DSO Quad suggestion and bugs.

[adrian.inspiritive]

tgo,

Just a thought, the current source code (APP_235, SYS_134) is not particularly complex, or well written for that matter (chuckle). It would be not so difficult to simply write these again in a similar way that BenF has done with the Nano. BenF’s APP_313 appears well coded and well structured, as professional software development should be.

Now it would be great not to have to re-invent the wheel for the Quad DSO since BenF has already progressed so far with the Nano. Looking through the APP_313 source, there are many, many coding structures that could simply be ported directly to the Quad DSO, and then built upon in order to suit the Quad DSO. The other nice thing with this is that there would be consistent features and usability between the Nano and the Quad DSO.

So I would ask, how about it BenF? Are you prepared to share the source code for v3.62 under the basis that it is to be ported to the Quad DSO and then developed to work with that hardware, by those people that would like to take it on?

The comment that the Quad DSO is a “diamond in the rough” I feel is correct about the Quad DSO, and after looking at the hardware design and currently available resources, it has a lot of potential but is not there yet .

@tgo

@glt

I also thought the earlier versions of the source were released…

You thought correctly. I’ve been working with the old code.

I can’t say all the available developers think like me, but I’ll not be releasing any features, fixes, or ideas as long as:

1. The only code available is outdated, known-buggy code.

2. The latest source code is missing.

Why?

1. I don’t want to release sample builds that have new features, but still have existing bugs simply because I’m some sort of lower class citizen in this community. And, if I fix the bugs, my fixes will be different, and probably wrong. I don’t want to end up in competition with the official devs trying to fix bugs. Finally, when I have questions about the code, it will be more difficult to coordinate with the official devs, since they aren’t really working with the same code.

2. I don’t want to work in a closed-source community. And this, to me, is closed source.

Caveat: the code is still being worked on, so maybe there are some delays. That indicates alpha code and a still-developing community. It effectively limits the rate of growth, maybe that’s intentional. When the code is available, then look for faster bug fixes and better features.