How pervasive is the OSHW movement into the professional EE feild? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 10:40:08 am
content: Allow me to assume, that if you're on this forum, you already know the names like Arduino, Adafruit, Sparkfun, and Hackaday. Throw in Dangerous Prototypes, Bunny Hung, DIYDrones, and a few others (I'm missing a dozen)The question is: If you walked into an EE department at a large company, would the engineers there know those names?

author: klr5205
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 11:44:38 am
content: They certainly would at my company, although you can decide for yourself if a 15 person engineering department is large.Cheap ready-made boards are useful for making one-off test fixtures, and the dept is littered with Sparkfun FTDI breakout boards.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 12:31:16 pm
content: Likely not.In my experience the majority of engineering colleagues have known or cared little about the hobby market and scene, which effectively is were OSHW is positioned.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 01:21:44 pm
content: Not really. Even if the engineer knows it, just because playing with it at home. Once I designed a calibration equipment, mad it "arduino compatible" meaning that it used a mega328 and an FTDI, and programmed it with the Arduino IDE. But I will never do that again, because all the ridicule I got for it from colleagues. Truth to be told, it is a one off board, and I wrote the code in two days, instead of spending a week on "software architecture planning meeting pre-meeting" alone.Now, I have a different job, small company, and my boss wants to integrate the C.H.I.P into our product. And you know what? It is a very stupid idea and I'm against it.So, there must be a middle ground. One thing for sure, I will never rely my product on a hardware startup, kickstarter, Open source 3D printed community penguin, which cannot reliably supply components, or would force me to redesign everything every year.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 02:10:51 pm
content: No one in industry has the slightest thought about OSHW.OSS is pretty common among pure software companies, but the economics and practicalities are very different. Namely, there is zero incremental cost of production, and having a thousand developers look over your code means free bugfixes. Respectively, it really only works well for huge, popular projects, like web browsers, and tends to flounder with small, useful but uncommon projects.Tim

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 02:20:26 pm
content: What OSHW?If your livelihood depends on it, you are going to use quality tools that are well supported.That's why you don't see what you don't see among the pros.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 02:54:55 pm
content: IME mostly the younger folks that have an interest in electronics or are in technical marketing will quickly recognize these names.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 03:03:26 pm
content: I would think that the hardware engineers are in the business of creating purpose-built hardware. They certainly aren't in the business of creating the next great Arduino Shield. That said, boards like the Arduino are great for proof-of-concept or even developing code while the product board is still in development. Here I'm talking about driver code to, say, SPI peripherals. The code will port easily to the product.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 03:59:00 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 19, 2016, 02:10:51 pmIt may be a generational thing. OSH is relatively new so it will take time for the generation that grew on sparkfun and adafruit to take control of the industry.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 04:42:58 pm
content: It's starting to very occasionally appear in some of the trade press,but only very recently.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 07:41:34 pm
content: Well there is also stuff, like Linduino, from linear tech, which is also backed that a bunch of their development board has libraries and sample code, which runs on their Arduino clone. Someone realized that there is a way to make the engineers work easier if you include OSHW in your toolset.Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2016, 03:59:00 pmI hope that will not happen. Same for the kickstarter generation. I kinda like finished products that work out of the box.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 08:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on August 19, 2016, 10:40:08 amIMHO the names you mention are more targeted at people who want to whip up a working piece of hardware quickly (either for hobby or prototype/demonstrator). However there are also very high tech open hardware projects. CERN drives a couple of these onhttp://www.ohwr.org/and they are definitely not for the faint of heart! I'm pretty sure there are more high-tech projects out there to share resources.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 09:06:01 pm
content: It all depends on the type of colleagues you have and how the company is running.If you have workers who just do their jobs, but ones they are home they don't bother at all about it and wonder why the hell they actually have an EE degree, than you probably don't see much interest.My personal experience, is that you see these people mainly in big companies (no offense).In general big companies also have a pretty conservative point of view (even if they bring out new products) and mainly just one or two goals to focus on.My other experience is that if you do meet people who are also interested on an hobby kind of level (like myself), they seem to be more involved and open.That being said, I don't think you can really use Arduinos, Raspberry Pies, BeagleBone boards etc etc as professional finished products.They are fine as a prototype solutions to find out if a concept is working.As a finished product they simply lack certain (safety) features, robustness or are very bulky and expensive.That doesn't mean you can still use their applications and typical ucontrollers/ic's

