Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

serd.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#11

Post by Cerium »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #10

On the topic of Microchip and secrecy: I downloaded and installed their IDE, MPLAB X IDE v6.20. It is for a pic3mx chip. The compiler looks like a completely generic gcc, built to cross-compile on a Windows host. However, they want a $1000.00 “licensing fee” in order to enable any optimization level above -O0. This seems wrong. Wouldn’t this be a violation of the copyleft license covering gcc? I’m guessing there’s so…

It's been this way forever... They do distribute source (but last time I checked it is with incomplete build info). I think there is also some BS fine print about the licensing fee being for the provided header files.

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#12

Post by badgersnake »

lttlrck wrote: post #9

Token ring was old in 1996 when my masters thesis focused on error handling behavior and simulation thereof. I wonder if there are certain elements in certain "industrial complexes" that need to maintain or interface with legacy TR systems and that's why it's still hanging around in "dark silicon".

There were still using it for the desktops at IBM when I was there in 2001, although they were starting to phase it out.

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#13

Post by fragmede »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #10

On the topic of Microchip and secrecy: I downloaded and installed their IDE, MPLAB X IDE v6.20. It is for a pic3mx chip. The compiler looks like a completely generic gcc, built to cross-compile on a Windows host. However, they want a $1000.00 “licensing fee” in order to enable any optimization level above -O0. This seems wrong. Wouldn’t this be a violation of the copyleft license covering gcc? I’m guessing there’s so…

The GPL doesn't say you can't charge money for things. Do they provide patches for their changes to the source?

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#14

Post by wokkel »

lttlrck wrote: post #9

Token ring was old in 1996 when my masters thesis focused on error handling behavior and simulation thereof. I wonder if there are certain elements in certain "industrial complexes" that need to maintain or interface with legacy TR systems and that's why it's still hanging around in "dark silicon".

What i know from the past is for realtime guarantees ethernet does not cut it. So you might be right.

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#16

Post by rwmj »

lttlrck wrote: post #9

Token ring was old in 1996 when my masters thesis focused on error handling behavior and simulation thereof. I wonder if there are certain elements in certain "industrial complexes" that need to maintain or interface with legacy TR systems and that's why it's still hanging around in "dark silicon".

Off topic, but clabretro did a series on Token Ring if you want to relive the nostalgia: https://www.youtube.com/@clabretro/videos

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#17

Post by extraduder_ire »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #10

On the topic of Microchip and secrecy: I downloaded and installed their IDE, MPLAB X IDE v6.20. It is for a pic3mx chip. The compiler looks like a completely generic gcc, built to cross-compile on a Windows host. However, they want a $1000.00 “licensing fee” in order to enable any optimization level above -O0. This seems wrong. Wouldn’t this be a violation of the copyleft license covering gcc? I’m guessing there’s so…

How much does it look like gcc? Can you run it on its own with a --version argument, or run it through strings to get the text out of it.

If it's actually gcc, a copy of the GPL should have come with the software. A bunch of other compilers mimic a lot of its interface for compatibility’s sake.

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#18

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

wokkel wrote: post #14
lttlrck wrote: post #9

Token ring was old in 1996 when my masters thesis focused on error handling behavior and simulation thereof. I wonder if there are certain elements in certain "industrial complexes" that need to maintain or interface with legacy TR systems and that's why it's still hanging around in "dark silicon".

What i know from the past is for realtime guarantees ethernet does not cut it. So you might be right.

AFAIK Ethernet is used for realtime audio distribution, so that can't be completely correct.

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#19

Post by stephen_g »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #10

On the topic of Microchip and secrecy: I downloaded and installed their IDE, MPLAB X IDE v6.20. It is for a pic3mx chip. The compiler looks like a completely generic gcc, built to cross-compile on a Windows host. However, they want a $1000.00 “licensing fee” in order to enable any optimization level above -O0. This seems wrong. Wouldn’t this be a violation of the copyleft license covering gcc? I’m guessing there’s so…

Yeah I’m really not a fan - we had some designs with PICs on them and ended up switching to NXP micros (MCX-A and i.MX-RT) instead, partly because of MPLAB and also because the Microchip ones had some annoying quirks. NXP’s documentation I find a lot better too. I literally try to avoid Microchip where I can from the experience…

Re: What Microchip doesn't (officially) tell you about the VSC8512

#20

Post by rbanffy »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #18
wokkel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What i know from the past is for realtime guarantees ethernet does not cut it. So you might be right.

AFAIK Ethernet is used for realtime audio distribution, so that can't be completely correct.

There is audio distribution real-time and nuclear reactor (or avionics, medical, etc) real-time. I assume the people doing (or certifying) the latter will want better guarantees.
Post reply on HN