Hi Wolfgang.
> > Well, *I* have no problems with adding a dhcpd, a bootp-server or
> > something else to my very own network. But I will have problems if I
> > force my clients to do so. If someone wants to buy and use the
> > products I develop, they have to be user friendly. Forcing someone
> > to extend his
> Being user friendly could mean that you provide some dhcp/tftp/what-
> ever-you-need server on the install media for your product. I have
> bought product that were packaged that way. If you need a tool which
> the customer will need and might not already have, then provide it.
Being user-friendly for you means that it should be necessary to install
another server/whatever program, which wants to be configured itself,
just to pre-configure a device with an IP address, so one is able to
continue with the "full configuration" afterwards?
> > This is Microsoft style, but Iīm not Microsoft.
> But you help propagating this silly behaviour by accepting their rules.
Well, this may be depending on the point-of-view. In my opinion it is
not that harmfull to implement a "backup configuration method" like the
one described earlier today on the list in addition to those
standardized methodes you mentioned. Remember, it is (at least not for
my project, where I could need such methods, too) not the sole
configuration method, but one of several.
> Don't! Use open standards, and refuse to use proprietary, non-
> standard solutions (at least when you have a choice - which you have
> in the case we're discussing).
I do not refuse using open standards. But I refuse forcing the customer
to use open standards if he has no further need for them. Again: if one
did not need DHCP or BootP and probably will never need it, why should I
force him to learn about these things, learn about installation, perform
the installation of this tool, let him configure it and throw it away
afterwards just in order to avoid a "proprietary" configuration method,
which isnīt as proprietary as said?
> I perfectly understand this wish. Hey, I'm the main developer of the
> PPCBoot (PowerPC firmware) project - I know what you need to set up
> embedded systems.
I know that fact, we actually talked on that Linux event earlier this
year in Braunschweig.
> Using a predefined default value; using some type of console
> interface to manually enter one, using RARP or BOOTP / DHCP.
In the case of Andy there seems to be no console (at least I would not
call 2 buttons a console to work with for configuring anything...). So
we are at the point we were before, but I wonīt repeat myself here, as I
wrote some lines on that above.
> > this task, agree. But forcing people to install them just in order to
> > assign a 32bit value to a device, or forcing them to tweak the
> > configuration of a pc for the same purpose if stone-age-behaviour.
> C'me on, don't tell me what people have to do just to keep their win*
> systems running.
?
What should I do if a customer has WinXX running? Laugh at him and cut
the line? I also think of it (W9x) being a big crap (I know what I talk
of, as Iīm currently using it on the PC I use to write my mails... but
only a few days are left for that.. then I will switch again), but I
have to live with what my customers choose to work with (if they are the
majority of my customers).
> > So I think this īarp -sī & īpingī thing as proposed by someone on this
> > list is a fine add-on for the above described cases. If there is no
> > such tool available by now, I will try to implement it as soon as I
> > can spend some time on it.
> So. You call changing a configuration "stone-age-behaviour".
No, read my lines again. Maybe I was not clear enough stating that that
"arp&ping" thing should not be the only way to assign an IP address, but
one of several available methods combined within one device.
> Now what do you call re-inventing the wheel again, and badly? I
> can't help, but at least that's wast of time to me.
Itīs not true reinvention of the wheel (*). At least I donīt know of a
tool that works like this. Call it "implementation of another method to
achieve the same thing", with less features than existing methods, but
also with (assumably or hopefully) smaller footprint than existing
methods. If one likes to use it, (s)he is welcome to do so. If not, just
ignore the existence of this tool. Everyone is happy and there is no
reason to start a flame war on the list. Agree? :)
(*) To keep that example: we do not reinvent the wheel as one knows it.
We invent a wheel that has the shape of a triangle. It has advantages in
some cases but might be inconvenient in many others. But no-one gets
forced to use this wheel. If there is a need for the triangular wheel
(in a special environment) one can use it, but for driving on a road
towards sunset it surely is more comfortable to use the old "round" one.
> Wolfgang Denk
Bye, Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body.
For more information, see <http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded>.
