Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Foot in the mouth disease is spreading fast. It seems I caught it, too. Mike's idea looks so obvious, someone should have come to this earlier. Combine it with JaMi's idea and it seems to be feasible as an open source project. Is anyone else sick? Is there an antidote? Igor -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2003 5:07 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 Ok, Mike, I'll stick my foot in my mouth . . . As if I haven't already done enough of that . . . Actually, I think that it is a lot easier than anyone may think. Most people on this list own a functioning copy of Protel 99 SE. Protel 99 SE runs faster on a slow computer than Protel DXP runs on even a fast machine. Enter the SDK. Lots of people have a copy of the SDK, and I happen to know for a fact that not all legitimately obtained SDK'e were obtained at the point of a non-disclosure agreement, or even at the point of an EULA. : ) So we use the Design Explorer shell from Protel 99 SE, and maybe even the core of Protel 99 SE SP6 PCB, and plug in a couple dozen servers that fix or replace all of the known problems (we can start with a pack of say seven (7) servers). : ) Worst we might have to do is make a few patches and/or intercepts in some of the the original executables. We might even be able to find a few legitimate Trial Versions of Protel 99 SE out there that we can legitimately redistribute in their original form for free, etc., etc., etc.. Yeah, I know some of you are worrying about slowing everything down by hanging all these new servers and patches on it, but once you put this thing on a really fast new machine, like the kind that you need to even make Protel DXP even limp along, then the thing should still fly. It could even possibly out-perform Protel DXP. If they won't give us our Service Pack 7, then maybe it is time that we develop our own Server Pack 7. : ) They don't actually even hold all of the cards that they may think they hold. There is more than one way to respond to a non responsive EDA vendor. : ) Altium, your last chance to give us Service Pack 7 for Protel 99 SE is fast approaching. : ) Whats it gonna be: SP7 or SP7? : ) - Original Message - From: Mike Reagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 I thinks Jon is right we need the source code to start -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:26 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 hell, i'd buy a closed source one! ds Mike Reagan wrote: Hello All, I was contemplating what my next move with Protel will be and came up with an idea of creating an open sourced SP7 software for 99SE. Before I put my foot in my mouth, is there a future for open sourced Service Packs? is it legal? Mike Reagan EDSI -- Dennis Saputelli = send only plain text please! - no HTML == * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Annotation woes in Protel DXP
I think I found the problem. In the match components by list-check-box, I had some extra checks. I thought that this list determines how to match components for consecutive numbering (i.e, when an 100k resistor is found an annotated as R42, all other 100k resistors are assigned R43, R44 and so on, after that the normal order resumes). I think there was such an option in P99, but I may be wrong - I saw way too much CADs lately! It appears that this box groups parts for putting into one package instead. However, another problem immediately popped up. Annotation forcibly shuffles part indices inside package. If I already swapped indices for better routing but then re-annotate everything (Reset designators first), then parts inside a package also reordered. I avoided this problem (and this solution would have fixed my original one, too g) by selecting Do not annotate box in the properties of all multi- parts but 'A', then copying automatically assigned designators to all other parts in the package. This solution looks cheesy enough, tho... To that matter, has anybody played with scripts in DXP? I read about them, but never tried. I would like whether they are of any practical value before committing any of the trial period time to them :) Thanks, -kkm * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] open source sp7
Is Open source good idea? I don't think so. The reasons are: 1) Your work will be eazily stolen by Protel. They may simply copy your algorithm and update their DXP. 2) Protel SDK is very difficult to use, you may result in a buggy ware upone bugg base. 3) I don't think there are more than 10 people interested in developing Protel server. You will agree with me If you take a look at how many people responded to this message. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
- Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 ~ ~ ~ . . . Too bad the U.S. Dept of Justice didn't impose an effective remedy on Microsoft, that is, to publish all of their APIs and formats. But that is another topic... Ivan, I thought all of that stuff (or at least most of it) was available from the Microsoft Developers Network. and to be more specific, from their Visual Studio, and particularly from the individual SDK's for the different products. I know it took me years to track down, since I never had the extra bucks laying around to pop for the subscription to MDN, or for the Visual Studio (as I think it is now called), but I have run across some pretty arcane stuff from Microsoft, among which was a copy of the Win32 API, which I actually believe that I still have somewhere, but just exactly where, is unknown and a mystery at this current time. ~ ~ ~ . . . I still have my printed manuals from Quattro Pro 3.0, Borland C/C++ 3.0, MS-DOS 5.0, WordPerfect 5.1, etc. Did Microsoft ever give me any manuals for Word? Nope. I actually have some manuals for Microsoft Word (Actually Office, but they include one one or two for Word) kicking around here somewhere, but I dont know what version, but they are of the same vintage as the other goodies that you mention. JaMi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] PCB Heat Sink
