Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
OEM licenses may be legitimately cheaper because they may represent lower support costs, plus being, closer to wholesale. Support? What's that? I am serious. It's been a long time since I looked at Microsoft's support policies. I know you don't get support from MS for an OEM version, they tell you to get support from the computer manufacturer for that. Which of course, is a roundabout way of saying there is no support. But do you get any support for the boxed retail versions of MS software? Or is a pay-per-incident-get-your-credit-card-ready-and-have-those-serial-numbers-re ady type support? Years ago (1995) I got some support for a problem I was having with Excel on a Sharp Win 3.1 laptop (circa 1995). At that time, MS phone support was free for the first 3 calls, I think. And the help I got was very good, it solved my problem in one phone call. But that was then, how is it now? I have used MS Knowledge Base support ever since I knew of it, and can usually get what I need from it. It's good that the MS KB exists and is free to use. But it takes a great deal of patience to wade through the search results to find your actual problem and solution. And sometimes it isn't there. My point is that if the only support you get for boxed retail MS products is pay-per-incident, then that does not represent a higher support cost to MS. Just more profit for them. I'm sure. You can save a lot of money, but at a certain point, and with some of those economies, you are wasting much more time than money if you consider your time to have value. This was for business, where your time usually has very concrete value. I think this was an example of wasting more time than saving money Wasting time is an unfortunate consequence of experimentation. I experiment with Linux every now and then, to see what is practical and what isn't. So, yeah, I wasted time (about 6 hours). But I also learned something. I learned that Wine is still not to the point where it can run Windows apps without lots of tinkering and configuration. This is not the first project I wasted time on, and it won't be the last. Oh, did I mention this is now the Abdul Ivan List, and we also dabble in Protel? ;-) Sorry for the verbosity, folks. This is the last message I'll post on this topic for awhile. I'll let Abdul have the last word if he wants to. Take it away, Abdul... 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] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:50 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
game tester? No, I'm too old for that, and the games run on Windows... So my ability to apply leverage to the market is very limited. Right now it consists of NOT buying any new Windows licenses, getting by with what I already have, and converting over to Linux whereever possible. We could be part of the solution, instead of just complaining about the problem. I'm trying to be part of the solution. It's just that the first step to a solution IS identifying and complaining about the problem. The next steps aren't easy. And I encounter much resistance from you, Adbul, in finding the solution. For me, it's pretty simple: Problem: software is too expensive Solution: lower software prices Problem with the Solution: I don't set the software prices, others do. All I can do is complain and try to avoid buying expensive software. 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] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 Mr. Baggett, one of our fine and helpful writers, here manages to seriously confuse some issues. At 09:34 AM 10/22/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Don't you think if it were easy (or even possible) to make money -- to stay in business -- at those prices, that there would be companies doing it?!? No. That is the theory of perfect markets. Which is just ivory tower economics BS. Observe: An economics graduate student and his professor are walking down the street. The student sees a $20 bill laying on the ground. He exclaims Hey, look! I found a $20 bill!. The professor replies Don't waste your time bending to pick it up. It's just an illusion. If it really existed, it would have already been picked up by someone else. Perfect markets cannot exist when a monopoly exists. And MS is a monopoly. And so is any program that locks your data into a proprietary file format which is undocumented. The issue is far more complicated. First of all, if a hundred people walk down the street looking for $20 bills, no $20 bill that is in plain sight is not going to be picked up because of the phony argument. It's a good joke and a very bad analogy. MS is indeed a monopoly of sorts, but the fact remains that it is not easy to replace them. To do so would take a huge investment, and the investors would want, of course, to make a reasonable or more than reasonable return on their investment, commensurate with the risk. And so that software would not be cheap. I see only one way around this, which would be for users to organize to cooperatively develop an OS. Not just software engineer users, but *all* users. That's not going to happen soon unless something rather drastic happens. Not impossible, I am in fact working on a larger problem of which this would be a subset, but by no means do I feel assured of success. I'd feel better if I saw others working on the same problem, but I don't. I read something a while ago that said that MS has a profit margin of 85% on their office suites. That's one heck of a margin! I wish I could make that margin on hardware sales! Assuming Office costs $499, they could reduce their price to $75 and still break