Why? I want to know why FIRST chose Windriver. Is it because of marketing deals? It’s restricted by licensing agreements. Why can’t aren’t 3rd party IDEs like CodeBlocks officially supported? CodeBlocks is flexible; it supports lots of compilers from GCC to TurboC++. I don’t see a problem having the specific compiler for the cRio to work with CodeBlocks. I believe that the Open Source softwares are better fit for FIRST’s mission than a company that owns proprietary software. NetBeans is open source, which is good. One reason why my team is not using C++ is the fact that WindRiver is a pain. Same goes for LabView… I personally think this competition needs to step away from specific companies to a wide variety of companies. Like having an option for an ARM based processor instead of cRio, or an AVR based. Yes I know the issue of “standardization” and “safely communicating”. They can go the extra mile to support other hardware. Its not that radical of an idea.
Edit: Also why not Linux in replacement for VxWorks?
Oh I will be releasing our source code online later in the season.
Yeah, it kinda bugs me I can’t program the cRIO from my Linux computer with C++ (I have to use Java, which I guess isn’t that bad).
FIRST probably doesn’t have a good reason for the choice. When FIRST was created or as it progressed, companies would jump at the chance to get people – not working for a profit – to use their products. There’s also some people who actually believe anything 3rd party is not to be trusted.
I think part of your question, though, deals with what the cRIO can be… er… fundamentally programmed(?) with. I just tried looking really quick, but it seems like VxWorks is what is locked on there as per National Instruments. This is probably the big stumbling block on the road to using other compilers, as it would make sense to believe there’s a few libraries that need to be linked in (you could probably get it working, though, it might just be “illegal”).
I do not, however, assume FIRST and the competition could be possible without the cRIO. I haven’t found a good platform to substitute in for it, and as long as we’re using the cRIO, provided by National Instruments, we’re probably going to have to use a whole lot of other proprietary software.
On a personal note, I myself am rather irked by how closed the cRIO and the general development process seems. I’ve had a hell of a time getting around NIVision (and had to end up connecting the Camera to the bridge to get anything done…).
Wind River is providing a complete, highly integrated, software development, runtime, and debug environment.
At NO cost to FIRST teams.
And you simply dismiss it because you can’t use your latest gee-whiz-this-is-so-cool ‘free’ IDE of the week?
When your brain feels full, that doesn’t mean you know everything.
FIRST is not in the software business. They have a different mission and vision.
If you are passionate about open source then you can help the community by not complaining but creating an alternate development environment.
You personally will have to pick up the torch and do the job. That is the way the open source environment works. Open source, volunteer driven, and you can lead the way.
Most of the work is already done for you, all you have to do is integrate it and support it. Under the hood the compilers are gcc cross compilers for power pc. You can download these build environments from many sources for free and host it on linux, windows, or mac boxes.
If you choose you can use an old style Make file for use an integrated IDE like eclipse, or another of your choosing.
I’ve had very little trouble with Windriver once it is set up. I think people are too quick to jump on software just because its trendy and open source. Proprietary software has its place. Here, Windriver works because of how closely integrated it is with vxWorks, which allows us students to work with an operating system that is easy to learn but, at the same time, is used in the real world. Also, it makes sure that any bugs in the system will be promptly solved by paid employees, as opposed to asking an open source community with no tangible stake in the development.
Plus, Windriver itself is an extension of Eclipse, the notable open source IDE. So almost all of the source of Windriver is online for anybody to see.
WindRiver is the supplied C++ tool because VxWorks is the realtime OS that has been used on the cRIO for the last ten years. Targeting a piece of HW is a bit harder than choosing how you type text and where the compile button is located. The libraries and drivers for supporting the hardware have been engineered by WindRiver to be far more realtime than what you will find on desktop OSes. This is a huge investment, and is why VxWorks is highly regarded as a realtime OS vendor. The landscape is constantly changing, but NI chose to use VxWorks because it made our customers happy and allowed the cRIO perform tasks it otherwise couldn’t.
It is possible to use other code tools to target the VxWorks environment, and at NI, many of the developers subset the IDE, using only the command line or using the IDE for source, but not the debugger, etc. It is a matter of preference and efficiency. When your paycheck and your coworker’s paycheck depend on getting the job done, you need to learn to evaluate what each element brings to the table. What are the good and bad aspects of different tools, etc. If something irks you, but works well, more than likely, you change your habits rather than the tool. Also, it is an ongoing evaluation. You always look around for the thing that will let you do more, do it better, or do it faster.
Is OpenSource an option? Absolutely. If you go to ni.com/linux, you will see a listing of products we offer. Also, some open source libs are amazing and are incorporated into NI products. LV extended and has shipped the Mesa OpenGL engine for twelve or so years, as an example. But again, choosing an OS is a bit more complicated, and isn’t a static decision. Linux is evolving and it may be an option in the future. I used free and open SW before GPL and other licensing manifestos came about, and I have to say that I preferred it without the strings. I’m not sure I understand how they made things better.
