From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Johnson To: Peter Reilley Cc: GDB Discussion Subject: Re: Where is GDB going Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A99E121.FC840B04@neurizon.net> References: <007c01c09f99$636f5ff0$05d145cc@ppro> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00349.html Peter Reilley wrote: > > This is a fine line to draw. Is communicating to a proprietary > monitor OK if it is by ASYNC or TCP/IP but not if it is by > way of a library? The prime distinction I see is that communicating via ASYNC or TCP/IP is System Neutral. I can as easily communicate using TCP/IP from Solaris as I can from Windows or Linux. There is no impediment to anyone using this interface on a device. Using a proprietary library forces a user of GDB to use Windows or Nothing. (The only current examples of this I find involve Windows DLL's) It allows a Hardware Vendor to force a choice of OS on a GDB user because it is not supported otherwise. GPL Code should allow one to support themselves, proprietary libraries prevent this, published communications specs do not. Im not religiously fervent about this issue, but I think the distinction is pretty clear. The two examples in GDB's code I cited are the only examples of it I could find. Apart from increasing choice I feel that closed source DLL's linked to GDB decrease choice. If those vendors want GDB to work with their hardware then they should do it properly and not force people to use the vendors OS of choice. > This is a subject that it is easy to get > religious about. Unfortunately, at the end of such wars > most people are dead. If we can accommodate the feelings > and needs of everyone in this community then we will > make progress together. I say, strip out the proprietary > interface code and allow the manufacturers to provide their own > GPL'ed patched that satisfy their needs. That should > keep most people happy. I Agree totally. > > Pete Steven.