> anyway, i personally think you're mad. software is truly amenable to > "community development" because the costs involved in getting started > are relatively small. this will never be true for hardware unless all > you are doing is hobbyist-type stuff that is never really there for > anyone else. i very, very much doubt that you could build a device > with the capabilities of the hammerfall for less than the cost of a > hammerfall. >
My common sense says that you're right. But then again, I'm still too young to get restrained by common sense. PS: The most costly affair in a hammerfall-like design is the software/firmware. If you look at the hardware (board-level) design, without the firmware, it's not that special or time consuming. The real challenge is the firmware & software. The above doesn't really apply to the hammerfall, as it uses an FPGA, and altough FPGA's are programmable, the programming is more like HW design. The result is that the hammerfall board-level hardware is even more simple than a DSP based board, but the FPGA programming (configuration would be a better word) is a lot harder than programming a DSP. I agree on the fact that software design is very different from hardware design. I also agree that the open-source model has little chance in working for hardware. But I never sayd we'd have to copy the open-source software model. I think it's possible to develop a model that addresses the specific hardware needs. The main reasons GPL h/w design, imho, won't work are: 1) Hardware doesn't evolve (much), once it's designed not much changes. So if you make a great design, and make it 'GPL' chances are big that some company will adapt your design and make lot's of money with it. SW design differs in the fact that developement never stops, and people don't like to spend money on software. Spending money on HW is the most natural thing. Leading me to the next point: 2) Hardware design is more profitable than software design. Entering the hardware market requires more resources than entering the software market (where a PC will do). So the competition isn't as hard. And as I stated before, people are prepared to pay for hardware. 3) Almost anyone can type "./configure;make;make install". Not everybody can make or assemble a PCB (not that I can make 4 layer boards packed with SMD devices). So spreading PCB layouts & schematics don't make much sense. On the contrary, for reasons stated in 1 I would be rather reluctant of doing that. But keeping it in-house means one will also have to produce them in-house... etc... 4) I think one can come up with a lot more reasons why it might not work, and a lot of reasons why it might work. The bottom line is: I want to do this. I don't care if I can't get it to work... the expierence remains. (I am EE studen so it's welcome) I am perpared to fund it to my capabilities. I am not prepared to get ripped off by a company stealing a design. My goal is to create a quality soundcard fullfilling the Linux community needs. (I allways set very high goals) This reply is too long. I stop typing here. Pieter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently getting my Masters in Science and Engineering, (micro-electronics) @ ESAT laboratory, KULeuven, Belgium. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
