Re: TI-H: Code and schematics and such

To: <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: TI-H: Code and schematics and such
From: "Jon Olson" <morph@jmss.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:16:14 -0400
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

I agree with you novel on the subject of code secrecy rich. I've been
thinking the same things for a while now.

-- Jon Olson

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Piotter <richfile@prairie.lakes.com>
To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 11:05 PM
Subject: TI-H: Code and schematics and such


>
>I think you should make your own code if you can't release others code. If
>there is only one way to do the code, then there's one way to do it. If
you'd
>never seen the code, you'd claim it was yours. There is only so much you
can
>do with the link port. And there is only one way to use it (from what I
know)
>What does the code do anyway??? I don't know if all this legal stuff realy
>even belongs on this list. I realize that stuff is owned by the designer,
and
>that can't be ignored. The problem is that some things are kept under wraps
>cause of legal issues. I'm sick of waiting for this stupid EII and all
these
>other things! The EuP WORKED! GOD! why are we waiting for Bryan to finish
the
>EII when he could have continued producing the PIC for all this time.
GEEZ!!!
>The thing worked, but MEL said it was crap cause it used the _PIC_ and not
the
>_AVR_!!! Who cares WHAT chip it used!!! I'd be happy if I never heard of
the
>EII and could het programmed PICS!!!
>
>I don't care if they're more expensive.
>
>I had an offer of over $100 recently for an expander!!! I realy wish I
could
>have said yes!!!
>
>I like the EII and the nice expansion port it'll have and that It'll be
>cheaper, but I'd rather buy PICs, or better, see the released code! If
you're
>not making them anymore, why don't you post the code. if it's so obsolete,
why
>don't you give those with the skills, the option of making their own
>expanders, chip and all!
>
>I realy wish there were a DETAILED report of the varying projects. And I'd
>like to know if this "code" is some specialty code designed by Bryan or if
>it's some type of code that can't be done any other way. Trying to hide
stuff
>won't do anything. I bet the EII could have been released atleast a month
ago
>if this secrecy hadn't been going on. How can you make a product no one
knows
>about! It sure seems like it!!! This sucks!!!
>
>COME ON!!! this list is for SHARING ideas for the calcs! It's not very
>productive to keep things shut away.
>
>I don't care about a smashed Laptop or people worrying about their "code"
>being stolen. Things happen and that I can understand, but one thing I hate
is
>when things are designed and then thrown in a closet. Someone begs for
someone
>to invent something, only to find out all this time, all that work, it was
>already done. POST TO THE LIST if you invent something, and if you DESIGN
it,
>you should have every right to release it!!! GOD!!! Grant has spent
countless
>hours on the EII, and other projects. Grant, if you can't release them, why
>design it!!!
>
>If you're going to make it, then let us in on it. This is to EVERYONE. not
>that everyone does this. It's just that promises are made and stuff keeps
on
>being designed, but we can only hope someday we can maybe see it in the
future!
>
>Another thing, microcontroler are required for some devices, such as the
>memory expanders and links, but Grant's (or Bryan's, I don't know which)
idea
>of making the expansion module port on the EII to make a "standard" for
making
>new devices. So now everyone needs this fabled EII to have decent expansion
>devices??? Not everyone is going to have an EII, but they might want a
sound
>generator that produces waveforms. I'd prefer logic over microcontroler,
since
>anyone could build it. Maybe it's a little more complex, but I'm sure it
could
>be done! making a microcontroler standard is not a good thing. I realize
it's
>the only way sometimes, but come on! the link port, although a pain, is
still
>the best way to expand the calcs. making the EII allow devices to be
attached
>to it is great, but it shouldn't become a standard. the link port is
already
>something everyone has.
>--
>
>
>Richard Piotter
>richfile@prairie.lakes.com
>
>The Richfiles TI Hardware and BASIC web page:
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/5081/Richfiles.html