even. Probably further than that, really, I bet their margin is even more than 85%. It seems to me that this is a very serious misunderstanding of margin. Margin does not include development cost, nor does it include support. Rather, margin would generally refer to the difference between sale price and unit cost, expressed as a percentage of sale price, which with software is very low. Microsoft's profit, after considering development costs and support costs, is much much less than what Mr. Bagget would imply. If, in fact, their profit were what he thinks, there would be hordes of vultures circling. Yes, they have tremendous profit, just not what he thinks. I just looked at one of Microsoft's SEC filings. For 3 months ending 9/30/2002, total revenue was about $7.7 billion. Cost of Revenue was $2.0 billion. The difference is called gross profit, and that would be, in this case, 74%. In another more recent period it is entirely possible that the figure could be 85%. But gross profit and profit are not at all the same thing. If Microsoft could double their sales, theoretically, they would increase their profit by this gross profit amount. But they have development and other costs, and those costs are steep, more than the cost of revenue, which would be the cost to them of the packages sold, i.e., CDS, Manuals, etc. For the period mentioned, those other costs were $2.5 billion. That leaves an operating income of about $4 billion. Now, what profit would be reasonable for them? That would depend, surely, on what they have invested, on the assets devoted to the business. I'm not sure how much the SEC filings can
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
See replies below. 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] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 At 10:14 AM 10/22/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Note: I am not against MS in principle. If I could buy a full version of W98 or 2K for $39, I'd do it. But $299 is just too much for software that should be priced as a commodity. Mr. Baggett has a strange idea of what the software costs. First of all, you can buy a whole computer with Windows XP installed for I just did a quick search and found on refurbdepot.com, an HP Pavilion 515X faster than my present main machine for $399. Yes, it's painful to look at, I know. I'm trying not to think of what I spent, and I really didn't spend that much. For the time Why is my idea strange? The HP hardware probably represents about $350 of the $399 price. That leaves about $49 for the XP license. That's pretty close to my idea of what XP should cost. Why should I have to buy a new PC to get a deal on the OS? What if I don't want to buy an HP? Or a Dell? Or a Compaq? I have an HP and Dell that are 5 and 7 years old. They are good machines, still in daily use. But I probably won't buy any more of them because they always use some proprietary parts in them. I once had to replace the power supply in the Dell. A remanufactured PS from Dell was $139. I should have been able to buy a new one for $40 if it had a standard ATX connector pinout. The connector was the same, just the pinout was proprietary. That's Dell really making an effort to screw their customers for parts! I also had a Compaq Presario 4640 (circa 1998). What an absolute piece of junk! It's the only computer I have officially retired and totally scrapped, as there was nothing salvagable in it except sheet metal (all parts were proprietary)! I looked at another company and found a computer that is about the same as the one we use (in my wife's business) to run UPS Worldship 5, and it was $79. It did not include the operating system, which was extra. How much extra? Windows 98, $49. So even if you tossed the computer, the W98 license would be $128. Quite a bit less than $299. Was that a used PC? $79 is too low to believe unless it is used. Okay, how much would it cost just to buy W98? First I found that I can buy Windows XP Home Edition OEM for $92.95. As an OEM product, you have to buy some hardware. The web site explained that if you buy a screw, it's enough. Buy a screw? That works on so many levels... I know that this is the practice, I just bought Office XP 2002 Professional Special Edition (includes Front Page and Publisher, free upgrade to XP 2003 for all components) for $359. It came boxed with a Microsoft mouse. Hardware. From this same site, I could buy an optical mouse for about $12, or I could buy any of many other useful items for only a few dollars, perhaps I need a connector of some kind Have you ever tried OpenOffice? You could have saved some money, perhaps. It doesn't do everything MS Office does, but close enough for many needs. I use OpenOffice at home. I'd use it at work too, if I didn't already have Office 2000 Pro from a few years ago. But that was XP. I went to buycheapsoftware.com and found Windows 98 First Edition OEM for $55. The listing said includes OEM hardware. So we are down to $55 to solve Mr. Baggett's UPS problem. I also went to the same company from which I just bought XP2002, and they also had the OEM W98 first edition for $55. That is a real price, from real companies who deliver the product W98 First Ed sucks. Second Ed is much better. Better USB integration, fewer bugs. Those were probably leftover licenses from 1998. Not that I am opposed to old software, I'm just opposed to paying new money for old software. Since he had to come up with another computer due to the memory limitations on his first one, though, the best solution might have been to buy a used or refurbished computer with W98 installed. How much work he would have saved!!! I already had a used PC laying around. I don't want to buy more hardware just to get some software! That's wasteful. I am not a hippie, greenie, or enviro-wacko, but I do recycle cans, bottles, paper, and cardboard boxes. I also try not to fill up the landfill with computers and old electronics. I believe in using a machine until it breaks. Then see if you can fix it. If so, then keep using it. If not, then buy a new one. You would be amazed how much money you can save this way. My previous car was in my service for 13 years. 8 years without a car payment saved me over $25K. Most of my home stereo equipment is at least 17 years old, and still sounds better than what you can find at Best Buy and Circuit City. I also found, looking around
