|
[DPRG] They're here
Subject: [DPRG] They're here
From: Bryan Andersen
yahoobma at bogonomicon.com
Date: Sun Aug 6 14:39:23 CDT 2006
David P. Anderson wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Karim, I'm not familiar with FreeRTOS, but I have worked a little with RTEMS:
>
> <http://www.rtems.com/>
>
> This is a really nice package, developed to guide cruise missles I believe,
> and all GPL'd, available for lot's of different platforms -- Duane Gustavus
> runs it on his Mini Robominds 68332. Not sure if there is an AVR port,
> but I bet there is, (or should be, Karim, if you're so inspired).
Looks interesting for those of us using 32bit MCUs/CPUs.
Official targets:
* arm - ARM V7 and above
* c4x - Texas Instruments C3x and C4x DSPs
* h8300 - Hitachi H8 family
* hppa1.1 - Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC
* i386 - Intel i386, i486, Pentium and above, AMD Athlon and above
* i960 - Intel i960 family
* m68k - Motorola m680x0, m683xx, CPU32, and Coldfire CPUs
* mips - MIPS ISA Levels 1 and above for 32 and 64 bit CPU models
* no_cpu - Example port to "no cpu"
* or32 - OpenCores OpenRisc32 CPU
* powerpc - IBM and Motorola PowerPC 4xx, 5xx, 6xx, 7xx, 8xx, 74xx,
and 75xx
* sh - Hitachi SH1, SH2, SH3, and SH4
* sparc - SPARC V7 and above CPUs
* unix - Synthetic target CPU which allows RTEMS programs to execute
natively on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, Cygwin, and HPUX.
> Has anybody else been following the SCO vs. IBM (Novel, Auto Zone, et al)
> in which SCO using some tens of millions of dollars slipped to it under
> the table by MicroSoft has been doing their best to damage the adoption
> of Linux and cast FUD on its intellectual pedigree?
>
> <http://groklaw.net>
>
> It might give one pause when considering MS's new foray into robotics.
Yes I have been following it. SCO's case is falling apart rather
rapidly. Many of the charges they have spouted on about to the press
have been dropped by the court because they didn't provide proper
evidence. Of what is left the general consensus is it doesn't hold
water. PS: First: It is seriously questionable if SCO ever had any of
the UNIX source code copyrights they claimed to have so the main basis
for much of their case could be fraudulent. Novel never sold them the
UNIX source code copyrights, not that they were all that valuable in the
first place. Under prior ownership (AT&T Bell Labs) the contracts and
copyrights for the UNIX source code were not handled very well so the
copyrights on much of the early source code either does not exist
(published without copyright notice) or is infact owned by some other
party (University of California Berkley and many many others). Second:
The contracts IBM has with Novel and previous predecessors in interest
in reguards to UNIX source code grant IBM the rights to do with as they
see fit any code they write themselves for use with UNIX.
Anyways if you wish to follow up on this I strongly advise going to
groklaw.net as they have been following the case from the start. They
have a very good history of the case under "Case Summary" on the left
hand column.
- Bryan
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
