[GRLUG] Jenison Electrician

[john-thomas richards]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:06:37PM -0500, Bob Kline wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > >     What irritates me greatly is that the SDKs for talking to the main
> > >     types of cameras we work with is only practically available for
> > >     Windows.  In one case, the manufacturer only provides an OCX file.
> > >     In the other case, the manufacturer opted for a 3rd-party API called
> > >     GigEVision, but the number of implementations of that API is
> > >     exceedingly small, and the group of companies controlling the spec
> > >     manage it more tightly than the MPEG group; I'm not sure how one
> > >     could legally build a FL/OSS implementation.  There's one
> > >     non-Windows implementation, but you pay through the nose for it, and
> > >     say Hello to system library version requirements.
> > >
> > >   It's still the case that many - most? -
> > > companies will only talk to M$ about
> > > their hardware.  Canon is notorious
> > > that way.  All an aid to keeping M$'s
> > > de facto monopoly intact.
> >
> > Erm...Believe me, it's not in the their interest to keep a Microsoft "de
> > facto" monopoly intact. Most implementations for talking to GigEVision
> > devices are pure-hardware, now, without a trip through userland
> > software. I'd have to look into it again, but I believe most of the
> > companies in the group behind the API are also in the industry of
> > selling pure-hardware solutions.
> >
> > Tell me where that helps Microsoft.
> >
> >
> That much doesn't.  But many companies
> don't want the expense and bother of
> supporting several platforms.  So they
> withhold information from anyone but M$,
> and that helps keep M$'s monopoly in
> place.
> 
>     -- Bob

Doesn't that work more in the software world (programming for a Windows
platform) than it does in a hardware world (programming for an x86
platform)?  It seems that hardware manufacturers are getting a clue that
developing hardware based on standards makes more sense than proprietary
protocols.  There are exceptions, but my Canon camera (since you
mentioned Canon) works quite well on Linux because the *hardware* is
fairly standard (that is, the interface) even though Canon's provided
*software* only works on Windows.

It seems that the real issue with hardware being tied to software
(specifically, to Windows) is a printer issue where the manufacturer
reduces cost by off-loading the processing to the computer, thus
requiring a software driver (for Windows only).

Then again, I may be totally lost about what you're actually trying to
say.
-- 
john-thomas
------
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the
victims he intends to eat until he eats them.
Samuel Butler (1835-1902)