<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:17 PM, john-thomas richards <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jtr@jrichards.org">jtr@jrichards.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:06:37PM -0500, Bob Kline wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Michael Mol <<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>[snip]<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> > ><br>
> > > What irritates me greatly is that the SDKs for talking to the main<br>
> > > types of cameras we work with is only practically available for<br>
> > > Windows. In one case, the manufacturer only provides an OCX file.<br>
> > > In the other case, the manufacturer opted for a 3rd-party API called<br>
> > > GigEVision, but the number of implementations of that API is<br>
> > > exceedingly small, and the group of companies controlling the spec<br>
> > > manage it more tightly than the MPEG group; I'm not sure how one<br>
> > > could legally build a FL/OSS implementation. There's one<br>
> > > non-Windows implementation, but you pay through the nose for it, and<br>
> > > say Hello to system library version requirements.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > It's still the case that many - most? -<br>
> > > companies will only talk to M$ about<br>
> > > their hardware. Canon is notorious<br>
> > > that way. All an aid to keeping M$'s<br>
> > > de facto monopoly intact.<br>
> ><br>
> > Erm...Believe me, it's not in the their interest to keep a Microsoft "de<br>
> > facto" monopoly intact. Most implementations for talking to GigEVision<br>
> > devices are pure-hardware, now, without a trip through userland<br>
> > software. I'd have to look into it again, but I believe most of the<br>
> > companies in the group behind the API are also in the industry of<br>
> > selling pure-hardware solutions.<br>
> ><br>
> > Tell me where that helps Microsoft.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> That much doesn't. But many companies<br>
> don't want the expense and bother of<br>
> supporting several platforms. So they<br>
> withhold information from anyone but M$,<br>
> and that helps keep M$'s monopoly in<br>
> place.<br>
><br>
> -- Bob<br>
<br>
</div></div>Doesn't that work more in the software world (programming for a Windows<br>
platform) than it does in a hardware world (programming for an x86<br>
platform)? It seems that hardware manufacturers are getting a clue that<br>
developing hardware based on standards makes more sense than proprietary<br>
protocols. There are exceptions, but my Canon camera (since you<br>
mentioned Canon) works quite well on Linux because the *hardware* is<br>
fairly standard (that is, the interface) even though Canon's provided<br>
*software* only works on Windows.<br>
<br>
It seems that the real issue with hardware being tied to software<br>
(specifically, to Windows) is a printer issue where the manufacturer<br>
reduces cost by off-loading the processing to the computer, thus<br>
requiring a software driver (for Windows only).<br>
<br>
Then again, I may be totally lost about what you're actually trying to<br>
say.<br>
--<br>
john-thomas<br>
------<br>
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the<br>
victims he intends to eat until he eats them.<br>
Samuel Butler (1835-1902)<br> </blockquote><div>Man is also the only animal that </div><div>buys more books than it can read..</div><div><br></div><div>Re Canon, true. It's a mixed picture</div><div>I'd say. I too download images from</div>
<div>my Canon camera under Kubuntu 9.10.</div><div>The newer cameras do seem to use</div><div>open standards, but as you say, Canon</div><div>only provides M$ tools. Maybe because</div><div>tools already exist for Linux.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As I mentioned a while back, a 10 year</div><div>old Canon flatbed scanner is not being</div><div>supported in xsane. The author claims</div><div>Canon will not provide the hardware data.</div><div><br>
</div><div>But perhaps things are getting better,</div><div>and for those buying new gadgets, more</div><div>of them will have Linux support, even if</div><div>Linux provides that support..</div><div><br></div><div> -- Bob</div>
<div> </div></div><br>