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 05:12:14 pm
content: Generally, I will put OSHW stuff in test gear for boards that are too small or too simple to go on the full test equipment (for instance, a board that only has a few I2C devices).I might use it for prototypes or proof of concept stuff but not into a product - it would be cheaper to design everything onto a single board than have to worry about connecting to a sub-board. Also, large companies might use a particular range of chips so these would be of preference as they benefit from economies of scale.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 05:36:25 pm
content: It's always useful to be able to lash together a one-off of something for lab use. For that application, I don't doubt that if there's someone in the office who's already familiar with whatever this week's fashionable kind of 'duino happens to be, then it might serve a purpose. Same goes for RPi and every other similar product.In terms of actual commercial products, though, the impact is negligible... as in, 'why are we even having this conversation?'.I spend my professional life designing electronics, and for the most part, the end product is a board with a microcontroller, maybe an FPGA, and some kinds of transducers or other I/O. The fact that some sort of OSHW could possibly do some of the same things,could not possibly be less relevant.No off-the-shelf board is going to be the right physical shape and size, or have the right interfaces, or be the most cost-effective option in quantities of hundreds or thousands. There are no 'duinoes that would survive 150 deg C or aerospace-grade vibration tests.Bespoke hardware isn't just the incumbent way things are done today; it's a requirement that's not showing even the first sign of going away.After all, you might enjoy making stuff out of Meccano - but you've never actually bought a thing (other than a Meccano set) that was actually made using it!

author: magetoo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 06:26:15 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on August 19, 2016, 07:41:34 pmThere's nothing stopping people from opensourcing a polished product, is there? What we're seeing now is just the result of having the first few successes be devboards and DIY 3D printers.Quote from: Neilm on August 20, 2016, 05:12:14 pmI might misunderstand what you say here, but that sounds more like "the Arduino ecosystem" or building from existing parts and modules more generally. What open source is supposed to do is give you everything that was used in the design, so you can modify it; maybe import the schematic, get rid of what you don't need, and start working from there.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 07:11:33 pm
content: When you are making a product with a team and you aren't working by yourself out of your basement, you typically don't spend 80+ hours making an unsupported, poorly documented, half implemented, and stupidly "licensed" solution for something kinda work when you can spend $5k on the pro solution and be up and running in 1 hour.If it's going to be something you are going to sell as a company, buying open source hardware doesn't make sense. For just about any hardware solution you can buy from Sparkfun or whoever, a smart junior EE could make it from scratch for half the price or less. It's mostly breakout boards and reference circuits.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 07:55:39 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 20, 2016, 07:11:33 pmCompletely agree with that!Not to mention the fact that you will get a very sub-optimal solution because of all the limitation of these breakout boards and other things.Although, you could still use a Atmega chip with the Arduino IDE, which is practically the same thing, you just don't use the standard Arduino board.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 08:33:13 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 20, 2016, 07:55:39 pmThat's qualifies as a 'mixing' of an OSH project.

author: kc8apf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 08:52:26 pm
content: In my time at both Apple and Google, hobbyist dev boards have been quite prevalent for one-off designs and quick prototypes. With Google, I now work on server designs that will be given to the Open Compute Project as open designs (the schematics, gerbers, BOMs, firmware) will be publicly available under a fairly liberal license. It's not quite OSHWA level but it's a step in the right direction for big companies.Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 09:04:52 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 20, 2016, 08:33:13 pmWell, it depends.You could open source the entire project.Or you could 'qualify' as a certain level of open source, like we talked about in this topic:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/oshw/oshwa-open-source-hardware-certification-version-1/25/Correct me if i am wrong, but as far as I know, you could still use the Arduino IDE for non open source projects?

