Calculator Community > [OTcalc] ARM-Software

OTARM Firmware Discussion

(1/4) > >>

bwang:
So, based on discussions on IRC over the past few days, these are the current plans for OTARM's firmware (please correct me if I'm wrong):
OS: Most likely a Linux variant, unless we can write a complete OS from scratch quickly enough. Linux is our best bet, since it allows us to use existing libraries and programs, while giving us a stable base for our system. It also runs with minimal resources. Possible distros include Angstrom, Debian, or Arch.
Math software: XCAS is an fairly complete CAS which supports all of the features needed on a calculator. In addition, it has 3 syntax modes (Maple, XCAS, and TI-89), which helps ease the transition from existing platforms to OTARM. The interface and underlying math library (GIAC) are separate, which is good since the current interface has serious user-friendliness issues (for one thing, the English version is partially in French). We will probably be writing our own UI.
Programming language: XCAS is programmable, so that settles the math side of things. For application programming (games, etc.) we will probably write or port a BASIC compiler or interpreter. Either way, it is important that we have a built-in language easier to use than Python or C.
UI concerns: The terminal and root filesystem will be accessible, but hidden from the average user. We don't want to scare new users with the Linux command-line, or with cryptically named folders like /usr, /bin, and /dev.

Have we decided on a GUI toolkit yet? Also, what filesystem type (ext2, ext3, etc.) and GNU utilities (full or Busybox) are we going to be using?
I'll update this post with the latest decisions as time goes on.
It has been pointed out that ext* is not supported by Windows. With this in mind, FAT32 is probably the way to go.

wchill:
If you want to be able to read/write to the OTARM filesystem, FAT32 is probably the best choice, unless you use some kind of client software to manage file transfer (not recommended).
Depending on the speed of the ARM processor and some other hardware choices, we can also use a custom build of Android (like what they've done for BeagleBoard). This would do two things:
1) Allow for the familiar Android interface with the ability to customize
2) Allow us to hopefully make apps compatible with Android, allowing us to sell it for project funding + compatibility with other Android apps

I probably missed something there, but who knows.

DJ Omnimaga:
If we use Linux, we should maybe include a software (or use a distro) that is kinda user-friendly, though. If everything working through command console with no menus to access your everyday feature is too hard for some people, they'll give a bad review of the product, saying it's not user-friendly like the 83+, for example. At the same time, too many menus and complex GUI can make things hard to use, too. I personally found the TI-89 Titanium and TI-Nspire a bit too hard to use, one of the reason why I hardly code on them.

wchill:
OTARM will also require a fail-safe bootloader for in case a user manages to break their calc, which is entirely possible with root privileges.
The main filesystem should be FAT, FAT32, or ext2, I believe. Assuming that we're going to use flash memory, ext3/ext4 will wear out the flash much faster because of the journaling. SD cards need to use FAT/FAT32 simply because of Windows.

SirCmpwn:
I think that the firmware should boot straight into a menu that has math related links all over the place.  We don't want to dump them in a desktop, and have them freak out when they were expecting a calculator.  User friendly is the key, and calculators have lots of users.
And we should start from the kernel, in my opinion, not from an OS.  Computer OSes are not suitable for calculators, and we should not be porting one.  Calculator users don't need a desktop, or multiple, but should still be able to reach cool linux programs outside the realm of normal math usage.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page