 | | remote control patch from Mike Zang
|
|
I've tried to get Mike's patch to work. Used a fresh legOS installation, applied patch. Compiled fine. But if I try to dll helloworld.lx, dll dies with "cant delete program" error. The -v option reveals, that the rcx sends no ack to the dll delete (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: what Operating systems are there for the RCX?
|
|
Hi Kenenth, I suggest checking out (URL) for a *really* big list of development options for the RCX. Every RCX SDK I know of is listed there. -albert "kenneth johansen" <kennethj@stud.cs.uit.no> wrote in message news:3BBB3B27.4E75B9....uit.no... (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Update to Business 2.0 Article (was: LegOS forced to use another name?)
|
|
This update to the article discussed in this thread is taken from the November 2001 issue of Business 2.0. It isn't on (URL) so I thought I would run it through OCR and post it here for everyone to see. LUGNET gets a mention (but not a URL), and the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: what Operating systems are there for the RCX?
|
|
Hi Kenneth, I can't add to your list, but have had some experience with Lejos which I recommend highly. You can find more about it at (URL) latest version, (1.03 beta) which you can download from that site, has more features and smaller footprint (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | what Operating systems are there for the RCX?
|
|
hi all, i realise this is not strictly legOS related, but you guys are the best source i have so i thought id give it a shot anyways. Im trying to list all the options i have for changing the original "OS" and firmware. so far i have: NQC (doesnt (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) So, if they had sued him 2.5 years ago, you would have supported them? Just wondering. It's because of thinking like this that most companies would have sued him long ago... Troy PS: I thought it was just common sense, atleast around here, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
The way I read the article it didn't seem that they were so much upset that he had come up with the new OS, but rather that he had named it legOS. No matter how you look at it, or what excuse he can come up for choosing that name, it is pushing the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I agree with you, Jürgen. It seems that we have to contend with taht viewpoint though. Hopefully if any of tyhe new product line doesn't do as well as expected, we will not see some genius in the company decide to go after people who add value (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I think this is speculation by the author of the article. Apart from the issue about names and trademarks, for me this article shows an extremely irritating attitude towards customers, sue people as soon as they use something in a different (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Instructions for LegOS USB support
|
|
(...) As for lejos, we are waiting to get our hands on a USB tower. Jürgen (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX 3.0 and legOS 1.2.4
|
|
This is copyied from "Mindstorms Not Just a Kid's Toy" by Paul Wallich in IEEE Spectrum September 2001: "With version 2.0 of the RCX firmware due this fall, the original hardware may have gone as far as its designers can take it, and what directions (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: EmuLegOs lives again
|
|
Hi Luis Is it possible to make legOS homepage better? I think that's too simple and dull, don't you think so? then can you modify something in your HOWTOs when you do this updating? for example, in (URL) this code seems isn't compiled in legOS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: EmuLegOs lives again
|
|
This /rocks/. Hopefully I'll update the Lego and legOS HOWTOs to point to this soon. Luis (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) see (...) I think it's similar enough to LEGO that they'd have had a reasonable case if they'd fought it earlier. But now it's debatable whether they'd have any case at all. ROSCO (IANAL) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Instructions for LegOS USB support
|
|
(...) I'd be interested in tackling Linux, but we can't get the new towers in Australia yet 8?( ROSCO (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I saw your post on slashdot after I'd posted the link here. As you say, if they don't defend their trademark within a reasonable time, they lose the right to do so. I guess the best course of action in this case is "no action"!! ROSCO (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) You ain't just whistlin' Dixie here Ka-On... Off-topic time: Typical "Time Magazine type" twist on the story here...I hate reading Time because every story seems to be written with an antagonistic bent, trying to stir up trouble, instead of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) from that tiny yellow box? So it got a generic CPU that can read voltage from 3 ports and can adjust 3 power outputs. Really cutting-edge stuff there... That article is just full of you-know-what. (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, does this mean they're acknowledging that people call them "legos" ? ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Instructions for LegOS USB support
|
|
Sigh. Doesn't look like there is any chance that this would work for *nix, except maybe with severe Wine hackery. Has anyone else (with any of the other alternative OSs) tackled the problem of the new towers? I suppose I can try plying one of my (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics)
|