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
At 11:14 AM 10/23/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: This must be hammer on Mr. Baggett day for Abdul. My apologies. I did not intend to hammer Mr. Baggett, but rather some ideas advanced by him. I think he's better than (some) of his ideas I'll give you another amusing joke, which you will no doubt find erroneous: No, on the contrary, it was not only funny (both jokes were funny), but it is actually a very old story, and, unfortunately, a modern one as well. Such software would cost more, there is no doubt about it. Would we pay it? How is the market supposed to demand better software? By offering to pay more for it? Well, perhaps. But not just like that, not without first addressing the systemic problems that result in the undesireable effects we know all too well. Some of the most expensive software in the world is also the buggiest! And this is quite natural. Very expensive software by necessity has a small market. Small market does mean less user testing of the software. And so the software company does most of the testing, and they have, even with all that they charge, limited resources. I demand better software by griping and pointing out the flaws in the current software market. But I can't stop using what exists now. If I did, I couldn't be in this business. In other words, the griping and pointing is useful only for feeling better by raging a bit, and then the world goes on with business as usual. I do think there is a better way. Note that I did not, in the previous post, disagree at all with Mr. Bagget that Microsoft is a predatory monopoly. So my ability to apply leverage to the market is very limited. Right now it consists of NOT buying any new Windows licenses, getting by with what I already have, and converting over to Linux whereever possible. At great personal cost, as we saw with the example given. What if, instead, you used the software available (buying it as OEM versions, which are much cheaper and therefore less goes to MS), and at the same time invested in an alternative a fraction of the money and time you would have invested in avoiding Windows. What if there are a million people like you and they each kick in $100? The money would be there to at least begin to develop an alternative. Or, if it got a little bigger, to buy Microsoft Note that you don't have to be as big as a company to buy it you just have to make an acceptable offer. (I don't know that buying Microsoft would be possible or a good idea, but I do believe it would be possible, and if this hypothetical MS-alternative corporation were to start out with $100 million in cash and a lot of good will, it could seriously threaten Microsoft's market as well as attracting additional financing. The problem is not that we as users have no power. We have much more power than the monopolists. But they are organized (practically by definition) and we are not. So how do we organize without running into exactly the same problems? That's what the Beyond Politics concept is about, it's a way to act collectively without losing our individual freedom and placing irrevocable trust in boards of trustees and managers. (Beyond Politics is not anywhere near ready to solicit contributions, right now, expressions of interest is all it needs -- www.beyondpolitics.org) We could be part of the solution, instead of just complaining about the problem. I'm trying to be part of the solution. Certainly. But you still aren't part of the solution yet. A for effort. It's just that the first step to a solution IS identifying and complaining about the problem. Yes; however, the problem is usually misidentified, as it is in this case. The problem is not Microsoft. The problem is not corrupt politicians. The problem is not money and media. The problem is the system, which creates all of the other negative situations. It's built in, if the system is not changed, the problems will not only continue, they will get worse. The next steps aren't easy. Actually, I disagree. It is either impossible or it is easy. It is impossible for one person, it is easy for a larger number. I'm not sure where the boundary is, where the leverage starts to work. It's like a seed crystal. A single molecule won't cause a supercooled liquid to freeze, but a seed crystal will. I'm not sure where the boundary is between isolated individual and a seed-crystal organization. But I don't think it is very large, the number might be as small as twenty or so. And I encounter much resistance from you, Adbul, in finding the solution. For me, it's pretty simple: Problem: software is too expensive Solution: lower software prices Problem with the Solution: I don't set the software prices, others do. All I can do is complain and try to avoid buying expensive software. Which, obviously, doesn't work, or doesn't work well enough to have the desired effect. As I said above, I think you've misidentified the problem.