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 09:11:22 pm
content: There is also the issue that a lot of OSHW is just, well, kind of crappy.At work right now I'm taking over a prototype system that was designed around an Arduino Due by another team. (I approved this approach because I didn't have any hours to spare at the time, and this let the bunch of non-EEs Get Stuff Done without any of our EEs diverting time from current projects. I now regret that signoff.) I have to get their benchtop prototype portable (as a portable system really does need a portable prototype), and it's been a major headache. I've decided to take the approach of designing a custom shield for several reasons. This is my first serious amount of time spent with an Arduino, and I'm really coming to hate the bloody thing. Just a few reasons why:The documentation is crap. There's nothing official out there that I could find on how to design a shield -- no mechanical drawings, no connector specs, no 3D models. I've got to rely on unofficial models, and what happens when they're weird? One of the headers is 5 mils off the grid of the others. Is that because someone did something stupid on the original design, or is it a mistake in the unofficial file supplied? Who knows! Schematics are provided, but they're poorly drawn (OK, that's hardly unique to OSHW) and partially in Italian! (Really, guys? Really?)They left reference designators off the board, which is always fun when the parts that are installed don't match the part numbers listed on the schematic.The board design is silly. A ring of female headers around the outside, plus male headers of two different pitches in the interior -- that's going to be fun to mate up with. And of course I can ignore some but not all of the headers, because power and signal lines are splayed out all over the place.How can I power this thing off a Li-Ion battery? I can't just supply it with 5V or 3.3V, since if I do and someone plugs in the USB cable, there will be a direct connection between two separate 5V supplies, and that never ends well. There's a FET in there whichcouldisolate the two, but is tied off so that it does absolutely nothing a piece of wire couldn't do better. I can inject 9-12V on the VIN pin, but that's a single pin to supply the entire device, and suffers a diode drop. Still, it's the best option for this project, since I need to have a 12V supply anyway.Input protection is really not up to par. Dev boards get abused and should be protected accordingly; this one has some protection but not nearly at the level it should be. (Again, this is hardly unique to OSHW -- we've toasted thousands of dollars in commercial dev boards too, all because of stupid shit like missing diodes on trivially mismateable connectors.)Yeah, sure, not all projects are this way, and I'm just a cranky engineer with too much to do and not enough time to do it. Join the club, right? But no way in hell am I signing off on any more projects involving Arduinos that have an expected time commitment of more than an afternoon. At the end of the day there are just flat-out better options.

author: julian1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 09:29:20 pm
content: Speaking as a amateur in hardware but professional in software, I love the open-source fpga toolchain IceStorm (Yosys, Arachne-pnr, and IceStorm) tools as alternatives to vendor toolchain's IDE's like ISE/vivado.The reason is that I can make fit it into my workflow - in terms of build-system, tests, git code management, review process etc, rather than have vendor's product dominate these decisions.Likewise for cpus - if I can apt-get install the cross gcc-compiler in Debian or emerge a Docker dev instance I am far more interested.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 10:16:16 pm
content: I have worked at a few companies that use Arduinos or Arduino derivatives in test setups. Arduino was chosen since it's easy to develop for. Why use something that would take a new engineer half a day to figure out if it wouldn't give any real advantage?

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:23:53 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 20, 2016, 10:16:16 pmBecause projects don't end after that half day Arduino project hack. The further you get through a project, the harder it is to change directions. You end up like exmadscientist, stuck with some Arduino thing and having to work around the hardware choices and limitations instead of getting exactly what you need because you designed it.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 04:02:12 am
content: Quote from: kc8apf on August 20, 2016, 08:52:26 pmThis Wiki page claims that Google also used OSH cameras for its scanning systemshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elphel

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 06:12:53 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 21, 2016, 02:23:53 amThey're test fixtures, not final products. For any engineer to be able to make a change within minutes (e.g. to accommodate changes in test procedures) is a big asset. Same reason why Python is used so much.There are times when the need falls outside the scope of Arduino and that's when something else gets used. But the test fixtures in question tend to be relatively simple like toggling and reading GPIOs at rather slow rates. The really advanced stuff like capturing high speed logic are covered by common networked instruments.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 07:00:59 am
content: The reason that OSHW will never become as popular as OS software, is mainly because of:- the investment in hardware and instruments needed to design electronics (and als EMC/EMI compliance)- the amount of available electronic engineers- expansive to share projects, apart from theoretical design, every new participant needs to order a new pieceof hardware to test/play with.Compare the above with the case of OS software:- you don't need any hardware or other investments (everybody has a pc)- there are more software engineers available, so it's more likely that some of them will start or participatein an OS project.- Practically all professional tools to develop professional grade software can be downloaded for free.No need to buy (expensive) stuff.Edit:Available space: compare how much (office) space you need for developing hardware or software...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:06:19 am
content: There is also the time honoured "not invented here" (NIH) syndrome.Using a circuit from an manufacturer app note, fine. But using an open source hardware circuit (or part of) that contains a licenceIf you are a professional engineer working at a big company and you are trying to get a design done to a deadline and you desperately need that part of an open source hardware circuit, you'd just take it andtell no one!