Leo, A belated thanks for the response. Your link roughly agrees with an application note I found from Micrel. Micrel's application note has a chart showing Thermal Resistance vs. Pad Area. I'm not sure how they came up with it, but it feels correct enough to help keep me out of trouble. It would take a great deal of work to verify its accuracy. Here's the link. A HREF=http://www.micrel.com/_PDF/App-Hints/ah-17.pdf;http://www.micrel.com/_PDF/App-Hints/ah-17.pdf/A Regards, Steve In a message dated 10/15/03 12:56:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 08/10/2003 18:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'd like to use a large, unmasked, plated, copper pour, on a single layer, to perform as a heat sink for a D-Pak regulator. I need to quantify the thermal resistance of the copper pour to ambient. I know it's based on copper thickness and copper area. I'm uncertain how to boil down to thermal resistance. Any help or applicable links is appreciated. Regards, Steve I was actually searching for something else, but found this link: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/various/SC03_APPLICATION_NOTE_1 .pdf It might just be what you are looking for. Good luck, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Abd, Sorry I haven't had the time yet to respond to your last dump, although I am still planning on it (and much of it will have to be offline since it is unfit for any of the forums), and responding to this post is not the place to do it, so please stick to the issue at hand here. Please see below. JaMi - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 Mr. Smith's proposal is of sufficiently questionable legality that it would be a fairly hazardous undertaking. It might indeed be legal -- too many details are unknown to me to have a clear opinion -- but if Altium felt threatened by it, who is going to pay the legal expenses to defend against a suit? What the hell are you talking about? Aren't you the guy that has said that it is legitimate for an employee to take his employers Protel 99 SE CD ROM home and install it on his own personal machine (or make a copy for himself), and then do whatever he wants to with Protel 99 SE at home? That is of known illegality, and absolutely unquestionably unethical. Yet there is absolutely nothing at all even questionable about writing your own servers utilizing the Protel 99 SE SDK, and either selling them or giving them away free of charge to other legitimate owners of Protel 99 SE. That is a 100% completely legitimate and ethical course of action. Where are all of the real problems with Protel 99 SE? Some of them, like KLUNK, are obviously in Design Explorer itself. However I would maintain that many of the others are actually in the servers and processes used by those servers, all of which could easily be replaced with new servers and processes. I am not that up to speed on the Protel 99 SE SDK, but I do believe that all of this is not only doable, but doable ' in a totally legitimate manner. Perhaps some of those in the list that are more familiar with the Protel 99 SE SDK and the intimate workings of Design Explorer, its servers, and their processes, can comment on this. The only thing in my entire previous post that would be of any questionable legitimacy, would be the unspoken but possibly preceived implication that any Trial Version of Protel 99 SE that was given away for free, could be patched or cracked to work longer that 30 days. Respecting the giving away of the Trial Version of Protel 99 SE: Since it was originally freely given away to absolutely anyone in the world who wanted it, particularly in the freely downloadable version, I am not so sure that there would be anything that anyone could do to prevent any further additional free distribution of it, even if they wanted to. Is it my fault that there are actually other legitimate ways that you can still use the Trial Version for more than 30 days? Besides, most of the people in this forum already legitimately have their own copy of the full up Protel 99 SE (unless of course they have already taken your previous advice, and are using a copy of their employers Protel 99 SE). The Association, which has never raised a dime, might nevertheless be able to manage to support something in the user's interests, but my own opinion is that the Association, if it is going to do something serious, is better advised to work *with* Altium than to advance in what might be or might be perceived to be a hostile fashion. The Association is YOU ! ! ! Are you trying to say that you would be willing to be the repository of the fruits of everybody else's efforts and labors? Aren't you already making enough money on your resales of Protel 99 SE? Always after that something for nothing . . . If we want an SP7, we could organize and show sufficient interest -- and cash commitment -- that a real SP7 could be produced, not just a cramped version dependent upon the limitations of what can be done with the SDK. What's with this we? You got a mouse in your pocket? Fixing the remaining bugs in 99SE could involve some serious programming. Who is going to do it for free? If there is someone, great. Balderdash! Absolute Balderdash! (I am trying to keep it clean). It would take some simple programming by a good programmer who was familiar with the source code. The remaining bugs have already been so well defined, I doubt that they would take very much time at all to find and fix. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if thay haven't already been resolved, and just not implemented and released for either political or strategic (sales) reasons. I would be willing to bet that at least some of the remaining bugs could be fixed by nothing more than a fresh compile with an updated compiler. It's important to keep in mind the Protel support model. Protel's policy was (1) free service packs and (2) upgrades for a price. It goes with this policy that service packs are only issued for a limited time. After that, the Protel model