As for using more HW, you have options. FIRST lets you use coprocessors and circuits to enhance your robot. FIRST is also trying to make things a bit easier and a great deal safer, so elements such as the battery, motors, and safety are top priority. If/when there is a way to do that with other products, I suspect you’ll see it. In the meantime, this is just part of the game – same for all.
As for open source, I’m curious why open source tools are any better for FIRST than proprietary ones? Does gimp sponsor your regional? Does Linus Torvalds sponsor your team? It’d be cool if they did, but do you see my point? FIRST is one of the most effective organizations I’ve ever seen at organizing volunteers and getting things done for free, and I suspect they do things this way for a reason. Meanwhile, if you look into the licensing agreements of the tools in the kit, you will see the influence of open source. It is a real factor in the market today, but not in the “I will isolate myself and only use open source” sort of way.
Finally, as for LV, my guess is that you still haven’t even tried it. If you are interested in computer science, I’ll once again encourage you to take full advantage of the kit. Learn how to use generics in C++, objects in Java, and wires in LV. Also, learn how to use a multimeter, put on a chain, prove an algorithm, model the forces on an arm. Learn how to lose an argument without going to forums to complain about your team and mentors. Learn how to teach and be taught. Keep asking why, but make sure that you do it in a nice way.
The I in FIRST stands for Inspiration. What is more inspiring, using a free IDE and compiler and a $50 AVR board that anybody can access, or using real tools that are used in industry? At my company, we use both LabVIEW and Windriver/vxworks extensively. While you might get exposure to one of those in college, FIRST is probably the only way for a high school student to be exposed to these professional tools.
Greg McKaskle, I salute you! And I for one thank National Instruments tremendously for all that they provide to FIRST (for free). FIRST wouldn’t be the amazing program it is without you guys.
I’ve extended another user’s toolchain (can’t find the post) for compiling, linking, and deploying code to the cRIO on Linux (including WPILib). It’s not polished, user-friendly, or advanced enough from the original toolchain (works with 2011 WPILib though) enough to seem worth posting to CD as a separate release, but if you’re interested I can link you to our repository.
Ok where I was coming from is why must FIRST distribute a software with a license? The license expires soon after the competition. How can one practice if they do not even have access to the software? That is what troubles me. I rather have a pure command line interface that I can use anytime than a limited GUI IDE that I can use for only 3 months. I like how Netbeans does not need a license and that you can use it 365 days a year without any activation of any sort. I believe I miscommunicated my point. Sure I do have bold opinions and some of you are getting annoyed by it. Like I said before, I rather have kids question than follow with ignorance. Asking questions is the first step to new discoveries and if you withhold asking questions, you are stifling innovation and discovery.
FIRST does not issue or manage the licenses. The licenses are held and manages by the IP owner. The licenses for WindRiver and Labview are for the full calendar year. Labview is a year plus a few days. A broad suite of professional grade software products is provided to FIRST students. The licenses are valid for a full year and in some cases three years.
Students can and do use these products the full calendar year without issue. These products are not limited but are fully capable and well beyond the capacity of most students and mentors knowledge and capability.
If you would take the time to install the products and actually read the license agreement then you will be much better prepared to make your point, whatever your point is.
If you will take the time to research the issue you will find a ton of professional grade titles available free or at a very reduced cost, for both high school AND college students. What is available today is stunning compared to 30 or even 10 years ago. You have an opportunity here to learn things that most of the population of the world has never had in history. Like Greg said, take advantage of these opportunities and learn all that you can about the products and about product design.
Asking questions is ok. Doing your research before asking the question is much better and will allow you to ask much more productive questions. It’s much easier to ask a bold question if you have thoroughly researched your topic, otherwise it makes one look a little silly.
Sure, if I was designing the FRC control system from the ground up with no restrictions, there are a lot of things I would do differently. But if an industry leader came to me and offered millions of dollars worth of hardware and software - hardware and software which is used by professional engineers in numerous settings - I’d find a way to make it work. And I believe that’s what FIRST has done. It would be easy to criticize FIRST and suggest that they’ve sold out to NI or WindRiver, but the reality is that this kind of partnership is exactly their mission. Their goal is not to create an awesome robot control system, but rather to show high school students that engineering is an exciting and attainable career. If that includes using proprietary tools common in industry, then so be it.
I’m a big fan of open source. I run Linux on my desktop and use it almost exclusively. I’ve even helped write code for open-source projects. But I’m also a big fan of some proprietary software, including LabVIEW - and there’s no way I would have gotten this experience apart from FIRST.
To take a quick example: In my university’s electronics lab, we’ve got a set of standard lab equipment (Agilent multimeter, power supply, and waveform generator, Tektronix scope) with PCs running LabVIEW. Because I’ve been using LabVIEW since my FLL days eleven years ago, it was a simple matter to connect the equipment to the PC and create some cool VIs for my lab work. I can characterize motors, create Bode plots, test transistors, and a thousand other things - just by writing a simple VI. None of my classmates know how to do this; in fact, none of my professors know how to do this.
