Subject:
|
Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 17:15:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1323 times
|
| |
|
|
"John A. Tamplin" wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 1999, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
>
> > I would hope that the new system would look and feel *EXACTLY* like
> > the RIS firmware in terms of end-user observable behavior when no new
> > features are being exploited (the internal behaviour is likely to be
> > different, of course).
>
> While I agree that it should be similar, I think it may need some minor
> modifications to make it truly useful. For example, I would like to be
> able to control the motors without having to load a program or use a host
> computer. It would be nice to flash some identifier for each program so
> you can remember which one is in which slot. It would be nice to have
> the ability to get into an administrative mode to delete loaded programs,
> check memory utilization, etc.
I was not intending to limit its functionality to that performed by the RCX with
the standard firmware loaded. I did say "when no new features are being
exploited". The idea of flashing an identifier associated with the current
program may not be that viable given the limited display capabilities of the RCX.
If this can be worked around, though, I think it'd be a neat idea.
I believe that the concept of an administrative mode is overkill for this sort of
project. The only circumstance in which I can see this being important is to
prevent other RCX units from deleting or overwriting your programs, such as may be
encountered in RCX competitions. I proposed a workaround for this -- that the RCX
*NOT* allow any changes to its state unless no programs are running (or the
current program is being debugged). Since in such a competition, the RCX's
program is going to be presumably always running, and will probably not be a
debugging state, I do not see this as being a potential problem. Further, the
issue of security itself for something like an RCX is moot. Somebody can easily
just pick it up, take out the batteries, and wipe the whole firmware, as well as
all your loaded programs. While speaking on the subject of computer security, a
professor I had once said that "physical access to a machine will always superceed
root privileges". (The premise behind the statement being that it's important to
keep systems under lock and key where security sensitive data is kept, no matter
how secure the operating system or login procedures may be.)
Just one question though... how were you expecting to control the motors without
having a program looaded or using a host computer?
> So, while I agree that the basic functionality of the current RCX
> firmware should be preserved, there is room to modify it a bit and to
> extend it without making the user learn something new.
I didn't think I was suggesting otherwise.
> > Mark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 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
|
|
|
|
