Re: About the Kestrel (was: Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!)
[ Ales here, I'm reposting this since majordomo didn't recognize the e-mail as being subscribed to the geda-dev/geda-user mailinglist. ] -- Cut here -- Delivery-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:25:45 -0400 From: "Samuel A. Falvo II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 23 August 2004 07:07 pm, Bob Paddock wrote: > What I did is brow my wife's Camcorder and put a set of 40X Macro > Lenses on it, then mounted the camera on a photo-stand. Then feed the > Camcorder into a old TV. Good idea; however, with 20/250 to 20/300 vision (depending on which eye doctor I go to), I can assure you, I have no need for a macro lens setup. I just take off my glasses. :D At any rate, I'm rather surprised that I haven't generated any more kinds of messages in response to the Kestrel. I thought for sure I'd read messages along the lines of, "You're flippin' crazy -- it'll never work, and nobody would ever want one," or, "Someone could just purchase a PC and be done with it," or... :D -- Samuel A. Falvo II =2DBEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBKqPuvwDm/l0jx/IRAqobAKCWkMrtlABTrVMnsTKBS91BR1UB3wCdH9F3 WvrLYl5aLqfhf+v/qkOeZts=3D =3Dazx2 =2DEND PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 24, 2004, at 11:36 AM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: But the SMT capacitors we are having here in retail stored don't have any numbers printed on them. Have you also encountered that problem? Leave them in the package until you use them. With through-hole components, I use little trays and get out all the parts I'll need before I start soldering. But with SMT components, I leave them in their little paper strips (the way they come when you buy more than two or three of them...I buy SMT resistors a thousand at a time because of Yes but sometimes you buy just one ore two. Hmm, well I don't. :) Even if I only need one or two, I buy a thousand, because a thousand costs three dollars, and then I have them in stock for the next project. :-) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> >But the SMT capacitors we are having here in retail stored don't have > >any > >numbers printed on them. Have you also encountered that problem? > > Leave them in the package until you use them. With through-hole > components, I use little trays and get out all the parts I'll need > before I start soldering. But with SMT components, I leave them in > their little paper strips (the way they come when you buy more than two > or three of them...I buy SMT resistors a thousand at a time because of Yes but sometimes you buy just one ore two. Cl<
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DJ Delorie wrote: | Ah, but which soldering iron? I'm in need of an upgrade at the | moment... Nothing fancy, but able to safely handle surface mount | parts. Hello DJ, Both Metcal and Pace make the best equipment. In addition, Pace and Metcal equipment heat accurately, come to temperature *very* quickly and have digital readouts that are dependable. The price points of both manufacturers are similar. With that said, my company has units made by both manufacturers and we have found the units manufactured by Pace to be more reliable than those made by metcal. The trade off is that Metcal equipment has a better ergonomic design regarding the hand piece than what Pace sells, but the Pace equipment is sturdier. So, I suppose you can say Metcal is easier to use, but pace equipment lasts longer (Much longer, in our experience...). Some weeks, our stations run 12 to 15 hours a day. So, in our case reliability is more important than ergonomics. Best regards Marvin Dickens Alpharetta, Georgia USA -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBK1cwQuCXrmpq1tsRAk6VAJ4s06GSmu+kKL4BhfdF+6C68C3hmACfRPLC tESJQILsHTVC6D896S6qk8c= =Orx7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
For this app there is also 355 nm laser with beam directing galvo mirrors or other acousto-optic modulator methods that can drill more than 100 microvia holes per second in FR4. http://www.circuitree.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2133,79365,00.html JG On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 13:45, Dave McGuire wrote: > > Just add a homemade 150 000 rpm compressor-driven spindle PCB drill > > with > > linear X-Y drives and 2um precision and you can save walking to PCB > > manufacturer (however the machine weighs 6 tons - I fear it would > > probably fall through the room's floor ;-) ) > >Well...there are limits. ;) > > -Dave
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 24, 2004, at 5:44 AM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: I've got to agree completely with Dave here. Having soldered more than a couple of things together in technologies ranging from vacuum tube to high pin count fine pitch chips over the last 23 years since my first soldering iron, I find that about the easiest thing is a board with 1206 passives and SOIC chips. I'll grant you that things like QFN are a pain, but an SO16 isn't and 1206's are so much faster to work with than leaded resistors and capacitors. In fact, I almost always use surface mount parts when building up a quick prototype on some proto-board material. But the SMT capacitors we are having here in retail stored don't have any numbers printed on them. Have you also encountered that problem? Leave them in the package until you use them. With through-hole components, I use little trays and get out all the parts I'll need before I start soldering. But with SMT components, I leave them in their little paper strips (the way they come when you buy more than two or three of them...I buy SMT resistors a thousand at a time because of the quantity breaks...they typically cost three bucks per thousand) until I'm ready to place them on the board. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Charles Lepple wrote: Please remember that this is my understanding of what's going on in a Metcal gained by lab heresay; I might always be confused about some detail or another . . . . The techical details sound right... or maybe someone gave the same sales pitch at my lab :-) Well...nobody comes to my lab to give sales pitches, but the details ring true with what I see on the bench. I have an older, high-end Weller iron (I don't recall the model number, the one with the digital temp display) and putting it side-by-side with the Metcal I can say my observed behavior matches that description. A Metcal will give you the same amount of heat whether you are heating a QFP lead or a wad of 12 gauge wires (unless you reach the wattage limit for that particular tip). With a slightly less sophisticated temperature-controlled iron, you may have to boost the temperature setting slightly if there is a lot of thermal mass to whatever you are soldering. Yes. The problem there, though, is that the thermal mass of whatever you're soldering affects things much more with pretty much any other make of iron. With the Weller irons, it seems they're depending on having a larger thermal mass in the tip than what it's designed to solder...because all that heat diffuses into what you're soldering, and it takes so long for it to be replenished by the heating element. The Metcal tips, on the other hand, seem to have very little thermal mass...the heat being pumped into the joint being soldered was generated pretty much "on demand". It's interesting to strap a Type K thermocouple to the tip of an iron and run it into a chart recorder while you're soldering. If you look at the temperature profile of an older technology iron, you'll see the temperature bouncing around quite a bit as you solder, and drop very low when you solder something big. I tried this the first time I got my Weller iron's tip *stuck* to the center conductor of an SO-239 connector...the tip temperature dropped below the melting point of the solder and took a good twenty seconds to come back up so it could be dislodged. These crazy Metcal irons, however, just don't care. It's amazing what they can do. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> I've got to agree completely with Dave here. Having soldered more than > a couple of things together in technologies ranging from vacuum tube to > high pin count fine pitch chips over the last 23 years since my first soldering > iron, I find that about the easiest thing is a board with 1206 passives > and SOIC chips. I'll grant you that things like QFN are a pain, but > an SO16 isn't and 1206's are so much faster to work with than leaded > resistors and capacitors. In fact, I almost always use surface mount > parts when building up a quick prototype on some proto-board material. But the SMT capacitors we are having here in retail stored don't have any numbers printed on them. Have you also encountered that problem? Cl<