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
At 12:05 PM 10/23/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Why is my idea strange? The HP hardware probably represents about $350 of the $399 price. That leaves about $49 for the XP license. That's pretty close to my idea of what XP should cost. Why should I have to buy a new PC to get a deal on the OS? You don't. See below. The PC was not new, I think, it may have been refurbished. But if you compare it to the computer you ended up putting together, I think it would be worth a lot more. More than you need, I'm sure. By the way, I think that HP PC may have included a monitor, but I'm not sure. Was that a used PC? $79 is too low to believe unless it is used. Refurbished, I think, or just surplus. Appeared to be a reputable company, but I didn't actually check that out. It's low, but not unbelievably low. this was a Pentium but not a fast one. It had enough RAM and hard drive, etc., to do the Worldship job. Okay, how much would it cost just to buy W98? First I found that I can buy Windows XP Home Edition OEM for $92.95. As an OEM product, you have to buy some hardware. The web site explained that if you buy a screw, it's enough. Buy a screw? That works on so many levels... Except that you could consider that it is Microsoft getting screwed It isn't, of course, they are still making money on the deal, just not as much money as they make on isolated licenses not sold with hardware. I know that this is the practice, I just bought Office XP 2002 Professional Special Edition (includes Front Page and Publisher, free upgrade to XP 2003 for all components) for $359. It came boxed with a Microsoft mouse. Hardware. From this same site, I could buy an optical mouse for about $12, or I could buy any of many other useful items for only a few dollars, perhaps I need a connector of some kind Have you ever tried OpenOffice? You could have saved some money, perhaps. It doesn't do everything MS Office does, but close enough for many needs. I use OpenOffice at home. I'd use it at work too, if I didn't already have Office 2000 Pro from a few years ago. Yes, I considered that. I've been using Office 97 Professional (and, by the way, the price I have above was an upgrade price, but the non-upgrade version wasn't much more), and I wanted Front Page. I wanted also to get better features in Word and Excel, especially web features. When I found that it would cost me, what, $150?, just for Front Page, and I saw that the offer was effectively giving me Office XP Professional Special Edition -- with two additional programs, Front Page and Publisher, one of which I wanted and the other of which I think might be useful, *including the upgrade to 2003 versions of all the programs for shipping cost from Microsoft*, it was too good a deal to pass up. But that was XP. I went to buycheapsoftware.com and found Windows 98 First Edition OEM for $55. The listing said includes OEM hardware. So we are down to $55 to solve Mr. Baggett's UPS problem. I also went to the same company from which I just bought XP2002, and they also had the OEM W98 first edition for $55. That is a real price, from real companies who deliver the product W98 First Ed sucks. Second Ed is much better. Better USB integration, fewer bugs. Those were probably leftover licenses from 1998. Not that I am opposed to old software, I'm just opposed to paying new money for old software. A small amount for a computer to run Worldship. It would work just fine for that. Second Edition was available for more, same kind of thing. Search for OEM versions of the software, it is usually the way to go. Besides, I got a nice mouse in the bargain. (MS Optical). I already had a used PC laying around. I don't want to buy more hardware just to get some software! That's wasteful. I am not a hippie, greenie, or enviro-wacko, but I do recycle cans, bottles, paper, and cardboard boxes. I also try not to fill up the landfill with computers and old electronics. I believe in using a machine until it breaks. Then see if you can fix it. If so, then keep using it. If not, then buy a new one. You would be amazed how much money you can save this way. My previous car was in my service for 13 years. 8 years without a car payment saved me over $25K. Most of my home stereo equipment is at least 17 years old, and still sounds better than what you can find at Best Buy and Circuit City. I'm sure. You can save a lot of money, but at a certain point, and with some of those economies, you are wasting much more time than money if you consider your time to have value. This was for business, where your time usually has very concrete value. I think this was an example of wasting more time than saving money In a sense, your old computer was broken; specifically, it would not do the job you needed it to do. You don't have to throw it away, you can use it for some other purpose or you can donate it to some cause or charity or you can send it
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
Please see below: -Original Message- From: Dwight Harm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 18:22 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 -Original Message- From: Jon Elson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:11 PM 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. Ironically this is pretty close to the reason Mr Martin developed his DOS based PCB design software to begin with. As a university student/graduate the Unix based systems available at the time were extremely expensive and still quite buggy. So he wrote his own. The price/functionality was good enough to sell commercially. I have this on good advice from one of his original marketing managers (Hobart, Tasmania is a very small city). Tom. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
