My day job is as a software developer, and I have worked on embedded firmware in the past (not for cameras though), and I have to say I don't really see this working at all.
Originally posted by drabina I like the idea of an open source camera. Pentax should release one with no firmware. Sort of open architecture for programmers to play with. You load your own firmware and operating system, tweak the settings, program buttons, etc.
You mean release a camera which is totally worthless? Without the software it's a nice paperweight. As such, it probably appeals to much less than 5% of the already small number of Pentax users. Many embedded devices do not have an
operating system as you imagine it, and either do not have a protected mode, or do not use it - this means you can't have "applications" as most people think of them - instead you have one giant clump of code which all have to play nicely or your camera crashes.
They could, presumably offer a camera which allowed a lot of reconfiguration, but I'd expect this would probably be via a desktop application running on a computer you plug your camera into. Now that probably would appeal to a larger proportion of the user base, but large enough to be worth it? They're probably better off improving liveview.
Originally posted by Tomas_IV Many limitations of firmware are intentional, for example, especially in lower models of cameras - just to make room in the market for the higher model.
Not just that, but with many embedded devices, the low end and high end models are actually comprised of the exact same [electrical] hardware - it reduces manufacturing costs. Mechanical parts may, however be different - sometimes the lower end model has a feature disabled in software because it the mechanical parts may not be capable of supporting it properly - in many cases this is by design.
Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Why not just ask Pentax if they would be willing to offer documented firmware source code (plus development station or software compiler) for use as an aftermarket support service?
This assumes a lot of things:
1) The source code is actually documented. This costs more money than you might think.
2) That the firmware source does not contain third party code or other technology which Pentax has licensed but does not have the right to distribute.
3) That the firmware won't change significantly in the future - it probably will, and I doubt Pentax wants to be constrained by their previous code. If they change it, and suddenly all the third party work is no longer compatible, then there will now be a group of angry users.
The underlying problem is this - open sourcing something (as opposed to dumping it) is a lot of work, both now, and in the future. Will the extra returns ever pay for this cost? I highly doubt it.