Tech Insider					   Technology and Trends


			   USENET Archives

From: Andrew Veliath <andr...@usa.net>
Subject: Xilinx Foundation and Linux
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: <m3zpgzdhcl.fsf@ztransform.velsoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 349766070
Sender: andr...@ztransform.velsoft.com
X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
Organization: Self
Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga


Hi,

I'm using Xilinx Foundation M1.3 for a class, and am wondering if
Xilinx will release a Linux version.  Under 95 things start to become
unstable after a day or two for me (sometimes after a few hours even),
and I have to reboot (I don't want NT either).

I know they do make some software for various Unices, but a Linux
version would be excellent.

--
Andrew Veliath
andr...@usa.net, vel...@rpi.edu

From: mada...@cats.ucsc.edu (Rita   Madarassy)
Subject: Re: Xilinx Foundation and Linux
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: <6ihd7o$i1q@darkstar.ucsc.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 349789987
References: <m3zpgzdhcl.fsf@ztransform.velsoft.com>
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga



With all due respect, I do not understant why anybody likes Linux.
It is obvious any UNIX like platform is fading away. Check out the guys
from SUN: their system looks more and more like an NT. 
The finally realized UNIX sucks.

UNIX was never designed for interfacing with humans. It was rather designed
to interface with phones!

The PCs were blessed with an operating system designed for human beings
(WIN 95 and even WIN NT). So why do you want to make your machine stupid
by adding LINUX?
Tell me about a serious EDA tool in the market that is rational enough
to code for LINUX!!


Hernan Saab

In article <m3zpgzd...@ztransform.velsoft.com>,
Andrew Veliath  <andr...@usa.net> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm using Xilinx Foundation M1.3 for a class, and am wondering if
>Xilinx will release a Linux version.  Under 95 things start to become
>unstable after a day or two for me (sometimes after a few hours even),
>and I have to reboot (I don't want NT either).
>
>I know they do make some software for various Unices, but a Linux
>version would be excellent.
>
>--
>Andrew Veliath
>andr...@usa.net, vel...@rpi.edu

From: Andrew Veliath <andr...@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Xilinx Foundation and Linux
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: <wku377rr5a.fsf@usa.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 349915793
Sender: guru@ZTRANSFORM
References: <m3zpgzdhcl.fsf@ztransform.velsoft.com> <6ihd7o$i1q@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
Organization: Self
Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga



    > The PCs were blessed with an operating system designed for
    > human beings (WIN 95 and even WIN NT). So why do you want to
    > make your machine stupid by adding LINUX?  Tell me about a
    > serious EDA tool in the market that is rational enough to
    > code for LINUX!!

Maybe not too many for Linux (yet!), but Unix in general?  I think
quite a few (doh! :-).

I don't really want to respond to your message which had no purpose
other than to ask me _why_ I'm using Linux (I honestly have no
interest in making people want to use Linux, but find it highly
insulting when people think I'm an idiot for doing so--after all, I'm
not calling _you_ an idiot for using Windows), but I will this once
just to try to help you to understand why I use Linux (or for that
matter, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.).

Not everyone likes memory-hogging desktops.  I'd much rather type pppd
than 'rundll32 rnaui,RnaDial MyIsp', considering that I often disable
the explorer interface since I never use it to save memory.  I'd much
rather use bash than command.com or cmd.exe.  I prefer operating
systems which I don't have to reboot every time I load or unload a
system driver, can modify the source to my needs (i.e. write my own
drivers), can it stay up for months, and first and foremost, can
automate easily (how does one automate an entirely GUI driven machine
easily)?  GUIs are essential for some things, like entering schematics
and viewing timing simulations--not _everything_ like Microsoft would
like you to believe.  The NT command line is reminiscent of VMS like
the VAX in the hardware lab here.

Why not use NT?  Well, I have Linux and 95 on right now.  I use 95 for
hardware and software which is currently unsupported under Linux, such
as DVD Video and my TB Pinnacle soundcard.  However, in my spare time
I'm working on writing drivers to use these under Linux.  Having NT
on, which doesn't support much of my hardware, would be a waste of
space, and it doesn't read fat32 which I'm using for my 6.4GB whereas
Linux reads and writes it, which is good until I can get rid of 95.

I have free compiler tools which I just used to write a number of
useful filters for my assembler output for my FPGA CPU.  Speaking of
which, I also made nice use of flex and bison in addition to GNU gcc
and GNU make, not to mention extensive use of GNU Emacs.

I own Windows 95, Windows NT 3.51, Visual C++ 4.2, MASM 6.13 and
Visual Studio 97, but the latter two are academic versions, and GNU
Win32 gives me some of the Unix tools for free under Windows, albiet
it is much less stable.  Also I cannot write drivers under Windows
since I don't want to subscribe to MSDN for like $500 or whatever, in
addition to the what I've paid for the current tools I have over a few
years.  I do own Mathematica for Linux.

That all humans work better in a GUI _desktop_ is not true, some of us
work FAR better in a Unix shell-oriented environment, and if you
really want a graphical _desktop_ (again, note the difference between
a GUI application and desktop) use KDE or Gnome.  They're free.  95
and NT are a lot of $$$ for buggy software which doesn't have a
compiler or DDK.

Hopefully this provides you with at least a few reasons why I use
Linux--which I've been using since 1993.

-- 
Andrew Veliath
andr...@usa.net, vel...@rpi.edu

>>>>>  Someone writes:

    > With all due respect, I do not understant why anybody likes
    > Linux.  It is obvious any UNIX like platform is fading
    > away. Check out the guys from SUN: their system looks more
    > and more like an NT.  The finally realized UNIX sucks.

    > UNIX was never designed for interfacing with humans. It was
    > rather designed to interface with phones!

    > The PCs were blessed with an operating system designed for
    > human beings (WIN 95 and even WIN NT). So why do you want to
    > make your machine stupid by adding LINUX?  Tell me about a
    > serious EDA tool in the market that is rational enough to
    > code for LINUX!!

    > In article <m3zpgzd...@ztransform.velsoft.com>, Andrew
    > Veliath <andr...@usa.net> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> 
    >> I'm using Xilinx Foundation M1.3 for a class, and am wondering
    >> if Xilinx will release a Linux version.  Under 95 things start
    >> to become unstable after a day or two for me (sometimes after a
    >> few hours even), and I have to reboot (I don't want NT either).
    >> 
    >> I know they do make some software for various Unices, but a
    >> Linux version would be excellent.
    >> 
    >> -- Andrew Veliath andr...@usa.net, vel...@rpi.edu

			   USENET Archives


The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 
research.


Electronic mail:			      WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com		         http://tech-insider.org/