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:18:52 am
content: Just as gray beards with slider rulers looked down on calculator guys, and then old school 80-90's guys looked down on internet guys?

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:26:26 am
content: At work we've used Arduino's and other OSHW occasionally, but my preference is strongly to keep them internal. I am not fond of shipping arduino-based products to customers, unless they are paying for engineering and service fee's for a custom machine installation. In that case it doesn't make sense economically to design custom PCB's for those projects.For interns that don't have any programming experience, the Arduino is great. For example; let them build a cable tester box with LCD and programmable step programs. It has a bit of electronics in it to drive 40 or 80-pin cables from an Arduino, but also software to read some buttons, think about the programmable sequence routines and drive a LCD text display. Finally they have to write a users manual for production personnel to make use of it.Other than that, all of the hardware and software I design for work doesn't have a single line of Arduino-based code in it, neither a single CAD entity from an OSHW product. Licensing is a big part in that; I don't think a company wants to open source an "enterprise" or "proprietary" product because of GPL. And that's why they often stay away from it.I also think there is also a chronic struggle in open-source HW/SW; in that everyone has different needs and ways of doing things. Therefore projects will branch off and merging changes upstream can be either time consuming when not documented, or downright frustrating when ego's collide and both maintainers have different views.Example in HW: I may not accept schematics with chip symbols exactly like the pinning on the package (like so) rather than somethign that makes sense from a system design perspective (like so). If I take the design and start polishing the design very drastically to adhere to my(or company) standards, and then am required to open source it; okay, will my changes every make it upstream? And in what form?This is not to say I don't like OS; I run Linux on all my machines and I will chose an open source solution where there is one. However it does need to be considered that open source isn't always "free" in terms of money for a company; it does require maintenance in order to work for you.Linux is probably one of the most successful OSS projects I can think of. It's used on so many embedded computers, because no one will write their own kernel. In addition, Linux is also a combination of the GNU environment, the kernel and userland applications. In most cases only the first 2 will be open sourced because GPL, which is OK if the companies wants to hide their secret sauce.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 11:44:17 am
content: I use Arduino Mega and Uno instead of Atmel STK series... Program in C (no Arduino IDE and code) as a test proof of concept ideas..And by that I mean software side of the thing..It's great for that. Also, if I have a need for something quick to automate something in the lab, great for that..It's not a professional tool, nor it was meant to be, despite all the fanboys wishes..But if you respect it for what it is, great and useful thing to have...As for OSHW, no thanks... If I make something, and I feel I would like to share it with the world, I'll publish all the data as is..Software Open Source ( as open source code as opposed to compiled , "closed" applications ) is a software paradigm...It has NO applicability in hardware world.. T3sl4co1l put it very nicely... Software people that dabble in lego hardware ( Shieldy thingies of all sorts and types ) don't fully understand problems of quality hardware development...Linux doesn't have to comply to EMC requirements, has no mechanical requirements (temperature, humidity, vibrations etc..)..And a funny thing is that Linux works so well because likes of Microsoft for years forced the manufacturers to standardize hardwer to such an extent that everything just works together... No community effort would have achieved that to such a level...So Open anything I like and support, kudos to all that do it, but hardware is not open to such a treatment... Not for a lack of good intentions, just a very different animal... Something open might be possible, but not based on software way of thinking...All the best to all...

