> the economics of market forces don't work that way.
> profit-maximising companies are pathologically and *LEGALLY* bound to
> enact the articles of incorporation. so you'd need to show them that
> it would hurt their profits to continue the way that they are going.
I think legally bound is a
> From: yuhongbao_...@hotmail.com
> To: l...@lkcl.net; hancock...@gmail.com
> CC: david.goodeno...@btconnect.com; debian-...@lists.debian.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; arm-netb...@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> Subject: RE: device tree not the answer in the
From: yuhongbao_...@hotmail.com
To: l...@lkcl.net; hancock...@gmail.com
CC: david.goodeno...@btconnect.com; debian-...@lists.debian.org;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; arm-netb...@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Subject: RE: device tree not the answer in the ARM
the economics of market forces don't work that way.
profit-maximising companies are pathologically and *LEGALLY* bound to
enact the articles of incorporation. so you'd need to show them that
it would hurt their profits to continue the way that they are going.
I think legally bound is a myth,
On 05/08/2013 03:19:23 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
>> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
>> there is a cost overhead of e.g.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
>> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
>> there is a cost overhead of e.g. around $6 in parts for EOMA-68, there
>> is a whopping great saving
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
there is a cost overhead of e.g. around $6 in parts for EOMA-68, there
is a whopping great
On 05/08/2013 03:19:23 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the
spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although
there is a cost overhead of
On 05/06/2013 03:55:11 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> You realize that nobody except Samsung and Apple is currently
making money
> in the smartphone space, right?
ok, ok - substitute "tablet" or "laptop" or "media centre" for
On Mon, 6 May 2013, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I am getting the impression that we should ignore the cell phones given
they seem to be thoroughly ignoring their customers and everyone else
anyhow. If we then focus on the devices that perhaps do care to be around
for a while and supported, we
On 05/06/2013 03:55:11 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
You realize that nobody except Samsung and Apple is currently
making money
in the smartphone space, right?
ok, ok - substitute tablet or laptop or media
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>> And neither is the same as the quality or sustainability of the
>> resulting software. But if the product line will be be discontinued
>> three months after its introduction, who cares about being able to
>> maintain anything?
>
> Sounds
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>> > I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
>> > the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with new
>> > hardware and ARM.
>>
>>
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:01:58PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> And economies of scale are everything to hardware cost. Unit volume
> amortizes the development (and often licensing) costs down, in the
> long run who has the highest unit volume has the cheapest product.
> Being able to reuse off the
On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
> the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with
new
> hardware and ARM.
no. no, no no and wrong. absolutely dead wrong. you're
james, hi - top-posting or not you make some valid points, and i don't
believe you're subscribed to arm-netbooks so i'm going to take a
liberty and reply briefly inline but keep most of what you've written
intact, apologies to debian-arm and lkml.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM, James
Am 06.05.2013 08:53, schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
but the question you have to ask is: why should the HW designers even
care? they're creating an embedded specialist system, they picked the
most cost-effective and most available solution to them - why _should_
they care?
and the
The real problem with any new system, is the hardware is designed and
then it is a challenge for the software developer to get the software
to boot on the new hardware.
The nirvana here would be to take the original hardware circuit
diagram, and process it to automatically create a config file.
Note, I'm not qualified nor important or anything really to be part of
this discussion or mud slinging this may turn into, but I do fine some
flaws in the reasoning here that If not pointed out, may get grossly
overlooked.
On 06-05-13 06:09, Robert Hancock wrote:
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Robert Hancock wrote:
>> and that's just within *one* of the fabless semiconductor companies,
>> and you have to bear in mind that there are *several hundred* ARM
>> licensees. when this topic was last raised, someone mentioned that
>> ARM attempted to
On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with
new
hardware and ARM.
no. no, no no and wrong. absolutely dead wrong. you're
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:01:58PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
And economies of scale are everything to hardware cost. Unit volume
amortizes the development (and often licensing) costs down, in the
long run who has the highest unit volume has the cheapest product.
Being able to reuse off the
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On 05/06/2013 07:08:44 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
I suppose that ARM multi-platform will never cover all ARM CPUs, but
the more it covers, the easier and cheaper it will be to work with new
hardware and ARM.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
And neither is the same as the quality or sustainability of the
resulting software. But if the product line will be be discontinued
three months after its introduction, who cares about being able to
maintain
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Robert Hancock hancock...@gmail.com wrote:
and that's just within *one* of the fabless semiconductor companies,
and you have to bear in mind that there are *several hundred* ARM
licensees. when this topic was last raised, someone mentioned that
ARM attempted
Note, I'm not qualified nor important or anything really to be part of
this discussion or mud slinging this may turn into, but I do fine some
flaws in the reasoning here that If not pointed out, may get grossly
overlooked.
On 06-05-13 06:09, Robert Hancock wrote:
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke
The real problem with any new system, is the hardware is designed and
then it is a challenge for the software developer to get the software
to boot on the new hardware.
The nirvana here would be to take the original hardware circuit
diagram, and process it to automatically create a config file.
Am 06.05.2013 08:53, schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
but the question you have to ask is: why should the HW designers even
care? they're creating an embedded specialist system, they picked the
most cost-effective and most available solution to them - why _should_
they care?
and the
james, hi - top-posting or not you make some valid points, and i don't
believe you're subscribed to arm-netbooks so i'm going to take a
liberty and reply briefly inline but keep most of what you've written
intact, apologies to debian-arm and lkml.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM, James
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
this message came up on debian-arm and i figured that it is worthwhile
endeavouring to get across to people why device tree cannot and will
not ever be the solution it was believed to be, in the ARM world.
[just a quick note to david
On 05/05/2013 06:27 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
this message came up on debian-arm and i figured that it is worthwhile
endeavouring to get across to people why device tree cannot and will
not ever be the solution it was believed to be, in the ARM world.
[just a quick note to david
31 matches
Mail list logo