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
Stuart Brorson wrote: Please remember that this is my understanding of what's going on in a Metcal gained by lab heresay; I might always be confused about some detail or another . . . . The techical details sound right... or maybe someone gave the same sales pitch at my lab :-) On the other hand, Weller and Hakko soldering irons are more than sufficient for occasional soldering if you're the type of person who spent under $500 for their stereo system, and can't hear the difference between it and your neighbor's $50,000 system. That's not to say I wouldn't trade up if I had the choice. A Metcal will give you the same amount of heat whether you are heating a QFP lead or a wad of 12 gauge wires (unless you reach the wattage limit for that particular tip). With a slightly less sophisticated temperature-controlled iron, you may have to boost the temperature setting slightly if there is a lot of thermal mass to whatever you are soldering. -- Charles Lepple [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Monday 23 August 2004 07:44 pm, Stuart Brorson wrote: > 1. Metcals put a sensing element right at the tip of the iron to > measure the tip temperature. Then they feedback on the tip temp to > ... > 2. The heating element in a Metcal is right up at the tip of the > iron. In a Weller, the heat slug is a slug which is heated from Thanks for the info. When I get to a point where I'm ready to start development of the circuit, which won't be for awhile yet, I'll do some research on both the Weller and Metcal irons. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
My experience with Metcals is much better than with Wellers. They keep the heat at the tip better, and therefore deliver heat to the part to be soldered more readily. The reason -- as I understand it -- is twofold: 1. Metcals put a sensing element right at the tip of the iron to measure the tip temperature. Then they feedback on the tip temp to control the current into the heaters. This means that when you touch a metal part with the iron's tip, the heat sucked away by the metal part is immediately replenished by the iron, which pumps current into the tip under command of the feedback circuit. Wellers don't have this feature. 2. The heating element in a Metcal is right up at the tip of the iron. In a Weller, the heat slug is a slug which is heated from further down the iron. Therefore, the response of the Metcal's tip is faster; it heats up faster, and the heat at the tip is replenished faster if it is depleted. Also, Metcal provides a variety of tips for their irons, including nice, narrow ones for fine pitch work. I don't recall Weller selling really fine-pitch tips for their irons. Please remember that this is my understanding of what's going on in a Metcal gained by lab heresay; I might always be confused about some detail or another . . . . Stuart > > On Monday 23 August 2004 07:24 pm, Stuart Brorson wrote: > > I'll lend my voice to the chorus of those who endorse Metcal soldering > > irons for SMT work. Metcal rulez, Weller droolz, IMHO. Buy a Metcal > > Why do you have this opinion? > > -- > Samuel A. Falvo II > >
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Monday 23 August 2004 07:24 pm, Stuart Brorson wrote: > I'll lend my voice to the chorus of those who endorse Metcal soldering > irons for SMT work. Metcal rulez, Weller droolz, IMHO. Buy a Metcal Why do you have this opinion? -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
I'll lend my voice to the chorus of those who endorse Metcal soldering irons for SMT work. Metcal rulez, Weller droolz, IMHO. Buy a Metcal with a fine point tip, and you won't be disappointed. I do lots of SMT work with a Metcal soldering iron and a high-power magnifying glass/lamp. Even an old fart like me can do 0805 passives without too much trouble with a metcal and a good magnifying lamp. As for the price: Yes, Metcals are expensive. You pay for quality. My suggestion is this: I don't know where you live, but if you live in a US city with a high-tech economy, you will undoubtedly have noticed that there have been a lot of electronics companies going bankrupt in the last few years. When they go belly-up, auction houses move in and auction off the assets of the company. You can buy lots of good stuff for cheap if you watch your Sunday newspaper's bankrupsy auction advertisements, and then go to the auctions & bid on the equipment. I've bought lots of good electronics tools this way. Although you must have local auction houses, a global leader in this area is Dovebid: http://www.dovebid.com/Default.asp?bhcp=1 They often have on-line auctions of high-tech companies which have croaked. This might be a good place to troll for equipment. Have fun, and buy a Metcal! Stuart > > > > irons for SMT work. The price on this one is about twice what it > > should be, so don't use that as a data point, but here is the model > > that I use: > > > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3835290314 > > Twice? Or half? It looks like $300-$400 retail, but only $200 on > eBay (used). > > Still, I was hoping to spend less. I don't solder nearly enough to > justify an "expensive" iron if I can avoid it. >
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
>This is a good point, but if you solder *at all*, something like > this is worth it. Maybe let the frequency of your soldering bump > you down to buying a used one rather than a new one. Good point.
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 10:10 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: irons for SMT work. The price on this one is about twice what it should be, so don't use that as a data point, but here is the model that I use: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3835290314 Twice? Or half? It looks like $300-$400 retail, but only $200 on eBay (used). Twice...I don't buy anything retail. I let someone else take that hit. ;) I paid about $100 for mine, if memory serves. Still, I was hoping to spend less. I don't solder nearly enough to justify an "expensive" iron if I can avoid it. This is a good point, but if you solder *at all*, something like this is worth it. Maybe let the frequency of your soldering bump you down to buying a used one rather than a new one. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
> irons for SMT work. The price on this one is about twice what it > should be, so don't use that as a data point, but here is the model > that I use: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3835290314 Twice? Or half? It looks like $300-$400 retail, but only $200 on eBay (used). Still, I was hoping to spend less. I don't solder nearly enough to justify an "expensive" iron if I can avoid it.
Re: About the Kestrel (was: Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!)
