Freddie Chopin wrote: >> I do not see why users would choose not to >> use the new version? >> > > Just because thousands of users already have a 0.1.0 release compiled > with ftd2xx support. The performance is more or less the same, old > version supports one's JTAG without problems, new version requires one > to change the drivers, which cannot be just downloaded, but need to be > created, and then you somehow have to obtain a hacked version of > libusb.sys and copy that to your system32 directory... I just don't see > that coming... > Huh? How is that different in 0.1 vs. 0.2?
If you are comparing illegally distributed 0.1 versions: tough luck. Legal 0.1 versions should behave the same way as 0.2, right? Now if people compiled those 0.1 versions themselves, they should have no problem doing the same with 0.2. >> BTW: one possible solution for 64-bit windows would be to ship an >> openocd appliance - ie. a VM image containing a minimal linux system >> together with openocd & libraries. >> >> Users would need to install VMware player or SUN Virtualbox to use that, >> but would get a clean, 100% legal and working solution without the need >> to compile/install anything beside the VM. >> > > This way you would get a package that's way bigger than normal OpenOCD > (with all additional files the installer is around 3M), that has no easy > method of interfacing with gdb or telnet (you can no longer connect to > localhost). No. The only difference would be that you would connect to a different IP address instead of localhost. gdb does not care if the TCP connection is to localhost or some other address. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