[PEDA] [PrU] Wierd Sience
I have not received any posts from PEDA for the last couple of days, so I begin to wonder what is going on with the listserver . . . I go and look at the Techservinc Archive, and it appears to have also stopped a few days ago too . . . Ok, me thinks, is it broken, or is it me . . . So I go to the Yahoo! Groups list, and the parallel archive that is (was?) kept there . . . Last post there, October 19th . . . Today's date . . . Ok, so I haven't received anything newer than October 17th from PEDA, and the date says the last post was today's date October 19th . . . Ok, so let's look at the Subject line and try to make sense out of what is going on here, and what has been missed . . . Wait a minute, none of this looks very familiar . . . Lets look at the overall number of posts here, and see if any of this makes sense . . . No, none of this makes sense . . . Ok, lets go back to the latest post, and go over it with a fine toothed comb . . . Wait a minute, that's not right . . . Today's date October 19th is correct . . . But it is not Saturday, it is Sunday, at least in my neck of the woods . . . Ok, not just the day of the week is wrong, but so is the year . . . The year says 2002 . . . Not 2003, but 2002, one year ago today . . . Now that's wierd . . . Not just wierd, but truly bizarre . . . JaMi Yahoo! Groups Sponsor To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] TEST
TEST * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Test
Are we back yet? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Assembly drawings
Mr. Lomax Thank you for the information it will work for this project. However I would like to have this done automatically, one less thing too worry about and one less thing for someone to forget. I would like to build a server to do what it is I need to have done, I have never tried something like this and was hoping that some one could give me some guidance or lead me into the right direction on how to get started, and what I might need. I looked into the Protel archives and didn't find any information on building servers or what I need to get started. Regards, Ted -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:16 PM To: Protel EDA Forum; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEDA] Assembly drawings At 03:47 PM 10/15/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been given the task to add assembly drawings to a design that another engineer is working on using protel 99SE. I would like to go into the library that he is currently using and just add a mechanical layer 1 to each part with a .comment string, and update the PCB from the library. There are about 100 parts on the secondary side of the PCB, is there a way to automatically change the mechanical layer to layer 2 with out having to select each out line and cut it and past it on another layer for the parts on the secondary side of the PCB? Is there another way that this can be accomplished that I am should be looking into. Okay, let me see if I understand this. In infer that what you want is an assembly drawing and for this you want to use a .comment string because that string will normally hold type information from schematic. Further, the PCB you are working with has components on both sides, so you want to make two assembly layers, one for top and one for bottom. This is actually pretty routine. Let me suggest that you don't want to change the footprints in the library. Every part already has a .comment string unless you have done something to remove it. What you want to do is to make it visible and move it to the appropriate layer. This is not complicated to accomplish. First, to make working simple, double-click on any reference designator and use a global edit to hide all designators -- you can bring them back later. Then double-click on any component and use another global edit on the Comment tab to make all comments visible. Then double-click on any Top Side Comment and globally edit all comments on the Top Overlay layer (assuming that it is on the default layer) to the Mech layer you want to use. Normally, I'd be using Mech 1 for outline, so I'd choose a different one. Whatever layer I choose, I'd name it functionally, so, in this case, I'd end up moving all the Top Overlay Comments to Top Assembly. Then I would likewise move all Bottom Overlay Comments to Bot Assembly. I think Mr. Tontis knows how to use global edits properly, so I haven't included details about that I might then bring back all the reference designators. If I want both reference designators and comments on the assembly drawings, I might use the autopositioning feature to place them in complementary positions, or it might be necessary to manually retouch the positions, or it might not be possible to have both. If I want both, I'd simply merge, in a plot, Outline, Top Overlay, and Top Assy layers. If there is room, I'd also have top and multilayer pads in the plot. Anyway, all this is a few minutes work, except for the retouching of text positions if that is needed. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Autorouter