On Monday 23 August 2004 02:07 pm, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > SMT chips. Though, for sanity reasons, I'm probably not going to use > SMT resistors or capacitors. Those are just too small, even for me. :) If seeing these smaller and smaller parts is the problem, there is a simple solution. What I did is brow my wife's Camcorder and put a set of 40X Macro Lenses on it, then mounted the camera on a photo-stand. Then feed the Camcorder into a old TV. Takes a bit of practice to get use to watching the TV screen rather than hands when soldering. I know that is not the best solution for your kit issue, but maybe you could sell macro lens as an option. :-) -- http://www.softwaresafety.net/ http://www.unusualresearch.com/ http://www.bpaddock.com/
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:51 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Where else am I going to find a collection of people who hand solder SMT parts on short notice? ;-) Meaning, of course, "where else am I going to find, on short notice, a collection of people who hand solder SMT parts?" English. Gotta hate it. It's an amazingly imprecise language. If I hadn't grown up speaking it, I'd probably go insane learning it. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:56 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Any of the Metcal "SmartHeat" irons (mine is an SP-200) will do the right thing, in my opinion. Their higher-end systems have some bells & whistles, but when it comes right down to it, good temperature control, tip plating, and handpiece comfort are what really matters. And lots of light and magnifying glasses? ;-) Lots of light is very important. I have one of those large magnifiers with a circular fluorescent tube surrounding it. I use that for wide-pitch SMT, and even for through-hole work...makes it easier on the eyes. For the really fine-pitch stuff, I work under a binocular microscope. I am working on replacing that with a video magnifier, but I haven't found one that I really like yet that's cheap enough. I'm holding out for spending $75 on a good one on eBay. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
>Well, I meant who *specifically* here. This is indeed a good > place to ask. ;) Nobody in particular. >Any of the Metcal "SmartHeat" irons (mine is an SP-200) will do the > right thing, in my opinion. Their higher-end systems have some bells & > whistles, but when it comes right down to it, good temperature control, > tip plating, and handpiece comfort are what really matters. And lots of light and magnifying glasses? ;-)
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Not sure who you're asking here, Where else am I going to find a collection of people who hand solder SMT parts on short notice? ;-) Well, I meant who *specifically* here. This is indeed a good place to ask. ;) but I strongly recommend Metcal irons for SMT work. Any particular features I should be looking for? There seem to be a lot of options for tip heat management. Any of the Metcal "SmartHeat" irons (mine is an SP-200) will do the right thing, in my opinion. Their higher-end systems have some bells & whistles, but when it comes right down to it, good temperature control, tip plating, and handpiece comfort are what really matters. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
> Where else am I going to find a collection of people who hand solder > SMT parts on short notice? ;-) Meaning, of course, "where else am I going to find, on short notice, a collection of people who hand solder SMT parts?" English. Gotta hate it.
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
> Not sure who you're asking here, Where else am I going to find a collection of people who hand solder SMT parts on short notice? ;-) > but I strongly recommend Metcal irons for SMT work. Any particular features I should be looking for? There seem to be a lot of options for tip heat management.
Re: Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Ah, but which soldering iron? I'm in need of an upgrade at the moment... Nothing fancy, but able to safely handle surface mount parts. Not sure who you're asking here, but I strongly recommend Metcal irons for SMT work. The price on this one is about twice what it should be, so don't use that as a data point, but here is the model that I use: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3835290314 -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Soldering irons [was Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!]
Ah, but which soldering iron? I'm in need of an upgrade at the moment... Nothing fancy, but able to safely handle surface mount parts.
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:14:09PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Aug 22, 2004, at 12:53 PM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > >>Where can I buy one piece of this one in Prague? I would be genuinely > >>interested :) > > > >You may or may not be able to. I don't know. I know I can get them > >from > >http://www.insight-electronics.com > > > >>It doesn't matter - you have to give up on thru-hole on modern CPU's > >>anyway :) > > > >It does matter. Through-hole parts are way easier for a complete > >neophyte to solder. > > I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that > through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices > is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate* > soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to the > finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any day. > > Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to > solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12 > that has a tip as big as their finger. To that, I say "use crap tools, > get crap results". With quality tools, good lighting, and a little bit > (maybe a few hours) of practice, I'm convinced that nearly anyone can > solder wide-pitch SMT with no problem. Don't want to shell out a few > bucks for a quality temperature-controlled iron? Don't try to solder. > It's as simple as that. I've got to agree completely with Dave here. Having soldered more than a couple of things together in technologies ranging from vacuum tube to high pin count fine pitch chips over the last 23 years since my first soldering iron, I find that about the easiest thing is a board with 1206 passives and SOIC chips. I'll grant you that things like QFN are a pain, but an SO16 isn't and 1206's are so much faster to work with than leaded resistors and capacitors. In fact, I almost always use surface mount parts when building up a quick prototype on some proto-board material. -Dan --
About the Kestrel (was: Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!)
On Monday 23 August 2004 09:33 am, Dave McGuire wrote: >I understand your point, and I respect your point of view, I just > don't agree with it. I believe these people should FIND some > breadboards and learn a little bit more about what they're getting > into before trying to build an entire computer. OK. For a minute there, I thought you were being antagonistic for the sake of antagonism. My apologies -- this was my misunderstanding. >(as an aside, can you tell me more about the Kestrel?) The Kestrel's intended purpose is to be a rational, grass-roots computer design employing half-way modern technology, where (quite unlike the PC) *EVERYTHING* is documented openly, BUT, not adopting every possible technology under the sun just because it exists. I sorely dislike fads, and that includes things like bus architectures, graphics architectures, operating system architectures, etc. The model of inspiration is the Commodore 64 -- you could purchase one book, the Commodore 64 Programmers Manual, and you'd get the circuit schematics, register-level programming information, timing diagrams, and descriptions of the ROM-resident OS interfaces (which most people simply didn't use anyway, except for talking to the disk drive). Originally, the Kestrel was to be built around the 65816 microprocessor, running at 12.5MHz (half VGA dot-clock rate, synchronized with VGA interface). But since I couldn't find modern, DIP-form factor RAM chips that could keep up with the 65816's bus timings, I switched to using surface-mount RAMs. It was a slippery slope from there. Attempting to model the bus controller circuit in Verilog, I realized that I couldn't accurately describe the bus timings of the 65816 (I was using a Verilog 6502 implementation that I hacked up to try and emulate a 65816's bus tenures, since they are nearly identical. Verilog wouldn't have anything to do with it, unfortunately). So I decided to make a stub processor in Verilog that matched the 65816's bus tenures, and then decided, "Wait a minute, if I've gone through this