Tom Handley wrote:
>
>    Tony, I'd strongly recommend that you don't release your Windows source...
> This would result in a `support nightmare'... Someone mentioned LINUX. Well,

Support nightmare?  Someone mentioned Linux, yes,  which is millions and
millions of lines of awesome quality open source projects and they are
properly run by smart people and they are not a "spport nightmare".
Just what makes ROMzap so special.  The best thing that could happen to
ROMzap  is a bunch of people that know what they are doing hack
modifications, improvements and bug fixes so fast that a support
nightmare might be a problem.  GPL the thing to protect it.  People that
don't know how to modify it aren't likely to.

"Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I
dub this: ``Linus's Law''. "
        - The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond.

Heck, this could make the basis for a really awesome PICLIST project.
It is certainly something that is of interest to many people on this
list.  Use the GPL and it will stay open for everyone, forever.

I do doubt that much of the windows code will help the Linux people but
they (we) might take it and convert the whole thing to a cross platform
toolkit, like wxWindows or even Qt if someone has a license and can
build the windows versions.

I personally would prefer a command line utility that could be run out
of a makefile.  It should be ANSI C and run on both Linux and Windows.
And make the GUI a Tcl/Tk wrapper or maybe Python.  Both are cross
platform.  I've been looking for a reason to write something in Python.
(I just bought O'Reilley's Learning Python book.)


> they can easily look at the "open" PIC source and write a LINUX interface...

Yeah, yeah, yeah!!!

>
>    BTW, I think we should have annual PIC conventions (ala Embedded Systems)
> and the first one should be held here in Portland, OR so I can afford the
> travel expenses (ie: across town ;-). That way I could present you with the
> first `PIC medal of excellence'. While we are at it, we also need all those
> other folks like Andy W, Scott, John P, our Russian friends, and so many
> more. Heck, I'd be happy to be the `Beer/Vodka Tender' ;-)
>
>    - Tom
>
> At 07:50 AM 4/3/00 +1000, Tony Nixon wrote:
> >"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
> >>
> >> Would you be willing to release the source code for the windows utility
> you've
> >> created?
> >
> >The PIC source is all open.
> >
> >I don't see the need to open the Windows source. Why would a PIC

Probably true, but it wouldn't hurt.  A linux version would (IMO) best
be a total rewrite for the interface program, written cross platform
from the gitgo.  Then the code would be of use to all.


> >programmer want the innards? As far as I know it does just about
> >everything needed, and I'm willing to add to it if suggestions are made.
> >It gives me something to do in times of boredome :-)

Someone would have to be the maintainer.  I'd bet that would fill plenty
of boredom time with interesting stuff to do.

> >
> >Soon Lee wrote:
> >> I have a suggestion here. why don't you have
> >> a debug screen (like bs2) after you run the program(since the com is
> already
> >> open), currently I am using comlite32 to monitor the com data. and it is
> >> really very useful when it come to debuging

This would be a good feature to build into a new GUI program.  On Linux
there are at least two open programs that could form the code basis for
this.  No idea for windows; someone (else) would have to write that.


> >
> >It's in the pipeline.
> >
> >--
> >Best regards
> >
> >Tony
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Handley
> New Age Communications
> Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)

--
Robert Wuest, PE
Linux rules.  windows drools.