 | | Re: legOS-0.2.3-tar.gz problems/incomplete?
|
|
I posted too soon. Just located the other web site (URL) Scott" <mikesc@nospam.telus.net> wrote in message news:GKFwCM.EuH@lugnet.com... (...) due (...) gcc (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | legOS-0.2.3-tar.gz problems/incomplete?
|
|
I am new to legOS but a seasoned win32/java developer. I have been having problems making anything in legOS/util or legOS/util/dll-src directories. There does not seem to be a make rule for firmdls and the source loader.c, rcxtty.c and rcxtty.h will (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 1.0,1.5 or 2.0 ? what gives ?
|
|
Using a multiplexor from (URL) you can hook four touch sensors up to one port. The multiplexor (URL) you to determine if any of three sensors is pressed, when you hook up a forth it masks the other three and but if you assume that only one side at a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 1.0,1.5 or 2.0 ? what gives ?
|
|
(...) To put it bluntly, the only user visible is in the numbers on the outside. (...) Put more than one on an input and figure out which one was pressed by the direction you were heading. If they can be pressed simultaneously you need resistors to (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 1.0,1.5 or 2.0 ? what gives ?
|
|
hi, is this list still working ? last time i tried to post i got an error 0 ? whatever that means. anyways. if it works, then i have the following question! what does RCX 2.0 bring us that 1.0 and 1.5 doesnt already have ? i have looked at the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Do many people want EmuLegOS Windows LNP support
|
|
I received an e-mail this morning regarding Windows LNP support under EmuLegOS. Currently this is non-existent. I wanted to see if there are many people out there using the Windows version of EmuLegOS, and if they would find LNP support usefull. If (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Does lejOS has the same functions as legOS?
|
|
(...) No, for example LNP and speedometer are missing, motor control is standard with 8 power levels. In general it uses the standard ROM routines much more than legos. On the good side the rotation sensor problems it had until two months ago are (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.java)
|
| |
| | Does lejOS has the same functions as legOS?
|
|
I ma using legOS and NQC, I also viewed lejOS, but I am not sure if lejOS can provide all functions of legOS provides, then does lejOS run in the same speed as legOS? Zhengrong (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.java)
|
| |
| | tower not responding
|
|
I have spent the last couple of days compiling and setting up legOS on my 486SX/33 laptop. I am using legOS 0.2.5 which I got from Sourceforge, and binutils 2.11 (i think) and gcc 2.95.3, which I got from the official GNU site. Compiling 2.95.3 took (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: New patch for remote and message
|
|
I uploaded this patch at (URL) can use functions as below: unsigned int get_rkey(); // wait for any remote key wait_event(rkey_pressed, rkey); // wait for any remote key pressed wait_event(rkey_released, rkey); // wait for any remote key released (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
Hello everybody, there has been a lot of discussion about the Business 2.0 article in their forums, on Slashdot and here at LUGNET. I followed all of them closely until Tuesday afternoon, but rather less so in the days since. I also received several (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | trig-functions through CORDIC
|
|
If there are amateurs interested in using trig-functions under legOS have a look at the following page: (URL) algorithms used are called CORDIC. You'll find all the information and explanation on our site. What is especially interesting is the fact (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) Dennis, I do agree that Lego has been very nice about this; in my first post, I stated that their stance on these matters was one of the things that rekindled my Lego addiction. I admired their action (or lack thereof) as far as Mindstorms was (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX_COMPILER define
|
|
(...) references to (...) the CygWin (...) the legOS (...) absence (...) What RCX_COMPILER does is to add an optimization inside GCC for ISR on RCX platform. GCC without RCX_COMPILER patch should compile without problems any project. You should only (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) OK, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here. LEGO very clearly and often stated in that letter that they encourage the creation and use of our third party OS's and such. What they (rightly) wish to protect is the dillution of their (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company position on third-party programs for LEGO MINDSTORMS
|
|
(...) [snipped Clarification from the LEGO(R) MINDSTORMStm team] Thanks for the clarification, Tomas. (...) I'd also suggest visiting legos.sourceforge.net, and sending the letter to the maintainers of that site (if you haven't already), as although (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
FYI, there is now a posting in lugnet.lego.announce that should help to clarify this issue: (URL) set to FUT lugnet.lego.direct because of some rules (that I still don't quite get) about where official messages can be posted and followed-up to, but (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
Ok, I agree with the *possibility* of the name being a problem, but I am more concerned about the hacks themselves being contested instead. However, LegOS is NOT for commercial purposes, so that should be a factor to consider here. I wouldn't be AS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) In the US, at least, a trademark *must* be defended, or the company loses it. If legOS does, in fact, infringe on their trademark, they would have had to defend it pretty quickly or that usage would pass into the public domain. Or something (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I concur. If I manufactured a new extra-cushiony disk storage system that used *really* tiny sponges for support, and I called it Micro-Soft, I'm sure I'd get a letter. This particular case has the added spin of stepping soundly into the "LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