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 12:35:26 pm
content: I still don't understand what is defined as an 'Arduino'?Is that just the whole board (like a UNO, or Mega) and the shape, or is that just when you use the Arduino IDE?Like myself, I have seen companies using just the IDE.It saves a lot of time, because you don't have to go into all kinds of datasheets to figure out which registers etc you need.There are also so many libraries and examples available which are great to start from.If we are talking about the whole design and board, I also agree that an Arduino is far from a finished professional product.I only don't agree with the fact that open source can't be professional at all.There is no reason you can't make an open source design according to all EMI, EMC and safety standards.The fact that you don't see these kinds of products (take a SMPS for example), doesn't mean it's not possible.I think it means that most open source projects are done in spare time and as an hobby and therefore people naturally can't be bothered by all these regulations.Most open source projects (with all the respect) are not much more than some simple add-on modules.I haven't seen one open source project that was completely done from head to toe (like power supply, proper interface, connectors etc)Although I really like the idea of open source hardware and software, this is also exactly the point I have problems with it.In my opinion many (hardware & software!) projects are very far from finished as a professional product.Absolutely not ready for the bigger audience because it simply is to much of an hassle with manual tweaks, tuning and even programming.It just simply doesn't work out of the box (plus most interfaces and GUIs are just really really)A lot of people don't seemed to be bothered about it, but for a lot of other people they don't have the know how or time for it.90% of the products I need to use on a regular basis don't work out of the box on Linux.This is the mean reason I am not going to move to Linux as a main system (I only use it for smaller applications).In my opinion the open source community really needs to put more focus on finished products instead!A few posts back, Karel has a few good points about why it's more practical to make open source software easier than hardware.I'm not quiet sure if that's all true. I mean, a lot of people have enough gear (at home or at work) to do all these tests anyway.That being said, those tests are not very easy to do, and even developing stuff that is made according to all EMC/EMI and safety rules is not an easy task.A lot of EE don't even know about all these regulations.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 12:36:03 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on August 21, 2016, 10:18:52 amNOthing really to do with anyone looking down upon anyone else. It's that big companies and their systems are scared of stuff they don't understand, and the NIH syndrome is one of fear of legality issues mixed in with pride and a bunch of other stuff.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 12:37:50 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 21, 2016, 12:35:26 pmIt comes down to two things:1) The Arduino Shield Pinout2) Compatibility with the Arduino programming ecosystemCan be either or both.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 12:45:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 21, 2016, 12:36:03 pmA lot of companies are even scared showing the public what they actually really do.It is all 'magical voodoo'. It always makes me laugh, because if you're in the field, it's not that difficult to see what you competitors are doing.Or otherwise you simply reverse engineer a product, like you did with the Brymen multimeter.I have done multiple freelance jobs and sometimes I even had to sign fancy looking contracts that I am not allowed to share any kind of 'secrets'.With even ridiculous kinds of fines and other things to frighten you.I always ask them where general EE knowledge stops and something very unique begins.They never know how to answer to that question.Quote from: EEVblog on August 21, 2016, 12:37:50 pmWell in that case, I think there are many more Arduino 'projects'Because it means that you don't need a board that looks like an Arduino

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 01:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 11:44:17 amThat's another misconception between the hardware and software worlds. There are standards and requirements for software too. For example, linux is mostly POSIX compliant (but not certified).

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:12:59 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 11:44:17 amQuite the opposite. There's the microsoft way of doing things, and there's the way the rest of the world is doing things.Microsoft has always reinvented the weel for the sole purpose of incompatibility.Computers and software have evolved, not thanks to microsoft butdespitemicrosoft.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:34:33 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 21, 2016, 12:45:52 pmEven the Arduino Mini Pro ($2.16 shipped, on ebay) doesn't look as Arduino:

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:36:08 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on August 21, 2016, 02:12:59 pmLOL , you seem have alergic reactions to mentioning of Microsoft........I hope your EPI pen is at hand.... I didn't want to upset you..It's just history how it went, you might be young enough not to be there when it happened...I was referring to IBM PC compatible platform that was used from a day one to develop original Linux...That PC platform was designed with the SOLE purpose to run IBM OS/2 and Microsoft DOS/WINDOWS/WINDOWS NT..Nobody gave a flip-flop about some students playing with kernels...And it was designed according to Microsoft PC platform specs, to ensure compatibility.And it was a good thing because it brought standardization to computer world...That enabled stable platform for Linux to evolve trough cca. 20 yearsThat part of Microsoft bullying hardware vendors actually was benefit to Linux...Other of their practices not so much...And before you start bashing me, I had a PC running Linux Slackware in 1997. I had to compile kernel to make it work with my PC..I love Linux, and like BSD even better...And for my day to day work I use Windows.. All the software just works etc.. I don't have time to fiddle with things..I guess that will clear up some confusion.. I'm not very good with English..All the best,

