 | | Re: New patch for remote and message
|
|
Zhengrong: If you can get a login on sourceforge, and you can send me a patch to review quickly for style and content, I can give you write access to legOS CVS to add your code to the main CVS tree. Thanks for all the effort you've made; sorry I've (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: legOS - Which site?
|
|
(...) legOS.sourceforge.net is the canonical site for legOS and has been for more than a year. I've asked Markus to take down his site (since he does not keep up with the newer documentation or file releases) but he has not responded to my emails on (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
They can't possibly do that. According to many published accounts, TLC explicitly says that their product is not to be referred to as "legos" but rather as "LEGO brand building bricks". Therefore, TLC has given up rights to the use of the word (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
Ross crawford points to: (...) I can see their point too. As long as it's only about the name then I can't see anyone getting too upset. It's just a name, after all. But if it's about the replacement firmware, then I have more to worry about. So do (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX 3.0 and legOS 1.2.4
|
|
(...) Hmmmm. Sounds intrigueing. Call me a pessimist, but I'd be surprised if they released a 3.0 so soon after 2.0. And the comment about LegOS is stranger, given the article I just posted, and the fact that most of the developers are right here, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
