
There was a famous case recently where M$ took an open, public standard,
extended it just a teeny-tiny bit - and then put out the revised standard
under non-disclosure agreements.
M$ also generally require that users of software generated under NDA
sign up to their EULA 'shrink wrapped' license which prohibits you
from reverse-engineering the product you just bought.
So, it could *easily* turn out such that software like NQC and LegOS
would be either illegal or impossible to write once Lego are firmly
in the grips of the Evil Empire.
> > I can see supporting Unix,
> > just because of the high hacker percentage amongst its users. However,
> > far and away the vastest percentage of computers in the home have
> > windows on them.
But if you don't let the OpenSource community join in the fun - you won't
get great tools like LegOS and NQC appearing.
I for one wouldn't have *considered* getting into Mindstorms if I had to
use the god-awful visual programming environment that came with it.
> > Likewise, many if not most people who do run some Unix
> > at home have a system running windows, or have windows on a second
> > partition. So you don't really lock out much of the possible installed base.
You are FAR from correct there. A recent survey on one of the Linux news sites
(I forget which one) showed that only about 30% of Linux users have Windoze
on their machines at home.
I don't have Windoze at home or at work. I've never even used a Microsoft
product since the era of Windows 3.1. Since I build my home computers
from scratch, adding another $160 to put Windoze on them just so I could
run Lego software would double the cost of an RIS set!
> > Not to mention, Lego most likely knows that their scripting language
> > sucks compared to the other alternatives like NQC, legOS, or lejOS. None
> > of those require you to be on windows. Lego doesn't have to support
> > non-windows operating systems, because the community will do it for
> > them.
Yes - that's exactly how it is right now - and that's fine by me.
But when they start writing code to M$'s special interfaces, they'll be
legally prevented from letting the OpenSource community write things like
NQC, LegOS and LejOS.
That won't only be bad for the Linux community - Windoze users will also
suffer.
This isn't a Linux-versus-Windoze debate - it's a "community-supported-software"
versus "you-get-what-comes-with-the-Lego-set-and-that's-it" philosophy.
> Just because they support Windows doesn't mean they have to sell their soul
> to the devil.
>
> (Or does it?)
It does if they sign Microsoft NDA's for the interface layers.
> > It'd be nice to see the camera work on Unix, but the solution to
> > that is for Lego to release the code for doing the image recognition,
> > and let the open source community implement it itself.
>
> And what do you think the chances of that happening are?
Zero.
However, if they would only publish the specifications for the interface
(the commands that the camera understands and the data it returns) then
it would be easy to engineer an interface that would allow you to use
the camera under Linux and other OS's - and which would allow us to be
creative with the resources that the camera offers.
> > Unfortunately,
> > this would let people recreate the software without a dependence on the
> > lego camera, so this is not likely to happen for years if ever. I
> > suspect Lego is not big on open sourcing. Microsoft isn't either.
I don't *need* them to OpenSource their code. (Although that would be nice).
> > The proper solution, of course, is for some badass programmer who's into
> > Lego at a near fetishistic level to replicate the functionality of the
> > lego software. I was not entirely impressed with the level of feedback
> > from Lego's software, anyway.
...and if the interface specs were out there - I'd be one of those programmers
who would be interested in doing stuff like that (well - I wouldn't replicate
the functionality of the Lego software - but something useful would hopefully
emerge).
But if the specs are locked up - and if reverse-engineering is prohibited - then
this CANNOT happen - not because there is nobody who's interested in doing it -
but that without the interface information, there is no way you *can* do it.
--
Steve Baker HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net>
WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