At 04:10 PM 10/16/2003, Chacon Simon, Geoffrey wrote: get-archive proteledaforum subject router Well, partly to note that Geoffry can search the archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and partly to test the PEDA list, I'm sending this message. (there was another archive operating, [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it was broken exactly a year ago and the existence of the archive mentioned above made it a low priority to fix it) I have not received any PEDA messages since the one to which I am responding. That's unusual but such a hiatus is not impossible. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] open source sp7
In a message dated 10/21/2003 3:13:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 3) I don't think there are more than 10 people interested in developing Protel server. You will agree with me If you take a look at how many people responded to this message. Don't assume from lack of active response that we're not interested. There are lots of us lurkers out here. I would be interested in an SP7, and would be willing to pay for it. Steve Hendrix * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Non-Concurrent Licence Use (WAS Open source SP7)
At 03:18 PM 10/17/2003 -0700, JaMi Smith wrote: (Referring to Mr Lomax) What the hell are you talking about? Aren't you the guy that has said that it is legitimate for an employee to take his employers Protel 99 SE CD ROM home and install it on his own personal machine (or make a copy for himself), and then do whatever he wants to with Protel 99 SE at home? That is of known illegality, and absolutely unquestionably unethical. I just want to point out Jami, that Protel has told me more than once that it is FINE with them to install Protel on more than one machine as long as only one copy is in use at a time. This includes taking a company copy home to install on your home computer and use at night, as long as the licence is only in use at one place at a time. I don't believe that their policy on this has changed. I can't imagine how this could be unethical. Another company, AWR's Microwave Office also supports this. In fact, since their software is locked to the MAC address of your NIC, they will actually issue you a free second home licence as they call it for your non-concurrent use on your home computer at night and weekends. -Frank Frank Gilley Dell-Star Technologies (918) 838-1973 Phone (918) 838-8814 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dellstar.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] [PrU] Wierd Sience
JaMi: Did you mean wierd silence or wierd science? It works either way ;-) Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Protel Developers Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Open Topic Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:22 PM Subject: [PEDA] [PrU] Wierd Sience * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
When Altium tried to go to a maintenance fee arrangement, we screamed loudly enough that they backed down. If there were a maintenance fee, we would have a much better chance of getting service packs How much would we be willing to pay for continued work on 99SE? My guess is that if we paid enough to make the programming effort worthwhile and satisfy the other issues, we might as well pay little more and get DXP I wish I could erase the concept of software maintenance from the world mindset. Software is not a physical thing that can wear out or break. Software Maintenance is market-speak for bug fixing. Manufacturers of physical items frequently perform corrective action at no charge to the customer - vehicle recalls, for example. Why should software be any different? I expect software bugs to be fixed for free. Of course, the software world doesn't meet my expectations. Is that my fault, for having unreasonable expectations, or is it the software producer's fault, for not living up to reasonable expectations? I choose to believe the latter. IMO, the software world is in terrible shape. The main reason free software exists is because some users got tired of being endlessly gouged by commercial software developers' prices and their lack of concern about fixing bugs, and decided to write their own stuff. That's great, but the problem with much of the free software is that it's poorly documented, very rough around the edges, and sometimes missing many needed features. Notwithstanding, more and more free software is being deployed. In some areas, this is eroding the commercial viability of commercial software. And how do commercial software vendors respond to this trend? Not by reducing their prices and fixing the bugs! By increasing their prices, changing licensing terms, adding product activation, and changing file formats to get lock-in. Think about it - how much interest would there be in Linux if Microsoft dropped the price of W2K and XP to $39 for a full license version, got rid of activation, fixed all the security bugs and buffer overflows, and published all of their API's and file formats (even the undocumented calls)? Much of the interest in Linux would quickly evaporate if this were to happen. Free software can be great, but it won't save the world. Commercial software can be great, but it's straying further and further from the good value it should be. I should be able to buy a boxed retail OS for $39, a great boxed office package for $39, and a boxed RAD IDE compiler for $199 or less. Since this is not the case, Linux and other free software is the next best alternative. And it will remain so, until the software producers wake up and realize their prices are too high. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Ivan, I thought all of that stuff (or at least most of it) was available from the Microsoft Developers Network. and to be more specific, from their Visual Studio, and particularly from the individual SDK's for the different products. Most of it is available through the MSDN, but you gotta pay for the yearly subscription. And it's expensive. And what about the undocumented API calls? If the Win32 API were fully and correctly documented, Wine would be nearly perfect. Remember what Microsoft did with DOS? DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run. They did that with undocumented DOS calls. BTW: Wine is a Win32 emulator for Linux, which allows you to run Windows program on Linux. Theoretically :-( I've never been able to get anything to run well on Wine. And it's been under continuous development for years. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 ~ ~ ~ . . . Too bad the U.S. Dept of Justice didn't impose an effective remedy on Microsoft, that is, to publish all of their APIs and formats. But that is another topic... Ivan, I thought all of that stuff (or at least most of it) was available from the Microsoft Developers Network. and to be more specific, from their Visual Studio, and particularly from the individual SDK's for the different products. I know it took me years to track down, since I never had the extra bucks laying around to pop for the subscription to MDN, or for the Visual Studio (as I think it is now called), but I have run across some pretty arcane stuff from Microsoft, among which was a copy of the Win32 API, which I actually believe that I still have somewhere, but just exactly where, is unknown and a mystery at this current time. ~ ~ ~ . . . I still have my printed manuals from Quattro Pro 3.0, Borland C/C++ 3.0, MS-DOS 5.0, WordPerfect 5.1, etc. Did Microsoft ever give me any manuals for Word? Nope. I actually have some manuals for Microsoft Word (Actually Office, but they include one one or two for Word) kicking around here somewhere, but I dont know what version, but they are of the same vintage as the other goodies that you mention. JaMi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Ivan, I thought all of that stuff (or at least most of it) was available from the Microsoft Developers Network. and to be more specific, from their Visual Studio, and particularly from the individual SDK's for the different products. Most of it is available through the MSDN, but you gotta pay for the yearly subscription. And it's expensive. And what about the undocumented API calls? If the Win32 API were fully and correctly documented, Wine would be nearly perfect. Remember what Microsoft did with DOS? DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run. They did that with undocumented DOS calls. BTW: Wine is a Win32 emulator for Linux, which allows you to run Windows program on Linux. Theoretically :-( I've never been able to get anything to run well on Wine. And it's been under continuous development for years. If you really want to run Win32 programs under Linux, try VmWare! I have it on 2 machines, using Win2000 Pro as the guest OS, and use P99SE, Xilinx Ise and Bobcad (mechanical CAD/CAM) on it, and it is as flawless as Win2K will allow it to be. VmWare is not free, but it is quite reasonable for the desktop version. Jon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: IMO, the software world is in terrible shape. The main reason free software exists is because some users got tired of being endlessly gouged by commercial software developers' prices and their lack of concern about fixing bugs, and decided to write their own stuff. Yes, and it has to be REALLY bad, too! Notice that practically nobody builds their own car, although the reliability of US-label cars is APALLING! Practically nobody builds their own computer (with FPGAs, or hand soldering chips, etc.), although what you can buy seems pretty good, so maybe there's no incentive. But, people are maintaining an entire multi-user, multi-tasking OS, because the market leader is such a heap of rubbish! And, they've done a FANTASTIC job of it, too! That's great, but the problem with much of the free software is that it's poorly documented, very rough around the edges, and sometimes missing many needed features. Gee, are you sure that doesn't apply to Protel 99SE? I know what you mean, I've seen some of this, but there are also projects that are WELL documented, work exactly as advertised, and most of what you need IS there. I really have no serious complaints with P99SE schematic and PCB. A few small quibbles, but almost everything there works well. I could make it work even better for me if I took 2 weeks and built a completely new set of sch and pcb libraries that are totally consistant across the two, for footprints, pin designators, etc. Much of the stuff I find is really buggy is the PLD section and I've just found a really annoying bug in the VHDL export. EDIF export is totally unusable, there are so many mistakes in the EDIF output format that I'd have to write an entire compiler to fix them. The VHDL output is nearly perfect, it just locks up almost every time you use it the 2nd time in a session. I'll bet that would be a one-line fix! Just reset the state of some database, or something, before running the VHDL module itself. Jon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] [PrU] Wierd Sience
