This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: How do you like eCos


Hi,

	I've been evaluating eCos for Intel systems for the last 2
months and I'm impressed by it.  I've also been watching this
forum.  However, one thing that I've noticed is that getting
code changes into the eCos source may depend on the platform
you're developing.

	For instance,  Fabrice Gautier has been very active in
publishing changes for the Intel platform.  Three or four
months ago he wrote a patch for the 386 PCI support.  He also
contributed several other changes for the 386.  None of these
changes have been promoted to CVS source tree.  Why?$$

	Before you decide to use eCos, make sure your platform is
actively supported.  Even if its on list, don't assume your
free coding efforts will be put into the source tree.
		   

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
> 
> Hi Grant,
> 
> >We've been using it for about a year now (we've been shipping a
> >product that uses eCos for about 4 months).  I've got no
> >complaints.  The level of support provided by the mailing list
> >is _far_ better than support my colleagues have gotten for
> >pSOS.
> 
> I'm curious: What specific platform do you use for development, and what is
> your target CPU/architecture?
> 
> The reason I ask this is because I have one very major gripe with the free
> open-source level of support from Red Hat, and that is that there is no
> version unification, no known point from which to start, and every time one
> hits a problem one has to start debugging it from the ground up.
> 
> I'm wondering if I have experienced my usual Murphyesque ill luck and
> chosen the one maverick platform (pun intended) in the "supported
> platforms" list, but my experience with eCos and its toolchain thus far is
> that almost no component has installed/configured/compiled per the
> installation instructions, and a big part of the problem is that instead of
> providing specific snapshots of known-working versions, the install
> instructions refer to nonexistent historical versions.
> 
> Point taken about Linux host being less problematic, but I tried both Linux
> and Cygwin and had only slightly different results. Also, I don't know
> about other embedded engineers, but it is a significant annoyance to me to
> have to use anything other than Win9x for development, because most of the
> special-purpose hardware we use is DOS-only. It's quite painful to have to
> use two PCs instead of one.
> 
> One certainly couldn't describe eCOS as a fast track to anything; there are
> a dozen different steep learning curves to be climbed before you can even
> build the OS, much less try to link your own program.
> 
> Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
> Got any Commodore 16 or VIC-20 hardware, cartridges, tapes?
> Visit http://www.larwe.com/vintage/
> ================================================
> Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
> Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/

-- 
Stephen Polkowski
Centaur Technology  
Austin, TX
(512) 418-5730

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]