Martin McCormick <martin@DC.CIS.OKSTATE.EDU> Wrote:-
>        I certainly hope that if linux versions of PIC software are
>developed, they can be happy in a GUI and non GUI environment.  I would
>think it would be much more useful to have good rugged applications
>in which most of the brain power went to make them work properly rather
>than to produce an artistic experience that sometimes does weird things that
>nobody seems to be able to reproduce or explain.  The gcc compiler is a
>wonderful piece of design and I must pinch myself to realize that it
>is free, especially when you think of the time that must have gone in to it.
>There is also a debugger called gdb that is also free and it also works
>in a text-based environment.
>
>        Shouldn't we have a choice?  The whole idea of computing is that
>there is more than one way to skin a cat and the end result is what matters.
>
>        Why even bother if the end result is a choice between GUI or GUI?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to add my support to the development of an open source
PIC development system, there seems to be enough list members
running linux to make this a worthwhile project...count me in!

As far as the user interface is concerned, it would be best to
have as much flexibilty as possible.

        1. command line driven interface
        2. character cell style interface (ie. doesn't need X)
        3. GUI interface Qt/KDE or whatever..(GNOME?)

These are not incompatible objectives. Although I prefer KDE :-)

1. What is needed to start the ball rolling?

2. Specifications?... What about mplab functionality as a minimum.

3. Should discussion be on a seperate list? (probably!)

4. What open source pic assemblers/compilers are already available?

The ONLY thing I would insist on is standard MPASM mnemonics!

Ray Gardiner (DSP Systems) ray@dsp-systems.com http://www.dsp-systems.com
private email to:- ray@netspace.net.au