...see below... -Original Message- From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM 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. Don't you think if it were easy (or even possible) to make money -- to stay in business -- at those prices, that there would be companies doing it?!? Most of the folks on this list are hardware people. I've been developing selling software for 20 years, and I can tell you IT AIN'T EASY. Delivering quality software takes a lot of time and a lot of talent, which = $$$. Dwight. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: Jon Elson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:11 PM 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. The analogy doesn't work. If a group of volunteers could build a car, then provide FREE OF CHARGE a copy of that car to anyone with an Internet connection, I'm sure it would happen. So far, we don't have that technology! :) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
Don't you think if it were easy (or even possible) to make money -- to stay in business -- at those prices, that there would be companies doing it?!? No. That is the theory of perfect markets. Which is just ivory tower economics BS. Observe: An economics graduate student and his professor are walking down the street. The student sees a $20 bill laying on the ground. He exclaims Hey, look! I found a $20 bill!. The professor replies Don't waste your time bending to pick it up. It's just an illusion. If it really existed, it would have already been picked up by someone else. Perfect markets cannot exist when a monopoly exists. And MS is a monopoly. And so is any program that locks your data into a proprietary file format which is undocumented. I read something a while ago that said that MS has a profit margin of 85% on their office suites. That's one heck of a margin! I wish I could make that margin on hardware sales! Assuming Office costs $499, they could reduce their price to $75 and still break even. Probably further than that, really, I bet their margin is even more than 85%. Most of the folks on this list are hardware people. I've been developing selling software for 20 years, and I can tell you IT AIN'T EASY. Delivering quality software takes a lot of time and a lot of talent, which = $$$. Dwight, I visited your website. Your situation is different than what I am talking about because you make niche market and specialty software. You don't have a large market to spread development cost against. But vendors of OS, office suites, RAD IDEs, compilers, and some CAD apps do. I write software, as well as design hardware. The software I write isn't as big as an OS or office suite. It's embedded software. And bugs are not tolerated in embedded software. A machine control system crashing is simply not tolerable, especially when it may cause injury. And embedded software must be fault tolerant. Every function I write has to be written with an analysis of how it will behave if given erroneous conditions. How long do you think I could stay in business if my embedded software crashed as often as Windows or some Windows apps (i.e. Protel, Autocad, etc.)? I see none of the methods of software testing I have read about over the years being applied to desktop apps. Typical PHB Software Manager says, Fault simulation, resource monitoring, memory leak checking, bounds checking, regression testing, what's all that fancy stuff? Never heard of them. Just write it, click on each menu item and dialog once to make sure they pop up, and ship it! It's true what you say about quality software taking a lot of time and talent. But your time investment doesn't vanish after the current version is delivered. You have the source code to make improvements on, and add new features to, for the next version. So why does software keep going up in price, when all that IP already exists and doesn't have to be rewritten from scratch? And to add insult to injury, many of the software jobs are being moved to low wage countries, such as India. Why doesn't the price of the software go down when that happens? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Dwight Harm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7 ...see below... -Original Message- From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:47 AM 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. Don't you think if it were easy (or even possible) to make money -- to stay in business -- at those prices, that there would be companies doing it?!? Most of the folks on this list are hardware people. I've been developing selling software for 20 years, and I can tell you IT AIN'T EASY. Delivering quality software takes a lot of time and a lot of talent, which = $$$. Dwight. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