amount of work, I might as well just design my own CPU." That was the birth of the FTS-1001 MISC CPU architecture, which is currently documented on the website (http://www.falvotech.com/kestrel.html). The problem is, as I've later found out, the FTS-1001 MISC architecture compromised at least one active patent, so I decided to investigate a transport-triggered architecture. The design of the FTS-1001 TTA architecture isn't on the site. It's also rather incomplete at this stage, but after careful design and examination (e.g., I couldn't find a way to get single-cycle flow control operations, for example), I decided against using the TTA as well. So I started looking at the OpenRISC architecture. Anyway, at about the same time, I *finally* heard back from Insight Electronics a price for the FPGA needed to implement the OR1200 design, and that immediately caused me to shut the project down. The Kestrel is currently suspended on the basis that, no matter what I do, I won't be able to meet the target price point. It's in, "I'm starting over from scratch" stage. So, as Dave mentions elsewhere in his original message, I'm going to rebrand the Kestrel as an ADVANCED kit, and will make extensive use of SMT chips. Though, for sanity reasons, I'm probably not going to use SMT resistors or capacitors. Those are just too small, even for me. :) The over-arching goals of the project remain the same: * An open, completely documented architecture, able to be described in a SINGLE BOOK. This is obviously inspired by the Commodore 64. * Fan-less design, which means, low power, even at the expense of computation speed. The AT91-device I'm looking at has roughly 66MHz clock. The MIPS has a 125MHz external clock, but even so, still draws around 1W tops. Note that I'm not aiming for the lowEST power -- but fanless design is critical. * Integrated language and minimal OS, making it usable, if not useful, even without a harddrive. Forth satisfies this requirement on both levels at the same time. And besides, let's face it -- Forth is easy to learn, runs very fast, and consumes very, very little amount of code space. It's a win-win-win decision. * System RAM checks on-demand, not always. I'm sick and tired of purchasing ever-faster PCs, and waiting ever-longer for the #*$&#$^ BIOS to check RAM! C'MON! If it booted yesterday, it's more than likely it'll boot today. * Instant on, (nearly) instant off. One of the biggest reasons for my increased power bill is the sheer expense of shutting my computer down. It takes forever for Linux to just shut down. On the Amiga, you just waited 5 seconds, without touching anything, (that's it) for the disk caches to sync with the volumes, and then you flicked the power switch. End of discussion. Not so with Windows or Linux. Anyway, boot-up is way, way more expensive. It has
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 23, 2004, at 1:04 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: to use sun tan lotion as flux. ;) I sometimes use citric acid (in solid crystalline form) as a flux and citric acid is being sold in drugstores too :) Hmm, I'll bet that smells good, too! :-) Yes when you sniff it in you get a feeling that someone has just accidentally blown off your head with a shotgun ;-) Umm... 8-| I think I'll stick with rosin. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> >>to use sun tan lotion as flux. ;) > > > >I sometimes use citric acid (in solid crystalline form) as a flux > >and citric acid is being sold in drugstores too :) > > Hmm, I'll bet that smells good, too! :-) Yes when you sniff it in you get a feeling that someone has just accidentally blown off your head with a shotgun ;-) Cl< > >-Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly > Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller >
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> As do I. And I've been repeating that wide-pitch SMT is not more > difficult to do than through-hole. Everyone I've ever spoken to has > shied away from it, and then upon trying it for the first time, has > never gone back to through-hole components. That mirrors my personal > experience as well. I was simply trying to give you an alternative (if > unpopular, but still quite valid) point of view. I'm sorry if you > don't take criticism well. Yes. On Ronja someone has done unofficial RX with SMT components and people are building it. However it sux hard because is designed in Protel and has number of flaws because of which I can't merge it into the main design (especially it's mechanically incompatible with the mechanics) and I am unable to edit it because it isn't in PCB. So I am going to make abother one some day, this time usable :) Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Monday 23 August 2004 09:25 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > It's only good. Breadboards suck. Airwire into a tin can is better > IMHO ;-) Agreed. But they come in handy for quick one-offs and prototypes. Same with wire-wrapping. > > Again, I don't fear SMT. Those $22 superscalar MIPS processors are > > awfully appealing to me, and as long as I build for myself > > exclusively, the idea of using $100 FPGA chips isn't that bad to me > > (seeing as how it'll probably replace at least that much cost in > > combined board space and discrete components anyhow). > > Is it possible to compile Linux on such a bugger? I don't see why not. But my chipset wasn't going to be "Standard" though, so device drivers and peripheral interfaces would need to be changed. Otherwise, it's very much possible. However, my interests lie elsewhere (e.g., Forth). As I said, I (and my customers) am looking for a computer that is instant-on, no muss, no fuss, no multi-user bull. Besides, unless you're really, really careful, Linux can suck resources as fast as Windows now-a-days. Also, how Linux handles shared libraries can only be described as utterly retarded. The Unix-inspired architecture is definitely starting to show its age. The user of this machine should not have to be a system administrator. Elementary OS and language built into ROM (both of which Forth provides trivially), so that the computer is at least usable for something even without a disk drive of any kind, even though it will have an IDE interface. Of course, a more sophisticated, more feature-complete OS can be loaded from disk if one is present. Like I said -- something along the lines of a Commodore 64. And don't tell me to use the Commodore 64 as a base; not only are they becoming increasingly scarce, but increasingly impractical as well. The whole point to this project is to explore what computing would be like if technology marched on, but we still considered the needs of the *home* computer user. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 23, 2004, at 12:19 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: I have been soldering a copper HDD water cooler this way - put an iron plate over gas stove, heated the biggest part up, and then it was just play with liquid solder and rosin (I bought a 1kg bag in a drugstore). Your drug stores sell rosin? Ours sells Doritos, but I don't think that counts. :) Umm, yeah. For some reason that gave me the mental image of trying to use sun tan lotion as flux. ;) I sometimes use citric acid (in solid crystalline form) as a flux and citric acid is being sold in drugstores too :) Hmm, I'll bet that smells good, too! :-) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 23, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: Hmm...does a 208-pin FPGA count as wide-pitch? How about a 128-pin PQFP (which is what the MIPS CPU comes in)? How about a BGA? No, I'm talking about something like SOIC. Man, those pins are just *not that small*. Let's be realistic here. I am being realistic. My kit was a home-brew computer, something on the order of complexity of a Commodore 64. But to implement the custom video logic, I was looking for an FPGA-based solution. The smallest FPGA I could find that still fit my needs has 208 pins. Ouch. :-( So you're advocating using crap tools to assemble circuitry? If No. I'm advocating this: when you're trying to get into the kit-building business, you must design your circuit around who your customers are going to be. Well ok, this makes sense. But I already have a full-time job; I don't need to spend the remaining waking hours of my already copious time answering technical support calls on how they need to, after spending $150 to $200 on a kit, invest another $150 to $200 in a good soldering iron. I'm not talking $150 to $200. I'm talking $75. Like I said, the overwhelming majority of the customers who are interested in the Kestrel NEVER built an electronic circuit before. Never! They don't even have breadboards. I understand