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:48:03 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 21, 2016, 02:34:33 pmBut it's still an 'only one chip on board' idea.I was more talking about a full working concept like a bench supply, were a Atmega 328 (or something) is being used as the core.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:56:27 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 02:36:08 pmI do remember very well how it went:Microsoft's Campaign To Destroy DR-DOSMicrosoft's Anticompetitive Per Processor License FeesMicrosoft's Retaliation And Price Discrimination Against IBMMicrosoft's Organized Collective Boycott Against IntelMicrosoft's Elimination Of Word PerfectMicrosoft's Deceptive WISE Software ProgramMicrosoft's Elimination Of NetscapeMicrosoft's Attempts To Extinguish JavaMicrosoft's Elimination Of Rival Media PlayersMicrosoft's Campaign Against Rival Server Operating SystemsMicrosoft's Failure To Comply With The Final JudgmentMicrosoft's Campaign of Patent FUD against Linux and Open Source SoftwareMicrosoft's False Promises of InteroperabilityThe EC is also investigating Microsoft's actions to manipulate the voteof the International Organization for Standardization / International ElectrotechnicalCommission on the recent standardization of Office "Open" XML ("OOXML"). As reportedwidely in the press and on the Internet, Microsoft's manipulation of the standards setting processin favor of OOXML included financial inducements, threats, misleading information, andcommittee-stuffing.committee-stuffing. These investigations are compelling examples of Microsoft's continuedmisconduct related to its monopolies in operating systems and other products.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:06:40 pm
content: I love it when people hate something so much, they become blind to anything that may be beneficial...2N3055 was trying to bring to light some of the positive aspects.When there's a very powerful player in some space, they tend to dictate the rules. That might not be a good thing for the little players trying to compete directly. But on the other hand, objects in that space (in this case, the IBM-PC and clones) tend to be very consistent, which can be advantageous to the little players as well.And 2N3055 is not blind to the above reasons, as allowed for here:Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 02:36:08 pmThat he chose not to dwell on them is simply a matter of preference.Tim

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:13:19 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on August 21, 2016, 02:56:27 pmYou are, of course, 100% right, but....None of that has any bearing to what I sad... And I did said "their other practices not so much.."I didn't come her to play advocate to Microsoft corp.. They have they legal team for that...What I said is still 100% true... Linux was lucky to take advantage of a mature professional hardware platform many very rich companies spent billions developing... Without that platform, no Linux as we know it today would happen..Maybe something else, but not what we have today...Cheers!!

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:25:23 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 21, 2016, 03:06:40 pmThanks a lot Tim, that's exactly what I wanted to say...And I'm the last one to bash any useful platform... Started with computors, at 15 something, now more than 30 years... (darn I'm old)Been administering and repairing (hardware) all kinds of stuff, UNIVACs, DECs, HP Risc, IBM Risc (now Power), Intel platforms, Apple 68k, Power and Intel, ... XENIX (Microsoft Unix LOL), SCO, Ultrix, AIX, Linux..... Used to be MCSE, but it expired long time ago....I still manage AIX and Linux servers for a client...Those are tools, and all of them had their quirks and good sides... And was going where job took me...like DeNiro in "Ronin" says: "... what do you mean my favorite weapon? I don't care, it's a tool.. You put it in a tool box and you go to work... ""All the best,Sinisa

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:25:40 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 03:13:19 pmYou can say that about all operating systems. In addition, Linux has proven to be flexible enough to adopt all kinds of platforms.Not just one or two like most os's.That hardware platform you were talking about, was already available before DOS was ready.And Linux was able to (stable!) multitask while microsoft was still offering win 3.11...

