We need to see the software

[PedalFaster]

On the technical side, I think the main difficulty will be getting people the tools they need to tinker with firmware. A lot is probably available directly from ST Micro, but programming rigs etc. could be trickier? Haven't worked with ST devices so not sure.

You need a $10 discovery board from ST, or else an openocd rig to program the board.  In some cases you may be able to do a UART upload, or (probably not on the chips used) a USB DFU one.

Software wise you can use ST's SWD program under windows, or various open source tools on any development platform.  I regularly use both Linux and OSX to target these chips.

You can use either a free vanilla ARM gcc, one wrapped in a commercial package, or a propriety compiler from Keil or IAR etc.  To some extent a given source base will lock you into a compiler, but it's not impossible to port between.

With some hackery you can also use the mbed libraries, possibly even the online version of the compiler and share your projects that way, though you won't be able to do the drag-and-drop flashing scheme.

[KaleOsaurusRex]

But can they run Linux?

[cg]

   I can't imagine open source software ever being approved to be used in hospital equipment...

Preposterous; I am sure open source is being used in hospital equipment

Regarding the regulatory body that just 'takes your word for it'; I don't think it should work like that, but I know that it does. For potential dangerous systems that depends on software like a EUC. I would argue that the method is not optimal...

 

Actually, I can't think of any devices that has the same dependency on the software and a few components before going into a critical shutdown... Perhaps a modern helicopter or airplane?

 

[checho]

open software it is the way to go it will eventually happen it is a matter of time, most likely it will not be from China the Chinese do not believe in open software, they like to copy but not to share.

One reason the software is closed is for profits, car CPU have very little horsepower (mips), nevertheless they cost a lot because without it the car does not run and they prevent competition by using patents.

In medicine it is a similar problem, a patented drugs costs according to the benefit, so if a drug saves a life even it is cost 1 cent to produce it could sell for $1000 dollars and it is protected by patents.

For example Linux is open source software gpl, in the 90's companies like Microsoft were claiming Linux was a failure, it took a long time but it took off now no one claims windows is better for servers than linux.

I am sure if a vendor supplied an open source with a nice license (GPL, Berkeley, PD, etc) l kit for a electric unicycle it would sell pretty well specially if the hardware is of good quality.

having open source software will be critical in the next few years, as unicycles get popular, in most countries they will either be banned or regulated, if regulated most likely they will limit speed and power,  limiting power will be a big stupidity since it creates a safety hazard, but politicians are not engineers they already did that to ebikes.

It does not matter how many CPUs a unicycle has, software today it is written in a modular way, in which each module does a very specific task, and the different modules communicate with each other, somewhat similar to the concept of how the Linux kernel is written, as opposed to a monolithic kernel, in which one large chuck of code does everything.

Many years ago I had a bicycle with pedals no motor, confiscated for lack of registration, I had to get a license plate for the bike which meant paying a fee, the less regulations the better, for that reason today it is a great time to enjoy unicycles.

 

 

 

[robca]

having open source software will be critical in the next few years, as unicycles get popular, in most countries they will either be banned or regulated, if regulated most likely they will limit speed and power,  limiting power will be a big stupidity since it creates a safety hazard, but politicians are not engineers they already did that to ebikes.

It does not matter how many CPUs a unicycle has, software today it is written in a modular way, in which each module does a very specific task, and the different modules communicate with each other, somewhat similar to the concept of how the Linux kernel is written, as opposed to a monolithic kernel, in which one large chuck of code does everything.

Many years ago I had a bicycle with pedals no motor, confiscated for lack of registration, I had to get a license plate for the bike which meant paying a fee, the less regulations the better, for that reason today it is a great time to enjoy unicycles.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why people on this thread seem to think that EUC software will be regulated any more than car software, or smartphone software, or any of the "mission critical" software we use every day in our lives..

It might happen that one day open source EUC software will become commonplace, like open source software is commonplace in drones, with many of the most successful flight controllers being open source. But, then again, the biggest and most successful drone company in the world, DJI, uses close-source software, and arguably their controllers are among the best. Not surprisingly, DJI is Chinese, and many Chinese companies are looking at DJi as a success story (including their reliance on closed source: there is a secret sauce in having the best algorithms in the world). At this point in time, DJI is so far ahead on prices and hardware, that they could easily open source their software and still be a leader. But they want to retain every advantage possible, including closed-source software.

If car software is not being regulated (even after the Toyota and more recently VW scandals), there's no chance something used in a much smaller portion of devices will ever be regulated