your point, and I respect your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I believe these people should FIND some breadboards and learn a little bit more about what they're getting into before trying to build an entire computer. (as an aside, can you tell me more about the Kestrel?) you're really talking to people who have never picked up a soldering iron before, then I fear for our profession. Most of these people will give up in frustration with fried components and lifted pads. David, with a comment like that, I must question where you've been all these years. The homebrew kit industry all but died along with the introduction of SMT -- it's not a coincidence as to why. Well admittedly I've not build a kit in probably twenty years, but I see plenty of them around. Not as many as in the heyday of Heathkits, sure, but they're not completely gone. Every hamfest I go to always has at least one big rack of Ramsey kits (little FM transmitters, etc etc) even. You know, the philosophy of using the right tool for the job is not obsolete. You seem to have this idea in my head that I'm ass-backwards. Nononono. That is not the case. I just disagree with your statement of SMT versus through-hole soldering. Please stop. I've explained no less than three times now that these decisions are based purely on a BUSINESS-level decision-making process. Maybe not as bluntly as that, but I was hoping that you might put 2 and 2 together by now. I apologize if I seem frustrated, but I am. I hate repeating myself. As do I. And I've been repeating that wide-pitch SMT is not more difficult to do than through-hole. Everyone I've ever spoken to has shied away from it, and then upon trying it for the first time, has never gone back to through-hole components. That mirrors my personal experience as well. I was simply trying to give you an alternative (if unpopular, but still quite valid) point of view. I'm sorry if you don't take criticism well. Maybe I'm just not coming across very clearly lately. If I don't design my kits around the needs of my customers, nobody will buy them. Ergo, I'm essentially out of business. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Sure. But even early-day kit makers like Heathkit rated their projects from "beginner" to "advanced" and listed the tools each kit required. Even in those days, when a lot more people knew what soldering irons were, no beginner would ever try to solder together an entire computer, and no kit maker would ever push them to try. Again, I don't fear SMT. Those $22 superscalar MIPS processors are awfully appealing to me, and as long as I build for myself exclusively, the idea of using $100 FPGA chips isn't that bad to me (seeing as how it'll probably replace at least that much cost in combined board space and discrete components anyhow). On that topic...I've seen mention of those MIPS processors a few times here. What chips are these? Do you have a URL or a part number? -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Monday 23 August 2004 09:19 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > I sometimes use citric acid (in solid crystalline form) as a flux > and citric acid is being sold in drugstores too :) Be careful of what you say, I think. Our drugstores do not sell this either. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> Like I said, the overwhelming majority of the customers who are > interested in the Kestrel NEVER built an electronic circuit before. > Never! They don't even have breadboards. It's only good. Breadboards suck. Airwire into a tin can is better IMHO ;-) > > > you're really talking to people who have never picked up a soldering > > iron before, then I fear for our profession. Most of these people > > will give up in frustration with fried components and lifted pads. > > David, with a comment like that, I must question where you've been all > these years. The homebrew kit industry all but died along with the > introduction of SMT -- it's not a coincidence as to why. > > >You know, the philosophy of using the right tool for the job is not > > obsolete. > > You seem to have this idea in my head that I'm ass-backwards. Please > stop. I've explained no less than three times now that these decisions > are based purely on a BUSINESS-level decision-making process. Maybe not > as bluntly as that, but I was hoping that you might put 2 and 2 together > by now. I apologize if I seem frustrated, but I am. I hate repeating > myself. > > If I don't design my kits around the needs of my customers, nobody will > buy them. Ergo, I'm essentially out of business. It doesn't take a You don't need the customers to buy the kits. It just suffices if they send you the money ;-) > rocket scientist to figure this out. > > >Don't fear SMT. SMT is good. :-) > > Again, I don't fear SMT. Those $22 superscalar MIPS processors are > awfully appealing to me, and as long as I build for myself exclusively, > the idea of using $100 FPGA chips isn't that bad to me (seeing as how > it'll probably replace at least that much cost in combined board space > and discrete components anyhow). Is it possible to compile Linux on such a bugger? Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:54:45AM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Aug 23, 2004, at 2:04 AM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > >>I have been soldering a copper HDD water cooler this way - put an iron > >>plate over gas stove, heated the biggest part up, and then it was just > >>play with liquid solder and rosin (I bought a 1kg bag in a drugstore). > > > >Your drug stores sell rosin? Ours sells Doritos, but I don't think > >that > >counts. :) > > Umm, yeah. For some reason that gave me the mental image of trying > to use sun tan lotion as flux. ;) I sometimes use citric acid (in solid crystalline form) as a flux and citric acid is being sold in drugstores too :) Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Monday 23 August 2004 08:41 am, Dave McGuire wrote: > > Hmm...does a 208-pin FPGA count as wide-pitch? How about a 128-pin > > PQFP > > (which is what the MIPS CPU comes in)? How about a BGA? > >No, I'm talking about something like SOIC. Man, those pins are > just *not that small*. Let's be realistic here. I am being realistic. My kit was a home-brew computer, something on the order of complexity of a Commodore 64. But to implement the custom video logic, I was looking for an FPGA-based solution. The smallest FPGA I could find that still fit my needs has 208 pins. >So you're advocating using crap tools to assemble circuitry? If No. I'm advocating this: when you're trying to get into the kit-building business, you must design your circuit around who your customers are going to be. I already have a full-time job; I don't need to spend the remaining waking hours of my already copious time answering technical support calls on how they need to, after spending $150 to $200 on a kit, invest another $150 to $200 in a good soldering iron. Like I said, the overwhelming majority of the customers who are interested in the Kestrel NEVER built an electronic circuit before. Never! They don't even have breadboards. > you're really talking to people who have never picked up a soldering > iron before, then I fear for our profession. Most of these people > will give up in frustration with fried components and lifted pads. David, with a comment like that, I must question where you've been all these years. The homebrew kit industry all but died along with the introduction of SMT -- it's not a coincidence as to why. >You know, the philosophy of using the right tool for the job is not > obsolete. You seem to have this idea in my head that I'm ass-backwards. Please stop. I've explained no less than three times now that these decisions are based purely on a BUSINESS-level decision-making process. Maybe not as bluntly as that, but I was hoping that you might put 2 and 2 together by now. I apologize if I seem frustrated, but I am. I hate repeating myself. If I don't design my kits around the needs of my customers, nobody will buy them. Ergo, I'm essentially out of business. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. >Don't fear SMT. SMT is good. :-) Again, I don't fear SMT. Those $22 superscalar MIPS processors are awfully appealing to me, and as long as I build for myself exclusively, the idea of using $100 FPGA chips isn't that bad to me (seeing as how it'll probably replace at least that much cost in combined board space and discrete components anyhow). -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 23, 2004, at 2:04 AM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: I have been soldering a copper HDD water cooler this way - put an iron plate over gas stove, heated the biggest part up, and then it was just play with liquid solder and rosin (I bought a 1kg bag in a drugstore). Your drug stores sell rosin? Ours sells Doritos, but I don't think that counts. :) Umm, yeah. For some reason that gave me the mental image of trying to use sun tan lotion as flux. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 23, 2004, at 2:01 AM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate* soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to the finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any day. You can strongly disagree all you want. The fact is, without that steady hand, which few will actually have especially if they've never picked up an iron before in their lives, I'm going to be up all night handling tech support calls on how they damaged their kits. :-) There is the notion of "biting off more than you can chew", you know. A beginning mechanical engineering student doesn't choose a helicopter as a first project. If the kit you're speaking of is too complex for a first project, well, surface mount components probably aren't the problem. Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12 that has a tip as big as their finger. To that, I say "use crap tools, get crap results". Most of the people who expressed an interest in my idea were people who never worked on electronics before, and weren't going to spend any more than $150 tops. A good quality Weller alone costs that much, let alone the kit. Nah. I use a wonderful Metcal iron that cost me less than that on eBay. I hand-solder 0.5mm-pitch components with it regularly. Admittedly that's becoming tedious, and not something that I would recommend to everyone, but it is certainly possible. With quality tools, good lighting, and a little bit (maybe a few hours) of practice, I'm convinced that nearly anyone can solder wide-pitch SMT with no problem. Don't want to shell Hmm...does a 208-pin FPGA count as wide-pitch? How about a 128-pin PQFP (which is what the MIPS CPU comes in)? How about a BGA? No, I'm talking about something like SOIC. Man, those pins are just *not that small*. Let's be realistic here. out a few bucks for a quality temperature-controlled iron? Don't try to solder. It's as simple as that. No, it's not. Sorry. So you're advocating using crap tools to assemble circuitry? If you're really talking to people who have never picked up a soldering iron before, then I fear for our profession. Most of these people will give up in frustration with fried components and lifted pads. You know, the philosophy of using the right tool for the job is not obsolete. Don't fear SMT. SMT is good. :-) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sunday 22 August 2004 11:23 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > I have once seen in TV how some guy was casting tin soldiers this way > at home. I was thinking of doing exactly this to make miniature Babbit-like bearings for some of my model engine projects. :) > I have been soldering a copper HDD water cooler this way - put an iron > plate over gas stove, heated the biggest part up, and then it was just > play with liquid solder and rosin (I bought a 1kg bag in a drugstore). Your drug stores sell rosin? Ours sells Doritos, but I don't think that counts. :) -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sunday 22 August 2004 10:14 am, Dave McGuire wrote: >I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that > through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices > is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate* > soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to > the finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any > day. You can strongly disagree all you want. The fact is, without that steady hand, which few will actually have especially if they've never picked up an iron before in their lives, I'm going to be up all night handling tech support calls on how they damaged their kits. :-) >Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to > solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12 > that has a tip as big as their finger. To that, I say "use crap > tools, get crap results". Most of the people who expressed an interest in my idea were people who never worked on electronics before, and weren't going to spend any more than $150 tops. A good quality Weller alone costs that much, let alone the kit. > With quality tools, good lighting, and a > little bit (maybe a few hours) of practice, I'm convinced that nearly > anyone can solder wide-pitch SMT with no problem. Don't want to shell Hmm...does a 208-pin FPGA count as wide-pitch? How about a 128-pin PQFP (which is what the MIPS CPU comes in)? How about a BGA? > out a few bucks for a quality temperature-controlled iron? Don't try > to solder. It's as simple as that. No, it's not. Sorry. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 22, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: But "reflow soldering" is much more practical. I'm gearing up for that here right now. You take "solder paste" (a mix of finely powdered solder and flux) and apply it to SMT pads with a syringe. At least one PCB proto house has a deal on solder stencils-- thin sheets of metal (stainless steel, IIRC) which you place over your board, and spread the solder paste across with a squeegee. From there, it's just as Dave described. I wish I could remember the URL, but I bet half an hour or less with Google would turn something up. Also, on the reflow topic, here's a description of soldering BGAs at home: http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~jasmith/mpc555/faq.html#SolderOven -- Charles Lepple [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> >Someone has also described a homebuilt thru-plating station (however it > >isn't still probably a finished design yet). > > Now this is something I'd like to see. :-) URL? http://www.myhome.ch/mzingg/pcbstuff/tps/tps_index.htm Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 22, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
neophyte to solder.
I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that
through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices
is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate*
soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to
the
finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any day.
Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to
solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12
I am using transformer gun with that loop of thick wire at the end.
Should
I upgrade?
Ok, you really made me laugh with this one, which is a big surprise
with the mood I'm in today. :-)
Isn't it possible to get away with the sioldering without a soldering
iron
at all? The manufacturing lines are using allegedly some kind of solder
flowing in circles that makes a bulge on the surface of the liquid and
the PCB is stuck into the bulge. At least someone has been describing
it to
me this way.
That'd be "wave soldering". Wave soldering is useful for
through-hole parts, but for SMT assembly, "reflow soldering" (see
below) is the way to go.
Isn't it possible to heat up amount of solder in an old pot or pan,
add a
handful of rosin and then carefully dip the board into it?
Sure. But "reflow soldering" is much more practical. I'm gearing up
for that here right now. You take "solder paste" (a mix of finely
powdered solder and flux) and apply it to SMT pads with a syringe. You
stick the components ("pick and place") onto the board, they adhere to
the solder paste. This is done either manually or automatically. Then
you "bake" it in an oven with a very carefully controlled
temerature/time profile until it melts, and surface tension
automatically [mostly] centers the components on the pads. Solder
masks on the PCBs keep inter-pin shorts to a minimum. The results are
usually very clean, very consistent, and very, very reliable.
Large multi-zone conveyor ovens are used for this in assembly houses,
but they cost a fortune and require an immense amount of electricity to
run. Lately some companies have started making small benchtop reflow
ovens (that's what I'm getting) which are practical for prototyping and
low-volume production. There are reports of hobbyists having success
with VERY CAREFUL use of a household toaster oven (don't use the one
you use for food...buy a separate one, as nasty chemicals [lead solder,
flux] are involved!) but I would not try this for a "professional"
application. True purpose-built reflow ovens have very accurate
control of their temperature, are designed for very even and very fast
heating, and have blowers for fast cool-down.
I have once seen in TV how some guy was casting tin soldiers this way
at home.
Yup, a lot of people do that. It's pretty easy to do.
