| Re: Desktop Entry
Mar 20 2006 on content Piklab |
thanks. I'll fix that. |
|  | | Re: about piklab
Feb 13 2006 on content Piklab |
Since the author of Pikdev presented his complains about Piklab in a public forum, this is a good opportunity for me to dispel several inaccuracies in his statement.
>Technically speaking, Nicolas Hadacek has realized
>a fork of my program, which is published under GPL license.
>He has modified many files to satisfy his own taste about
>programming style, reorganize code, or to include code getted from various sources
From the current sources of piklab, a very conservative count of lines of code shows that only 42% is from pikdev. If the xml files are taken into account, this percentage is 26%. All the infrastructure that describes devices has been rewritten from scratch to be more flexible and complete. All the code for programming (except the code specific to direct programmers) has been rewritten to be more generic. The code for ICD2 has been written from scratch with input from "lplab" sources. The code for PICkit2, ICD2 debugging, device chooser, disassembly listing from coff, command-line programmer is completely original and new.
Most of the code copied from pikdev has been heavily modified for my taste for usability and for extensibility.
>I consider this behaviour very unfriendly, and a waste of energy
>because it leads to develop two programs with same purposes
>and very close interfaces.
>It would has been simpler and more efficient to propose improvements
I don't think it is a waste of energy but that's obviously only my opinion. I'm working very hard on piklab and the changes I made are neither trivial nor simple. I think that it would have cost lots of my time and energy to submit patches after patches to you, then discuss approval, modify them and so on... Besides that, when I contacted you eight months ago for proposing collaboration, you refused to setup a public CVS repository (even read-only) for pikdev. That seemed to be as the only way to go forward because of the amount of foreseen modifications.
>I dropped him emails and explained my mind. I supposed that,
>after having loot my code (v0.8.0) to build piklab v0.2
As a general rule, if you do not agree to share your sources and allow other developer to build another application from them, do not use the GPL. I should add that to my knowledge I always properly attributed the code to its respective authors.
>this is quite clear: Mr Hadacek continue to pick what he
>needs in my code (as I just released version 0.8.4, so 0.8.2 was the most recent
>version when piklab 0.3 has been released).
>Any bug in programming engine?
>No problem, he just have to get fixes, and continue
>to claim to "support" internal programmer.
Those fixes are a few lines each. This is the nature of a fork. I advise you and the other interested readers to look at the following Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fork_%28software_development%29. Very instructive.
>Obviously a fork means a separation in two independant branches,
>but Mr Hadacek approach of fork is quite easy for him
The amount of work and added features of piklab simply proves this wrong.
Once again I'd like to stress that my only goal with piklab is to provide PIC users with additional and useful features. And it is my opinion that up to now I accomplished that. Piklab is the first working programmer/debugger for ICD2 under Linux. It is also to my knowledge the first programmer for PICkit2 with a graphical interface.
I advise potential or current users to try both programs and to see which one fits the best their needs. |
| | | Re: Compilation Prob
Dec 15 2005 on content Piklab |
could you send me (hadacek@kde.org) the complete compilation log.
I don't have this problem here... |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