How many college students can say they’ve been using LabVIEW for eleven years?
That is a stunning statement. That a student can have 11 years of exposure to Labview or any language before they graduate.
Back in the day…being able to easily do what you just described was a pipe dream, a fantasy.
Over 25 years ago I worked for a company and was charged with developing our in-house version of a product similiar to Labview. After spending many man-years worth of corporate wealth we released this product and about a week later Labview 1.0 came out.
Many people do not really understand what a gift to students Labview, PTC, Autodesk, and others have provided.
I am on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to career choice. I want to be working on research and creating computer architectures and then creating the OS and compilers, assemblers and stuff like that. I want to work on stuff like supercomputers and distributed computing systems, quantum computers and cool biz like that. I actually want to make robots that use a distributed memory computing systems. Now this is not a farfetched goal. By the time I graduate college and go into grad school, it would be the norm if the pace is the way it is now. So these tools would be invalid to me because I would be creating similar software. I like open source because I can look at the source and learn.
Then after all that, I want to be a professor. Now seems like a very strange life, but it appeals to me. It is the equivalent to playing in the NFL, but for computer geeks.
That is the reason why I was pretty disappointed with the FRC. I wanted to learn how to do all that low level stuff. I thought it was literally get a bunch of electrical components and soldering them together and making everything from scratch. Its not what I was looking for, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers.
By the time I graduate college, I would have had 10 years of C++ experience under my belt… But will that experience help in the world of super low level programming?
Your statement above is akin to joining the football team, and being disappointed that you didn’t end the season a basketball star. There are many different subsections in computer science; FRC focuses on robotic manipulation, computer sensing, and HCI. All of these are rich fields that I have found are able to be explored through my experience working with the bot.
I’m confused on why you think because FIRST uses proprietary software for its control system you feel restricted in your ability to learn about OS architecture and compilers. There are plenty of books, journals, and online resources available to explore these topics. Use them! Write your own compiler for fun! FIRST isn’t stopping you, and neither is its lack of open source software. Plus, if you really want to get into those subjects, poke around in the lower level workings of vxWorks. Mess with multithreading and optimization! FIRST hasn’t supplied some dumbed down OS designed just for the competition. Interested in compilers? Windriver compiles using gcc, the most widely used completely open source C compiler out there. In fact, here’s the link to the source! Poke around to your heart’s content!
I’m with you. My interests don’t exactly align with what FIRST offers. When I enter college next year, I hope to focus on computational theory and artificial intelligence. These subjects are why CS appeals to me. But I’ve found that FIRST teaches way more than simply a programming-based skillset. I’ve learned way more about working with a team and under extreme pressure than I have about CS, per se. And along the way, I’ve learned tons about robotics that I would not have had the opportunity to explore otherwise, and have enjoyed some of the greatest experiences of my life.
This isn’t a open source/closed source argument. I just think you’re missing the point.
I seem to be the only person that agrees with davidthefat on this issue. I don’t believe many people here have tried to do anything they “weren’t supposed to” yet.
I think you are reading too far into his response (although, true, it’s the only thing we have to go on) and trying to disregard the problem of closed source, albeit widely used, systems on the cRIO. If I know where he’s coming from, that is the most logical train of thought to tell people (not saying this isn’t what he actually wants to do); in essence, however, no matter how “open” VxWorks is supposed to be, it’s still rather limited.
Example: I wanted to bypass NIVision and skip the hassle of trying to train it to work in variable conditions (having it actually recognize something here, and then at the competition, are two different things) and substitute in a much simpler, static algorithm. On the presumption I can access raw images received from the camera, I start looking at the dashboard code to see if I can markup the image and send a modified one.
I come to find out I can’t directly access the image sent to the dashboard (and what I wish to do is more than draw boxes on it), so I put a custom dashboard in the back of my mind as something I needed to do. I can live without the feed for now.
Right, next step, getting the image. After a day and a half of looking, I come to find out I can’t actually bypass NIVision’s access to the image. I looked around a while and found out the new radio is a combo bridge/access point. I plug the camera into the router instead of the cRIO and access it as such. After searching for a JPEG decoding routine, it turns out to be too slow (the cRIO doesn’t use a very current VM at all).
I end up moving all the image processing to the computer, and am developing from there. Anyway, this was all a really fun process, the cRIO is totally open and accessible!
Those are considered rather high-level concepts. Optimization can take place in machine code, but it is usually done at the source level (and the only application I can see of optimization to FRC is source-level). The implementations of these concepts, however, are what he mentions, and there is no way to implement either (or need to) for the FRC.
Arguably, they have. There is no way to access the internals of anything (should you so desire). You are also not free to see how they do it.
I’m assuming the second part about compilers is a separate thought, but either way, it’s still a tenuous link at best.
Too long; didn’t read it? “It just bugs me.”
@davidthefat: Hope my presumptions about you don’t offend, I’ll explain them in more detail if you want. Personally, the only thing I can tell people (that makes sense to them) when asked about why I want to know how something works is similar response to your own.
L!
