Re: KEil bought by ARM

In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510301830430.4881@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
sergio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2005, larwe wrote:
> > * If you upgrade your machines and the dongle doesn't work with your
> > new hardware, you are fucked. $Multi-K for the latest compiler version.
> > Oh, and you'll have to port and requalify all your code.
>
> So you expect the vendor to constantly follow the whims of the PC market
> and OS supplier without any kind of compensation? Do you also expect the
> maker of your car to upgrade it free of charge for you when YOU decide to
> switch from petrol to diesel?

What we have here is a failure to communicate :)

The closer analogy from the viewpoint of those who dislike copy
protection schemes is not being able to fill up at the pump when you
change sparkplugs.

> >
> > * If you upgrade your compiler and have to return the dongle as part of
> > the upgrade process, and then find that you need to recompile some old
> > code with the old compiler, you are fucked.
>
> So you want a free new compiler. I mean you want to keep using the
> old compiler and you want to use the new compiler for the same initial
> price.

Um, no just continue to use the old compiler for maintaining older
projects that will not be upgraded. Upgrade prices and maintainence fees
would still be paid.

> Wouldn't it be great if we didn't need copy protection. Then the software
> vendor could reduce its costs by not having to go to all the trouble and
> you the user could benefit by running the software on any machine you
> liked. I'm sure you'd buy a license for every single user that used it.
> The fact is the vendor doesn't go to all the trouble of adding copy
> protection to force you to upgrade, it's to protect himself and his
> investment from unscrupulous users.

Since some users are thieves all users must be handcuffed?


There is plenty of angst available on both sides. I don't like copy
protected development software and one criteria for choosing a controller
is whether there is non-dongled (SW or HW dongle) development SW
available. It can be commercial SW but dongled development SW is
considered a black mark against the controller.

It occurred to me this afternoon for the first time that there actually
is a physical analogy to all of this in another field. That field is
also undergoing much of the same conflict. That field is seed production.

Many moons ago seed production was just the farmer collecting seeds from
one year and preserving them to next years planting.

Then came years of breeding into varieties with desireable traits that
bred true from one year to the next. Some farmers specialized in
producing seed but still farmers could simply retain seed from year to
year.

Next came hybridization. A hybrid plant will have many desireble
properties but generally does not breed true so the farmer cannot retain
seed from year to year. Specialized seed companies now flourished.

Finally we come to very recent history and genetic manipulation. Seeds
are now patentable and even those modified seeds that breed true cannot
be legally collected and used for planting next years crop.

This last case is the analogy I'm referring to since like software the
copy is relatively straight forward (if a little slower). Various
groups find the whole concept of not being able to replant seed offensive
while the seed comapanies fear a complete disappearance of revenue and no
way to recoup their R&D costs. And I'm not even bringing up the issue of
whether modified food is 'safe'. The consequence to the world if the seed
companies get any form of copy protection seriously wrong could be rather
more serious though.

It's far from an exact match of course but looking at a similar issue in
a different field may lend some perspective.

Robert
.