Hi Matteo, Do you really think that vendor-released firmware is guaranteed to be functional and well-tested? Consider Windows versus Linux. Windows is developed by a private company with its own protocols, testing processes, and so on, yet I do not find it to be more stable than Linux. Look for esp p4, when it was released it was like a beta version.
Em qua., 5 de ago. de 2026 às 14:04, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> escreveu: > > I disagree with the suggestion that those interested in exploring this > path should just create a separate experimental project. In an open-source > community, every contribution and idea is valuable, even if it introduces > disagreement or ultimately fails. > > Yes, in spirit. This is why the idea is being discussed here. But > ultimately, without consensus, we can't just have everyone's experimental > ideas merged into NuttX to succeed/fail there. That is why we are > discussing it first. NuttX mainline is not a playground for anything, > that's why we take pains to ask for testing logs and get proper PR > descriptions. > > The ESP HAL is used in many devices. One such device is my ESP32 based > rocket altimeter. This altimer is responsible for deploying parachutes on > my very expensive rocket. If that goes wrong, my rocket crashes and I lose > a lot of money and time. I don't want to rely on an experimental, AI > written HAL for this. I much prefer the iterated, strictly tested and > maintained HAL by the company itself. A NuttX written HAL would need to be > well tested, understood and maintained for me to want to make the switch. > These changes have real consequences, and for companies much larger than > just lowly old me and my hobby rockets. Keeping guarantees for users is the > utmost concern and we always need to weigh that when considering options. > We are unfortunately not free to just experiment with anything in mainline > when we'd like. > > Matteo > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:52 p.m. Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > What Raiden mentioned is right: AI generated or not, this is something we > > have to discuss with the Espressif maintainers. They are incredibly > active > > and keep our ESP support up to date. As much as I want our own NuttX HAL, > > we have to decide if it's worth trading for the burden of having our own, > > non-Espressif maintainers for it. I'm incredibly against the AI rewrite, > > but at this time I would also be against a by-hand rewrite unless we > > somehow get continued support maintaining it, either by Espressif or > other > > devs, at the level we get from Espressif right now. That kind of > maintainer > > work is super valuable to NuttX, which already has few maintainers. > > > > Also, respectfully, thinking that a new HAL rewritten to follow NuttX > > idioms will have bit-by-bit identical output to the original ESP HAL is > > wishful thinking. All kinds of things, including internal data > structures, > > will be different. Unless I am misunderstanding that proposition, that is > > definitely not going to work as a testing plan for a new HAL. > > > > Matteo > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:44 p.m. Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 4:27 PM Marco C. <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Let me try to explain the methodology so you can open your mind: > >> > (..) > >> > Open your mind. Peace. > >> > Marco Casaroli > >> > >> We are open-minded Marco, very, it is highly unfair to say we are not. > >> > >> You need to take into a consideration that all NuttX related work is > >> done in our free time at the expense of any other tasks sometimes our > >> families and so called private human life. > >> > >> We are also people taking personal responsibility for the products > >> development, its delivery, and maintenance. If things take too complex > >> and too long to deliver we are out of business. If things fail on > >> production we are out of business. If we are unable to maintain and > >> service products we are out of business. This out of business also > >> means measurable financial responsibility. > >> > >> Most of us are owners of the company, business, product. We have > >> experiences that made us have solid stand on the ground and think the > >> way we think. Its okay to play around and experiment, but its not okay > >> to impose experiments on everyone around, like so called modern world > >> does right now. We cannot build without solid foundations, when all > >> components change all the time, including software and recently even > >> hardware components. Its a big complex mess right now. We do not want > >> to make it worse or even take part ourselves. This is clearly > >> destructive. > >> > >> We can play around but then we need to provide alternative path to be > >> selected, while foundations must remain rock solid, so people have > >> choice. I understand you use free AI to create stuff, but in the end > >> there are living humans paying bills daily that need to process that > >> also for free in their free time. > >> > >> My proposition for the people with lots of free time is to create an > >> experimental but separate AI NuttX rewrite and see how it goes. It > >> should be a win-win scenario where we can cope with basic tasks in > >> NuttX while the other project may explore new worlds. > >> > >> Peace :-) > >> > >> -- > >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > >> > > > -- *--Felipe Moura de Oliveira* Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0>
