Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions

[Chris Gough]

Hi Poine,

Thank you for clearing that up.

I really did want to know if Lisa/M hardware was going to be open
sourced, and am very glad that your intention is to release it when
it's ready. I didn't ask directly because I have no right to be
demanding, every new release is a gift for which I am grateful.

> Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
> that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
> does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
> you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
> motivations behind that choice.

Because you _were_ attacked. I believe a PR savvy individual with
vested interests deliberately manufactured the perception (out of
nothing) that there are risks with choosing Paparazzi over one of the
alternative open source autopilot platforms. Even though I formed that
opinion when this first flared up, and am pretty confident it's right,
I was still worried. FUD is a dirty trick but it works.

Chris Gough


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM, antoine drouin <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Christophe
>
> Schematics will be released ASAP, CAD files will come later. When ? I
> don't know.... Worst case would be when Joby Robotics releases a new
> version of the board, but I hope it will be sooner than that.
> Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
> that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
> does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
> you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
> motivations behind that choice. For you information, Lisa/L CAD files
> have been released (
> http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/paparazzi-hardware/trunk/lisa/v1.1/?root=paparazzi
> ) 3 month ago.
> I had already written a mail to the mailing list to explain the
> motivations behind not releasing CAD file together with new boards
> when all the fuss about about lisa/L happened but renounced to send it
> in order to avoid fueling the flameware.
> I've started this project together with Pascal 8 years ago and since
> then I have dedicated my time to try and make it successful. I'm
> utterly convinced of the benefits of open source, but observing how
> Paparazzi grew over time, I came to the conclusion that hardware is a
> bit different than software... "gcc tiny.brd" is not going to make a
> board magically appear on your desktop. I'll list here some of my
> arguments in favor of releasing CAD files after the board is mature.
>
> 1- Unlike software, where an unskilled user can type make and get a
> piece of complex software to successfully build, assembling hardware
> requires tools and skills. Providing gerbers and BOM have lured a
> bunch of new users into believing otherwise and has created tons of
> frustration. I've myself fixed a number of badly assembled boards and
> I even recall that while helping debugging a board ( so after
> assembly), discovering that the person had manufactured two layers
> PCBs instead of four layers. As the technology of the autopilot
> increases, this problem becomes more and more important.
>
> 2- The success of the project depends on the availability of
> affordable hardware. The price of hardware is directly and
> exponentially dependent on the number of manufactured units. If ten
> persons manufacture 10 boards each, the cost will be much higher than
> if one person manufactures 100.
>
> 3- Last and not least, the quality of assembly also depends very much
> on the number of manufactured units. Good quality can only be achieved
> through the use of automated placing and soldering, and those
> processes can only be used if the number of units reach a certain
> amount.
>
>  You may think that my arguments are wrong and I'm ready to debate
> them with you, but questioning my ethics hurts. I, as well as all the
> Paparazzi developers, only have one goal in mind, the success of this
> project.
>
> Best regards
>
> Poine
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Christoph Niemann
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thank you very much for your replies.
>>
>> @Eric: The reason why not to use Spektrum is the following:
>> I have 2.4Ghz video-gear, so if I'm using it, I have to use 35Mhz. My 2.4Ghz 
>> stuff is JETI-equipment, so I'm using a receiver, that has been modified to 
>> output the PPM-Signal.
>>
>> So the first question is solved, PPM should work. What remains is the 
>> question of the license. Will the shematics (perhaps the eagle-files) be 
>> available, like at the old APs, or are the Lisa-APs the beginning of 
>> closedsource-only APs in paparazzi? Please don't get me wrong, but this is 
>> really important to me for making some strategic descisions and might be for 
>> some more guys too.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>>
>>
>>> Datum: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200
>>> Von: antoine drouin <address@hidden>
>>> An: address@hidden
>>> Betreff: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions
>>
>>> ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Poine
>>>
>>> ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
>>> because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
>>> adapt the driver to use another line. look at
>>> sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>



-- 
.