This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Where is GDB going
- To: Peter Reilley <micrio at mv dot com>
- Subject: Re: Where is GDB going
- From: Steven Johnson <sjohnson at neurizon dot net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:52:49 +1000
- CC: GDB Discussion <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Organization: Neurizon Pty Ltd
- References: <007c01c09f99$636f5ff0$05d145cc@ppro>
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.