Previous discussion has been for the general case. One thought in your
specific case...
As I recall, you previously said there were two buttons and a 20x2 LCD
display on the box. You could have a configuration mode where one
button cycled the cursor to the right and the other button incremented
the digit under the cursor (modulo 10, of course :-). You could force
a configuration by holding in one or both buttons on power up.
gvb
At 01:19 PM 12/14/00 -0500, Andy Angrick wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>It seems i've sparked a discussion here.. Thanks for fighting the
>fight for
>me Michael :)
>
>Okay.. here is the scenerio..
>
>A sales person takes our 'blackbox' to an office. A requirement is
>they have
>a network and an internet connection. The salesman plugs up the
>blackbox. If
>there is a dhcp server available... hooray! Got the ip address. If there
>isn't.. then what?? The device has no keyboard or monitor. Okay.. the
>'non-technical' salesman will now have to unplug the box, insert a
>crossover
>cable between his laptop and the device to go to a known ip address to set
>the default configuration.. Now you have to make sure every salesman
>carries
>a laptop, which could get very expensive. Better idea.. Use a computer
>that
>is already there attached to their network to push an ip address on to the
>box. Once it has this ip address, go to http://the.ip.address.s. and
>continue with the configuration.
>
>-Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Renzmann
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 12:00 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: arp for setting IP address
> >
> >
> > 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>.
> >
>
--
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>.