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. Yeah, I know about VmWare. It's not what I'm looking for. With VmWare, you still need a licensed copy of Windows for the guest OS on the Linux host OS box. I want to avoid needing Windows completely in the future. Unfortunately, the UPS Worldship software we use requires Windows. We had to upgrade to the latest UPS software a few months ago. Had to replace the whole darn PC. The MS shuffle went something like this: 1) Old UPS software (2.0) runs on an old Frankenstein junk Pentium box and old unused license of W95. Slow, but $0, so I am happy. 2) UPS requires customers to upgrade to Worldship 5.0 or their accounts will quit working in 60 days. 3) 5.0 no longer supports W95, must use W98 or later. 4) Frankenstein will run W98, but doesn't have enough RAM (32MB) for the UPS 5.0. I bump Frankie up to 96MB, but he flakes out intermittently. And yes, I am using the right kind of suture and neck bolts ;-) 5) Frankie must be retired. I build a new PC from one of the Via mini-itx boards left over from a cancelled project. 6) Installed Red Hat 8.0 on the Via box. RH is slow on the Via, but it works. 7) Installed Wine on the Via box. 8) Tried to install UPS 5.0 under Wine. Installer complains that I must use Win98 or later. 9) Download Wine user's guide. Find the Wine environment variable that tells what version of Windows it emulated. Set it to Win98. 10) Tried to install UPS 5.0 again. Installer complains that no network stack is present. 11) Find in Wine guide where you tell it to map network services for Windows, edit the config file. 12) Tried to install UPS 5.0 again. This time it appears to get through the installation. 13) Try to run UPS 5.0. It crashes upon startup. No clue why. 14) Give up, scrounge around, don't find any W98 licenses that are unused. 15) Grab an unused W98 license from home and bring it into office, put it on the Via box. 16) Install UPS 5.0 under W98 and it works. That's the MS shuffle! Note: I am not against MS in principle. If I could buy a full version of W98 or 2K for $39, I'd do it. But $299 is just too much for software that should be priced as a commodity. Another note: W9X are now lite OS's. Current Linux versions are big and slow by comparison. It pains me to say that, but it's true. W98 runs snappy on that 500 MHz Via, but RH 8.0 was slooow. W2K ran OK (slower than W98, but faster than RH 8.0) on the Via in a test I did months ago. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Jon Elson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 6:14 PM Subject: 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
At 03:18 AM 10/22/2003, Dwight Harm wrote: Most of the folks on this list are hardware people. I've been developing selling software for 20 years, and I can tell you IT AIN'T EASY. Delivering quality software takes a lot of time and a lot of talent, which = $$$. Let me say that I've been doing design, including some hardware design (but mostly just PCB design with the hardware being designed by someone else, i.e., a client's engineer), and the only time I ever took a bath with a quotation was when I included some software design. The hardware portion, I did just fine Of course, that was custom software for a particular application. Nevertheless, I fully agree that the software business is in some ways a very, very difficult business. It is a very different business than hardware * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
Mr. Baggett, one of our fine and helpful writers, here manages to seriously confuse some issues. At 09:34 AM 10/22/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Don't you think if it were easy (or even possible) to make money -- to stay in business -- at those prices, that there would be companies doing it?!? No. That is the theory of perfect markets. Which is just ivory tower economics BS. Observe: An economics graduate student and his professor are walking down the street. The student sees a $20 bill laying on the ground. He exclaims Hey, look! I found a $20 bill!. The professor replies Don't waste your time bending to pick it up. It's just an illusion. If it really existed, it would have already been picked up by someone else. Perfect markets cannot exist when a monopoly exists. And MS is a monopoly. And so is any program that locks your data into a proprietary file format which is undocumented. The issue is far more complicated. First of all, if a hundred people walk down the street looking for $20 bills, no $20 bill that is in plain sight is not going to be picked up because of the phony argument. It's a good joke and a very bad analogy. MS is indeed a monopoly of sorts, but the fact remains that it is not easy to replace them. To do so would take a huge investment, and the investors would want, of course, to make a reasonable or more than reasonable return on their investment, commensurate with the risk. And so that software would not be cheap. I see only one way around this, which would be for users to organize to cooperatively develop an OS. Not just software engineer users, but *all* users. That's not going to happen soon unless something rather drastic happens. Not impossible, I am in fact working on a larger problem of which this would be a subset, but by no means do I feel assured of success. I'd feel better if I saw others working on the same problem, but I don't. I read something a while ago that said that MS has a profit margin of 85% on their office suites. That's one heck of a margin! I wish I could make that margin on hardware sales! Assuming Office costs $499, they could reduce their price to $75 and still break even. Probably further than that, really, I bet their margin is even more than 85%. It seems to me that this is a very serious misunderstanding of margin. Margin does not include development cost, nor does it include support. Rather, margin would generally refer to the difference