At 01:47 PM 10/21/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Did you mean wierd silence or wierd science? It works either way ;-) It's back up, obviously. And I'm pretty sure it was down, but there is no evidence indicating that any mail was lost; there is at least one message for each day. As is common when Techserv is down, there was a little traffic on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most of the major writers for the PEDA Forum are also subscribers to protel-users. Generally, we discourage sending the same question to both lists, since almost everyone who is subscribed to protel-users, and is active, also subscribes to the PEDA list, which remains the best place to get support. Usually. But if you don't get an answer quickly from PEDA, and you suspect that PEDA is down (it is privately hosted and controlled by Techserv Inc., a service bureau), the most obvious sign of which would be that your own message does not appear in a reasonable time, you are welcome to query protel-users in addition. Because the day may come when one of our readers will need support, and when we need it we usually need it NOW, I highly recommend that all users join [EMAIL PROTECTED] Normally, you will see very little mail from it. And if you don't want even that, you can set your preferences (or ask the moderator to set your preferences, if you are allergic to logging into yahoogroups) to Special Notices. We have not sent a special notice yet, but if the Protel Users Association ever decides to send a Special Notice, it will be able to do so. You could also set it to No Mail, which would still allow you to post to the list and to read responses on the web. But this does leave the Association with no way to reach you. If you wait until you need support, it may be too late, because the yahoogroups list is member-only and a moderator must approve the new member. Isn't spam wonderful? We used to leave it wide open until the spammers found it. It could possibly take a couple of days for a moderator to get around to approving a request to join. Abd ulRahman Lomax Chair, Protel Users Association * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
At 01:46 PM 10/21/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: I wish I could erase the concept of software maintenance from the world mindset. Software is not a physical thing that can wear out or break. Software Maintenance is market-speak for bug fixing. Yes, plus support and a certain level of upgrade. Some software companies won't talk to you about program bugs or problems if you aren't paid up. Protel provides that support free, and the users have provided themselves even better. So there still remains bug fixes and improvements. A missing feature is not necessarily a bug! Manufacturers of physical items frequently perform corrective action at no charge to the customer - vehicle recalls, for example. Yes, though that might have something to do with legal consequences. Your software breaks, usually there is not a huge amount of consequential damages. If it trashes your hard drive entirely, it could be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as what happens when your SUVs roll over and kill people. Auto manufacturers do *not* issue any recalls merely to improve function. Sometimes I think they may replace things that break prematurely, but I have a suspicion that they only do this if these things breaking causes further damage to the car, which they then have to fix if the car is under warranty. Why should software be any different? Because software is *very* different. It's not a thing, it is information. If a book has a misprint, does the publisher replace it? (Not very often!) And for a publisher to replace a single copy of a book would cost them a couple of dollars. To fix a bug may cost them many thousands of dollars. Good programmers are not cheap. (Some bugs may be easy to fix, but my guess is that most of those were fixed in the early service packs. So Altium *does* do free software maintenance, and they do it for more than a year. How long are they obligated to do it without further compensation? It might be very good public relations for them to issue an SP7, and, as I've mentioned, the Association might assist in that; more about this below. I expect software bugs to be fixed for free. You say it yourself: Of course, the software world doesn't meet my expectations. Yes. It is not just Altium, in fact, Altium may be the best of the bunch, or at least up there with the best. Is that my fault, for having unreasonable expectations, or is it the software producer's fault, for not living up to reasonable expectations? I choose to believe the latter. The very concept of assigning fault is what comes from a fractured world-view, us vs. them. To have unreasonable expectations is a fault, though, if it leads us to unreasonable actions. Isn't it? My point is that the expectation is reasonable only to a point and within limits, and the expectation of unlimited, no expiration, bug fixes is definitely not reasonable, especially with small-market software. IMO, the software world is in terrible shape. The main reason free software exists is because some users got tired of being endlessly gouged by commercial software developers' prices and their lack of concern about fixing bugs, and decided to write their own stuff. Which I support whole-heartedly. Now, why don't we write our own EDA software? Actually, there would be an easier and better course, and it would make, I think, practically everyone happy. We buy Altium. Seriously. It's a public corporation, we don't even have to buy all of it to control it. And since we would control it to its own benefit as well as our own, we probably wouldn't have to buy much of it at all. How much would each user have to spend for stock for us to buy 51% of it? Individually, we are small and Altium is huge. But collectively, we are huge and Altium is small. They work for us (collectively), not