Any chance we will ever see the BSP?
I would love to get my hands on the source with drivers no matter what shape it is in.
I am willing to work on it and smooth out some of the rough edges and contribute back to the community.
I am an embedded Microsoft MVP ready to help.
Lots of experience on other IoT Core platforms and toolchain.
(01-27-2017, 09:43 PM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]Any chance we will ever see the BSP?
I would love to get my hands on the source with drivers no matter what shape it is in.
I am willing to work on it and smooth out some of the rough edges and contribute back to the community.
I am an embedded Microsoft MVP ready to help.
Lots of experience on other IoT Core platforms and toolchain.
i would think you need to talk to microsoft if you want sources as allwinner probably is under a NDA. my opinion is allwinner sorta dropped this win iot thing when they realized it would take some serious work on their part.
(01-27-2017, 09:43 PM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]Any chance we will ever see the BSP?
I would love to get my hands on the source with drivers no matter what shape it is in.
I am willing to work on it and smooth out some of the rough edges and contribute back to the community.
I am an embedded Microsoft MVP ready to help.
Lots of experience on other IoT Core platforms and toolchain.
There is discussion about the BSP release and I will follow up (may takes few weeks)
Any way to speed this up?
Am in the mean time attempting to extract all packages from the .ffu already... seems last image is also using RPi2 packages.
Allwinner.Appx.IoTCoreDefaultApp 10.0.0.0 Canonical 13
Allwinner.aw1689.adcbutton 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.AudioAdapter 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 7
Allwinner.aw1689.AwDma 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.Codec 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.DeviceInfo 0.0.0.1 Canonical 4
Allwinner.aw1689.DeviceLayout 0.0.0.1 Canonical 5
Allwinner.aw1689.DevicePlatform 0.0.0.1 Canonical 5
Allwinner.aw1689.Ethmini 1.0.0.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.gt82x 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.kd_8003_000b 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 5
Allwinner.aw1689.rtwlans 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.sunxigpio 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.sunxii2c 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.sunxisdhc 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.aw1689.VirtualI2S 10.0.14393.0 Canonical 6
Allwinner.Custom.Cmd 10.0.0.0 Canonical 5
Allwinner.OemTools.InstallTools 10.0.0.0 Canonical 7
Allwinner.Registry.ConfigSettings 10.0.0.0 Canonical 4
Allwinner.Registry.Version 10.0.0.0 Canonical 4
RASPBERRYPI.RPi.Wifi.bcmdhd63 10.0.14361.0 Canonical 8
RASPBERRYPI.RPi2.RT.WLAN 10.0.14361.0 Canonical 6
RASPBERRYPI.RPi2.USBWIFI 10.0.14361.0 Canonical 6
Interesting you can extract the packages this way. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the SDK?
Boss refused my request of making it open-source......
(05-22-2017, 08:07 PM)Leeway213 Wrote: [ -> ]Boss refused my request of making it open-source......
Thanks for sharing...
... this is a sidebar; tell your boss that even if I personally needed your project (which I don't) tomorrow morning at 08:00, I wouldn't use it even if it cost me money, because it is proprietary. Make sure that your boss knows this. Unless you're in China, closed source is soooo early 1980. Proprietary code is useless code; make sure your boss understands.
Open (free) software is more secure software, is useful software, is 'better' software (why, glad you asked) because the people working on it are free thinkers, because most of the world is finished with proprietary codes , because security and freedom in the 21st century demand it; beyond that when more minds are looking at code it just becomes better. Open actually protects your business better than protectionism... protectionism never works;
just true.
I
free and open-source software
(05-22-2017, 08:31 PM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017, 08:07 PM)Leeway213 Wrote: [ -> ]Boss refused my request of making it open-source......
Thanks for sharing...
... this is a sidebar; tell your boss that even if I personally needed your project (which I don't) tomorrow morning at 08:00, I wouldn't use it even if it cost me money, because it is proprietary. Make sure that your boss knows this. Unless you're in China, closed source is soooo early 1980. Proprietary code is useless code; make sure your boss understands.
Open (free) software is more secure software, is useful software, is 'better' software (why, glad you asked) because the people working on it are free thinkers, because most of the world is finished with proprietary codes , because security and freedom in the 21st century demand it; beyond that when more minds are looking at code it just becomes better. Open actually protects your business better than protectionism... protectionism never works;
just true.
I free and open-source software
I have expounded that source opening can help us build and improve our project fast. But boss considers open source as an advertisement and want our team to build a full-feature and bugless BSP ASAP and then open it.
My head felt twice its size.....
While I am the original poster and I am totally for open source
I disagree with most of your conclusions. open source software is no better or worse than closed software.
I have seen my share of crap open source software ...mostly because the people "are free thinkers" and think they can do it better than the last guy.
Why do you think there is so many Linux distributions? Any why is it when you talk to any Linux developer they immediately try to convince you you should be using XYZ distribution?
Do we really need 10 different packaging formats (Linux)? Have you ever looked at the Linix driver code (yuck!) or the endless stream of U-boot modifications?
A properly run closed source project can provide better code stability and thus reliability. Something sorely lacking in many open source projects.
Yes, more (better) minds make better code.
(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]While I am the original poster and I am totally for open source
I disagree with most of your conclusions. open source software is no better or worse than closed software.
... you cannot be 'totally for open source' and at the same time not agree with my conclusions. (mutually exclusive)
(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think there is so many Linux distributions? Any why is it when you talk to any Linux developer they immediately try to convince you you should be using XYZ distribution?
Answer: preference, simple. (has nothing to do with quality)
(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]Do we really need 10 different packaging formats (Linux)? Have you ever looked at the Linix driver code (yuck!) or the endless stream of U-boot modifications?
not relevant.
(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]A properly run closed source project can provide better code stability and thus reliability. Something sorely lacking in many open source projects.
I wish that were true. Microsoft is a perfect example of why not.
(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, more (better) minds make better code.
Yes. A good example of this is the work being done on the mainline kernel here... or the video work being done with drm; these would not be possible if it were not for free and open code base.