between sale price and unit cost, expressed as a percentage of sale price, which with software is very low. Microsoft's profit, after considering development costs and support costs, is much much less than what Mr. Bagget would imply. If, in fact, their profit were what he thinks, there would be hordes of vultures circling. Yes, they have tremendous profit, just not what he thinks. I just looked at one of Microsoft's SEC filings. For 3 months ending 9/30/2002, total revenue was about $7.7 billion. Cost of Revenue was $2.0 billion. The difference is called gross profit, and that would be, in this case, 74%. In another more recent period it is entirely possible that the figure could be 85%. But gross profit and profit are not at all the same thing. If Microsoft could double their sales, theoretically, they would increase their profit by this gross profit amount. But they have development and other costs, and those costs are steep, more than the cost of revenue, which would be the cost to them of the packages sold, i.e., CDS, Manuals, etc. For the period mentioned, those other costs were $2.5 billion. That leaves an operating income of about $4 billion. Now, what profit would be reasonable for them? That would depend, surely, on what they have invested, on the assets devoted to the business. I'm not sure how much the SEC filings can be trusted, but I don't have better data. The total stockholder's equity in the company is $53.5 billion as stated in the filing. Thus their return on investment, if the assets were appropriately valued, was about 7.5%. I'm not salivating. That's healthy, but not excessive. This does not mean, of course, that they are not predatory monopolists Most of the folks on this list are hardware people. I've been developing selling software for 20 years, and I can tell you IT AIN'T EASY. Delivering quality software takes a lot of time and a lot of talent, which = $$$. Dwight, I visited your website. Your situation is different than what I am talking about because you make niche market and specialty software. You don't have a large market to spread development cost against. But vendors of OS, office suites, RAD IDEs, compilers, and some CAD apps do. Of course, and Mr. Baggett's comment is correct, I almost wrote the same thing in my response to Dwight myself. But I ended up leaving it out. Nevertheless, the software business remains quite different from normal manufacturing businesses, because the development cost exceeds
Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7
At 10:14 AM 10/22/2003, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: Note: I am not against MS in principle. If I could buy a full version of W98 or 2K for $39, I'd do it. But $299 is just too much for software that should be priced as a commodity. Mr. Baggett has a strange idea of what the software costs. First of all, you can buy a whole computer with Windows XP installed for I just did a quick search and found on refurbdepot.com, an HP Pavilion 515X faster than my present main machine for $399. Yes, it's painful to look at, I know. I'm trying not to think of what I spent, and I really didn't spend that much. For the time I looked at another company and found a computer that is about the same as the one we use (in my wife's business) to run UPS Worldship 5, and it was $79. It did not include the operating system, which was extra. How much extra? Windows 98, $49. So even if you tossed the computer, the W98 license would be $128. Quite a bit less than $299. Okay, how much would it cost just to buy W98? First I found that I can buy Windows XP Home Edition OEM for $92.95. As an OEM product, you have to buy some hardware. The web site explained that if you buy a screw, it's enough. I know that this is the practice, I just bought Office XP 2002 Professional Special Edition (includes Front Page and Publisher, free upgrade to XP 2003 for all components) for $359. It came boxed with a Microsoft mouse. Hardware. From this same site, I could buy an optical mouse for about $12, or I could buy any of many other useful items for only a few dollars, perhaps I need a connector of some kind But that was XP. I went to buycheapsoftware.com and found Windows 98 First Edition OEM for $55. The listing said includes OEM hardware. So we are down to $55 to solve Mr. Baggett's UPS problem. I also went to the same company from which I just bought XP2002, and they also had the OEM W98 first edition for $55. That is a real price, from real companies who deliver the product Since he had to come up with another computer due to the memory limitations on his first one, though, the best solution might have been to buy a used or refurbished computer with W98 installed. How much work he would have saved!!! I also found, looking around, another decent computer with Windows 2000 installed, on ebay, starting bid $50, 4 hours to go, no bids. Installed may or may not mean that the license is legitimately being sold, if such niceties concern you One might ask the seller if the manuals and CD are included. I'm tempted... but no time. Since I was looking on ebay, were any OS licenses for sale? I thought at first there were none, but then I found one. A Dell Windows XP Professional installation disk. It is packaged with a power cord, manufacturer sealed. I think we now know what that is about. The price? There was one bid on it for $9.99. The info says may be installed on a Dell computer only. No problem, there was a decent Dell computer for sale with no OS for $39. So much for expensive operating systems! (Yes, the systems are expensive, unless one finds the cracks in the market facade.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
