On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:50:20PM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > The key is to have a company that doesn't
> > inhibit Open Source development by withholding critical 
> > information about a product or process. I have yet to see one
> > instance where MChip has done that. Have you?
> 
> interfaces!
> - MLAB <-> ICD2 interface (RS232/USB)
> - MLAB <-> third party programmer software

Ah! I see. Both of those are Windows specific AFAICT. So they
are outside of my scope.

Would the MPLAB to ICD2 interface help in developing ICD2
host software for Linux?

> 
> I am not stating that uChip is doing too little, or doing bad compared
> to others. I wouldn't know what to base such a verdict on.
> 
> This thread started with a request for suggestions for how uChip could
> do better, compared to what they do now. Just that: suggestions. It
> is/would be up to uChip to evaluate such suggestions (as undoubtedly
> they evaluate their own ideas) on cost/yield, or whatever other criteria
> they want to use.

Of course. I'd be interested to see if MChip thought there was any
benefit in having an MPLAB benefit to 3rd party programmers. As I've
stated earlier, I'd be leery of that if I were them. Because as soon
as some 3rd party programmer doesn't work with MPLAB, customers will
be ringing up or E-mailing MCHIP to ask why it doesn't work. If I were
Mchip, that certainly wouldn't be a beneficial thing, considering that
MPLAB isn't a direct profit center for them.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist