On Sunday 31 October 2010 12:06:38 Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
2010/10/31 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
"real-time system with Windows software, source code and architecture will be proprietary, giving us the exclusivity of owning a system unknown to foreign elements and protect our security system,"
I took that to mean a windowing system, not necessarily from Microsoft. X Windows will also qualify.
Hmm poor understanding of English semantics (amongst other things). The word Windows software with a capital W in the middle of a sentence means it is name of a specific thing. There is only ONE os product family by that name Microsoft Windows. If he were referring to a windowing system, he would state "window" - no "W" at the start no "s" in the end. So your excuse - or logic - either way fails.
That is what the PR is supposed to tell us - what organisations are thinking and planning to do. Throw crappy PR up and it all comes raining down.
Quite. GoI's multiple PR snafus are all there to be seen.
Not quite in this case. YOUR link seems to have got things rubbished. The TOI link is quite ok technically.
I hope the other replies gave you an education - or atleast a dummies guide - to interfacing.
As I said previously, that is a Utopian view. Even Microsoft understands that, hence they too provide their source code to OEMs involved in driver development.
Wrong logic, excuse and history too. M$ came up with their opening of source (Microsoft shared source Initiative) to get some traction on .NET from Java, and was later expanded to their oses, not to provide driver (or other software) development for doze, but for organisations to do security audits in response to a sustained attack on the "closed is secure" meme from many academicians and FOSS proponents. Mere APIs are sufficient in any world including one as warped up as M$ and indeed, every software development continues happily without any source from M$
Binand