the other way around. Yet we often treat them as a bad boss treats his employees: with contempt and, yes, unreasonable expectations. This kind of issue is my real interest, perhaps my life work, if it ever matures. There is an early draft at www.beyondpolitics.org, but the ideas could be expressed much more clearly, and I'm working on that. They could be used to manage any organization that needs a coherent democratic process without becoming an undue burden, and without falling prey to the control-clique problems that afflict too many organizations and societies. That's great, but the problem with much of the free software is that it's poorly documented, very rough around the edges, and sometimes missing many needed features. Because the management process is weak. Now, how could one have strong management with a bunch of volunteers? I believe it is possible. Time will tell if I am right. Interestingly, nearly everyone that has heard the BeyondPolitics ideas thinks it is a great idea and could work, but few are willing to invest the couple of minutes it would take to actually do something. Notwithstanding, more and
Re: [PEDA] Assembly drawings
At 12:06 PM 10/21/2003, you wrote: Mr. Lomax Thank you for the information it will work for this project. However I would like to have this done automatically, one less thing too worry about and one less thing for someone to forget. I would like to build a server to do what it is I need to have done, I have never tried something like this and was hoping that some one could give me some guidance or lead me into the right direction on how to get started, and what I might need. I looked into the Protel archives and didn't find any information on building servers or what I need to get started. If your company procedures require an assembly drawing, you won't be able to forget it. I know that the process can be automated, and it can probably be automated within Protel, someone else will be able to write more about that. I'd be tempted to do it off-line. Since I think the ASCII database is not as complete as the binary at this time (is this also true for DXP?), I'd think of writing the ASCII PCB file, processing it to create a new PCB file with the necessary primitives, loading that file, and copying the new stuff into the original file. This is not at all a difficult task, which is why I'd think of doing it that way. It is easy enough to do it manually that I never got around to automating the process. If you do more than one assembly drawing a week, it would probably be worth it. And, of course, a utility would be of interest to other users. I'd suggest some discussion first to hash out exactly what the utility would do, what options would it have, etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Non-Concurrent Licence Use (WAS Open source SP7)
Frank, The position you describe below is exactly (almost verbatum) the position that I was taking in a previous post (Subject Thread = License Legalities, beginning 9/4/03), where Mr. Lomax was trying to take yet a different position, and I was here chiding him for what I preceived to be a difference in his position, and where he now actually appears to be trying to say that my position is less than legal or less than ethical. I invite you to go back in the archive and read the other posts, where he seems to think that licensing has nothing to do with it, but that it all boils down to a matter of copyright law, which he believes is bogus anyway, and which to him means that it is alright in his eyes for an employee to make a copy of his employers Protel CD ROM that may be stored in the desk that he is assigned to sit at, whether he asks his employer or not. This was not a question of what the employer as the owner of the license has a right to do (which includes allowing the employee install it on his home computer if the employer so choses (I also originally pointed out the one person operating it at a time limitation of the license in the previous posts)), but a question of what the employee had the right to do without even asking his employer. I have not actually had the time ro respond to the last round in the previous thread, and that is why I was asking him to stay on topic here. JaMi - Original Message - From: Frank Gilley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Non-Concurrent Licence Use (WAS Open source SP7) At 03:18 PM 10/17/2003 -0700, JaMi Smith wrote: (Referring to Mr Lomax) What the hell are you talking about? Aren't you the guy that has said that it is legitimate for an employee to take his employers Protel 99 SE CD ROM home and install it on his own personal machine (or make a copy for himself), and then do whatever he wants to with Protel 99 SE at home? That is of known illegality, and absolutely unquestionably unethical. I just want to point out Jami, that Protel has told me more than once that it is FINE with them to install Protel on more than one machine as long as only one copy is in use at a time. This includes taking a company copy home to install on your home computer and use at night, as long as the licence is only in use at one place at a time. I don't believe that their policy on this has changed. I can't imagine how this could be unethical. Another company, AWR's Microwave Office also supports this. In fact, since their software is locked to the MAC address of your NIC, they will actually issue you a free second home licence as they call it for your non-concurrent use on your home computer at night and weekends. -Frank Frank Gilley Dell-Star Technologies (918) 838-1973 Phone (918) 838-8814 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dellstar.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