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] 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] 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
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] 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] 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] 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? 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. 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. Fixing the remaining bugs in 99SE could involve some serious programming. Who is going to do it for free? If there is someone, great. 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 asks you to upgrade. That's where they get their funding for continued work. Issuing service packs for the superceded version essentially robs labor from the current one. So if they were to do it, they should be compensated in some way. (Note that Altium has generally issued one more service pack for a superceded version after the new version is available.) With the current model, not only is Altium not compensated if they issue a service pack for an older version, but by extending the life of the older version, they are to some extent reducing their income from the new version, or at least postponing that income, which can amount to much the same thing. 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 But if someone is interesting in getting together an Association effort in the direction of SP7, voting membership in the Association is open to all Protel licensees. (The Association functions through [EMAIL PROTECTED], you can join by sending a piece of mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
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] Open source SP7
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? I don't know how you can do a service pack of any kind without access to the source of all the code that went before. Of course, if you can get Altium to give you the source of P99SE, I'm sure there are a lot of people, including myself, that would be eager to dig in and fix the many known bugs hiding in there! Good luck, 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
Mike: How would you do this? Unless you have the source code for 99SE and Altium's blessing to make it open source, I don't see how you could make 99SE open source for a SP7. I assume you mean you would write add-on utilities for 99SE, and your add-ons would be open source? I'm not sure that add-on utilities could correct bugs in the core 99SE programs/servers. I don't know what the current state of open-source SCH and PCB programs is. But it would be nice to have an open-source alternative to pricey packages such as Protel. Supposedly Eagle http://www.cadsoftusa.com/ has a Linux version, for a lot less money than Protel. Maybe your time would be better spent writing translators to/from Protel formats, so that sch and pcb data can be exchanged freely with other packages. The main vendor lock-in method is the use of proprietary, undocumented data formats, which I think is evil that should be vanquished from the world. 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... IMO, the software world is going to have to move back to what worked in the 80's: low-cost shrink-wrapped software that is well documented, nearly bug-free, and needs little support. I think the main reason why open source has made so much progress is that the software business went away from this model in the early 90's. What used to be shrink-wrapped became more expensive, forced upgrades, more buggy, less documented, patch-needy (i.e. AutoCAD, Protel, MS Office and others). This left a big vacuum. The folks that are occupying this vacuum are the ones who won't pay obscene sums for custom software or software that requires maintenance or periodic re-licensing. I would certainly like to see a return to the days where you got a big printed manual (or set of manuals) with your floppy or CD software media. 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. Will I be upgrading to new versions of Word in the future? Probably not - OpenOffice works just as good, doesn't come with manuals either, and it's free. If you do manage to write some open source stuff for 99SE, take care to choose the open source license you think most appropriate. GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses you may want to consider. Take care with BSD - Altium could use your work, build it into a future product, not give out the source to that product, and make money from it, without having to pay you anything, and not having to contribute any improvements back to your code base. Sort of how Microsoft added TCP/IP to Windows (yes, they used the BSD sources)... Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Mike Reagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:45 PM Subject: [PEDA] Open source SP7 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
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 == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
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 == ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. www.integratedcontrolsinc.com 2851 21st Streettel: 415-647-0480 San Francisco, CA 94110 fax: 415-647-3003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