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:32:37 pm
content: We can debate about a lot of details.In the end it comes down to the fact who has the best PR people and enough luck at the right time.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on August 21, 2016, 03:25:40 pmYour timelines are wrong...First, Linux needs 386+ processor and at about 1995, first Linux wasn't running on 8 bit 8088 from 1985, but on a 10 years old PC platform, that was quite mature by then.. So, yeah, it benefited from Intel/IBM/COMPAQ/HP/MICROSOFT and bunch of clones industry, that was allready a many billions industry...And it wasn't flexible enough at first, it had to rewritten to became so..And it didn't have real SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) capabilities until kernel 2.6 (cca 2003.). It had them, but it didn't work well.And those SMP fixes that were first steps to making Linux serious OS we have and admire today were contributed by IBM..And,no, they are not so good, they did it because they needed alternative to Windows, and for their own development..They were decent enough to publish it though, so it was merged to Linux...And at the time of first Linux, and Windows 3.11, we were running Windows NT 3.51.. Real SMP system, designed by Richard Rashid (the inventor of MACH microkernel, the version of which is NT kernel), and Dave Cuttler designer of VAX VMS, a legend in OS world...So no Linux wasn't some magical thing that dropped from the sky.. For years was no more than a toy... It grew to be real OS, and that's fantastic thing... But it benefited that PC were done by somebody else at somebody else's expense and effort...That's all what I said..

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 04:05:11 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pmNothing wrong with my timelines.Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pmI never wrote that. What I meant is that the pc was ready before DOS was ready. So, it was not microsoft who invented the pc platform or who made it possible to exists.Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pmIt benefitted from the IBM clones, not from microsoft. Without microsoft, we still should have had pc's, but probably runningDR-DOS and later OS2-warp.Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 03:52:36 pmLet's say that, at that time, Linux was already in a better state than win 3.11 and win95.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 04:48:25 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on August 21, 2016, 04:05:11 pmWell I see...After all this now you invent what I said... LOLI didn't say Microsoft invented platform...And although, technically it was better architecture than WFW3.11, WFW 3.11 was useful as a platform with thousands applications..You could use it to do work... Networking too.. Primitive, but file sharing and printing worked just fine..And Windows 95 was actually quite good... And good GUI for the era... It was expensive Macs or Windows 95...Linux then was a joke if you wanted to use it for something useful... I know, I had separate PC running Linux so I can play with it.. It was fascinating learning tool.. nothing more.. Much different from today where today you can have a workstation running Linux and do actual work...And Microsoft Reference Hardware platform was de facto industry standard, especially for those clones you mentioned.. Intel would make reference platform for motherboard and clone makers were at first simply implementing reference designs without changing a thing...It is not I say it was Microsoft that we have to thank for being so great and worship it... I didn't say that.All I said that hardware manufacturers wanted to be able to have "Compatible With Windows" sticker on their boxes ( and they still do ) because they wanted to be compatible with 98% of PC computer owners...That created standardization effort in industry, that drove volume, price drops etc., that, thankfully helped other platforms...

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 05:40:37 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 21, 2016, 04:48:25 pmAnd if it was OS2/Warp that had won the race, hardware manufacturers wanted to be able to have "Compatible With OS2/Warp" sticker on their boxes.Or any other os for that matter. At the end of the line, microsoft has contributed nothing to the evolution of the pc.In fact, they slowed down by obstructing competitors and sabotage standards.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 05:52:14 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on August 21, 2016, 05:40:37 pmI'm going to go out on a limb and venture a guess: You really hate Microsoft ?That's fine mate, it's not that I have any special love for them.. They're just company....And if that OS/2 scenario materialized ( full disclosure : I really liked OS /Warp, more than windows of the time),than all I said would apply to IBM... Opens source didn't drive the industry, but quite cleverly used momentum that somebody else spent HUUUGE amounts of money to develop hardware that was really good that could be used to run their stuff too...It's not an insult but a kudos to how smart small guy can outsmart giants...But if you don't mind I would not like to stretch this any further... I respect your point of view..And we are hijacking this post that is about something completely else.. We should stop.. If you feel this topic should be continued, I suggest you open new post for this purpose...All the best Karel!!