Someone has also described a homebuilt thru-plating station (however it
isn't still probably a finished design yet).
Now this is something I'd like to see. :-) URL?
Just add a homemade 150 000 rpm compressor-driven spindle PCB drill
with
linear X-Y drives and 2um precision and you can save walking to PCB
manufacturer (however the machine weighs 6 tons - I fear it would
probably fall through the room's floor ;-) )
Well...there are limits. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly
Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> >neophyte to solder. > > I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that > through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices > is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate* > soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to the > finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any day. > > Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to > solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12 I am using transformer gun with that loop of thick wire at the end. Should I upgrade? > that has a tip as big as their finger. To that, I say "use crap tools, > get crap results". With quality tools, good lighting, and a little bit > (maybe a few hours) of practice, I'm convinced that nearly anyone can > solder wide-pitch SMT with no problem. Don't want to shell out a few > bucks for a quality temperature-controlled iron? Don't try to solder. > It's as simple as that. Isn't it possible to get away with the sioldering without a soldering iron at all? The manufacturing lines are using allegedly some kind of solder flowing in circles that makes a bulge on the surface of the liquid and the PCB is stuck into the bulge. At least someone has been describing it to me this way. Isn't it possible to heat up amount of solder in an old pot or pan, add a handful of rosin and then carefully dip the board into it? I have once seen in TV how some guy was casting tin soldiers this way at home. I have been soldering a copper HDD water cooler this way - put an iron plate over gas stove, heated the biggest part up, and then it was just play with liquid solder and rosin (I bought a 1kg bag in a drugstore). Someone has also described a homebuilt thru-plating station (however it isn't still probably a finished design yet). Just add a homemade 150 000 rpm compressor-driven spindle PCB drill with linear X-Y drives and 2um precision and you can save walking to PCB manufacturer (however the machine weighs 6 tons - I fear it would probably fall through the room's floor ;-) ) Cl< > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly > Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller >
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 22, 2004, at 12:53 PM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: Where can I buy one piece of this one in Prague? I would be genuinely interested :) You may or may not be able to. I don't know. I know I can get them from http://www.insight-electronics.com It doesn't matter - you have to give up on thru-hole on modern CPU's anyway :) It does matter. Through-hole parts are way easier for a complete neophyte to solder. I must strongly disagree with this statement. The notion that through-hole soldering is easier than soldering surface-mount devices is, and always has been, a myth. Personally, any more, I *hate* soldering through-hole parts. Sure it takes a steadier hand due to the finer pin spacings and such, but give me an SOIC over a DIP any day. Perhaps a part of the problem is that people want to be able to solder with a cheap soldering iron they bought at Radio Shack for $12 that has a tip as big as their finger. To that, I say "use crap tools, get crap results". With quality tools, good lighting, and a little bit (maybe a few hours) of practice, I'm convinced that nearly anyone can solder wide-pitch SMT with no problem. Don't want to shell out a few bucks for a quality temperature-controlled iron? Don't try to solder. It's as simple as that. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sunday 22 August 2004 02:40 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > Where can I buy one piece of this one in Prague? I would be genuinely > interested :) You may or may not be able to. I don't know. I know I can get them from http://www.insight-electronics.com > It doesn't matter - you have to give up on thru-hole on modern CPU's > anyway :) It does matter. Through-hole parts are way easier for a complete neophyte to solder. > What theory? They just read the datasheet what the part does and the > rest is up on their imagination what they construct with it, isn't it? No. I have *never* been able to build any kind of analog circuit by relying on data sheets alone. I don't know anyone at all who has. And even today's digital circuits are becoming increasingly "analog", as their operating frequencies drives signal rates close to the maximum bandwidth of a circuit trace, and when dealing with multiple, different voltages for chips. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:09:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Karel Kulhavý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > It doesn't matter - someone has reported building Ronja without any > > prior experience with soldering and electronics at all! > > Fine. But what if they want to make modifications? What then? They will just have to google up how the thing called "electronics" work. > > > I didn't have for those, but for ZX Spectrum ;-] > > Same basic idea. > > > And isn't it possible to buy a reasonable CPU today? I can still get 6MHz > > Z80 for abou 3 USD in a retail store here in my city. In the worst case, > > you can write your own into a FPGA. > > Pfft. Get yourself a 16MHz 65816 for $5.75 -- more memory, faster, and ... > well, just plain better. :-) I don't know that one. What's the complete part number? The manufacturer? I would like to look at the datasheet. > > (Not to ignite the whole Z80-vs-6502/65816 argument again...but I couldn't resist.) > > Still, 6MHz. Woohoo. How about those $22 400MHz, MIPS-IV, dual-issue > superscalar CPUs including 64-bit integer unit, FPU, and MMU? Where can I buy one piece of this one in Prague? I would be genuinely interested :) > Yeah, you can get > them -- in single quantities too. Problem is, they're surface mount, and > require some awfully nice dexterity to solder them. I was planning on using one It doesn't matter - you have to give up on thru-hole on modern CPU's anyway :) > in a variation of the Kestrel project I was working on. > > ARMs are nice too. > > Still, this is besides the point. The issue isn't being able to just slap stuff > together. The issue is finding the *theory*, written in a clear and concise > format, that lets average lay-people understand what the heck it is they're > building, and how the thing really works on the inside. What theory? They just read the datasheet what the part does and the rest is up on their imagination what they construct with it, isn't it? > > Anyone can go and purchase a Ramsey radio kit. And, it IS fun. But does that > kit tell you how radio works? Does that kit tell you why its circuit works? > Having built a few Ramsey's myself, I can safely say, "No." Contrast with > Heathkit, however... > > > I just wanted to say that when you work for some big company you > > are creating some work, nevertheless the work is of no use for the > > public (just for the company). > > Oh, that made much more sense. :-) Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 21, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Al Davis wrote: Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free software revolution start there? Didn't Stallman work in MIT AI Lab? Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world for decades. Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. If you read his own comments, you will see that he knows that. He was working on a project he thought was free, then the group leader took it proprietary, in effect stealing it from him and others in the development group. The real intent of GPL is to protect developers from losing their own work. Check out history of Macsyma and Maxima for more info. I wasn't suggesting that Stallman didn't know it. I was pointing it out because apparently some other people weren't aware of it. "Free software" (as in beer) isn't a new thing. It's been around, thriving in HUGE volume, since long before the GPL existed and long before the term "open source" was coined. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 21, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: Not true. Free software came about in a free society, 1970s era America. Free software would never have come about in Taliban Afghanistan, Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany. Absolutely never. Freedom requires freedom to thrive. True. And the amazing thing is that it's STILL thriving even in an Ashcroft-era America. No, you'd be brainwashed into thinking Windows XP is the latest, greatest thing, and that everyone should be using it. Just like everyone I used to work with at In-N-Out Burger. "He's some kind of weird geek, because he uses LINUX! HAHAhaha!" <-- common phrase used to describe me. I find that simply not associating with "Windows sheeple" has reduced my overall stress level considerably. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:39:49AM -0700, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > On Saturday 21 August 2004 09:48 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > > Take a high school full of adolescents and persuade them that reverse > > engineering hardware is more cool than free sex, drugs, booze and pot > > together. (This is impossible, of course). Then you'll probably end up > > with a PC schematic. > > High school kids don't have the technical background, because no such > background *CAN* exist. There is *NOTHING* the highschool kid can It doesn't matter - someone has reported building Ronja without any prior experience with soldering and electronics at all! They seem somehow to be able to learny anything on the fly. You can see them talking about OSPF and BGP when they onvolve in community networks. If it is useful for them, they seem to learn anything. > inexpensively fall back on to support ANY kind of curiosity. This is my > point! Note also the key word, "inexpensive." Now-a-days, you can > purchase a kick-butt book called "Art of Electronics," by Horowitz and > Hill. Costs $150 or more. Back in the early 80s, you could find every > bit of knowledge in that book in a small handful of Radio Electronics > magazines, for $1.50 a piece. OK, $30 or so a year for a subscription. > Either way, the cost of knowledge today is, at a minimum, 5x what it was > back then. > > When I was growing up, I had full schematics to my Commodore 64 and > Amiga. I had register-level documentation of all the system hardware I didn't have for those, but for ZX Spectrum ;-] > for both (although I paid a nice penny for it for the Amiga). I > literally taught myself how to read schematics before I entered 7th > grade Jr. High, and was building my own 4-bit processor (yes, PROCESSOR) > by the age of 15. The point being, there were a TON of books and > resources I could rely on for knowledge. Today? NOTHING. It's just an > intellectual WASTELAND out there. > > And yes, the processor worked. > > > However much easier would be to persuade them into hardware hacking > > instead (also impossible ;-) ) because designing a computer from > > scratch is IMHO less pain that reverse engineering the crap that is on > > today's markets. > > This is patently and observably false, as indicated by the infinitesmally > small hobby-kit industry. Let's be objective here: you cannot persuade > someone to enter into a hobby which requires thousands of dollars of > investment to build anything beyond rediculously simple, because he > hasn't paid his stupid SIG dues. > > I do not consider the use of PIC-chips as satisfying, because their > utility is highly limited by their on-chip resources. They're not even > good for learning the basics of digital electronics design, because 99% > of working with a PIC is *software*. And isn't it possible to buy a reasonable CPU today? I can still get 6MHz Z80 for abou 3 USD in a retail store here in my city. In the worst case, you can write your own into a FPGA. > The problem is, though, those who create for themselves and want to share > with others are hindered by patents. My Kestrel project was affected > badly by patents. Now it's affected by my inability to reach a target > price point for the kit. I just can't win. > > > I don't see any point in creating something what is already banned > > from distribution at the time of it's birth by some huge company that > > just wants to rake, rake, rake money. It's like not creating anything > > actually because is of a very limitted utility for the society. > > What? You totally didn't make any sense here. I just wanted to say that when you work for some big company you are creating some work, nevertheless the work is of no use for the public (just for the company). > > You'll be probably have a feeling that your attempts are void and be > > called communists, your trying economically inefficient etc. however I > > Economically inefficient? I've never heard that term before. > > > It seems to me that evil has some inherent property that it's design > > is basically flawed so that it has lots of security holes and one of > > them is free software, hardware etc. ;-) > > Not true. Free software came about in a free society, 1970s era America. > Free software would never have come about in Taliban Afghanistan, > Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany. Absolutely never. I am not trying to say here that free software could come in a non-free society. I am trying to say that free things can penetrate the part of society that is driven by the large companies. Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Saturday 21 August 2004 09:48 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > Take a high school full of adolescents and persuade them that reverse > engineering hardware is more cool than free sex, drugs, booze and pot > together. (This is impossible, of course). Then you'll probably end up > with a PC schematic. High school kids don't have the technical background, because no such background *CAN* exist. There is *NOTHING* the highschool kid can inexpensively fall back on to support ANY kind of curiosity. This is my point! Note also the key word, "inexpensive." Now-a-days, you can purchase a kick-butt book called "Art of Electronics," by Horowitz and Hill. Costs $150 or more. Back in the early 80s, you could find every bit of knowledge in that book in a small handful of Radio Electronics magazines, for $1.50 a piece. OK, $30 or so a year for a subscription. Either way, the cost of knowledge today is, at a minimum, 5x what it was back then. When I was growing up, I had full schematics to my Commodore 64 and Amiga. I had register-level documentation of all the system hardware for both (although I paid a nice penny for it for the Amiga). I literally taught myself how to read schematics before I entered 7th grade Jr. High, and was building my own 4-bit processor (yes, PROCESSOR) by the age of 15. The point being, there were a TON of books and resources I could rely on for knowledge. Today? NOTHING. It's just an intellectual WASTELAND out there. And yes, the processor worked. > However much easier would be to persuade them into hardware hacking > instead (also impossible ;-) ) because designing a computer from > scratch is IMHO less pain that reverse engineering the crap that is on > today's markets. This is patently and observably false, as indicated by the infinitesmally small hobby-kit industry. Let's be objective here: you cannot persuade someone to enter into a hobby which requires thousands of dollars of investment to build anything beyond rediculously simple, because he hasn't paid his stupid SIG dues. I do not consider the use of PIC-chips as satisfying, because their utility is highly limited by their on-chip resources. They're not even good for learning the basics of digital electronics design, because 99% of working with a PIC is *software*. > Sometimes I wonder when I see that Ronja is built be people I would > dismiss as evil on a first sight meeting them on a street. Lastly I > got a feeling that much evil that is induced in young minds is not > generated by themselves, but by the stupid system held by the > structures behind commercialization, globalization and these stuffs. Yes, because big companies are taking away *OUR* information, the information we need to explore, to learn, and to LIVE. > This is however bad. I have read random parts of some christian book > (I am not a christian myself and am not considering becoming one) and > got a feeling they want to say that the evil resides in the idleness > and passivity. So that, the program is simple: The religious right in this country is about as anti-Christian as they come. They have no clue what it means. Although not religious myself (in that sense, at least), I am baptised, confirmed, and used to regularly practice Roman Catholocism. I've spoken with a rather large number of those who ARE still devout and even orthodox Christians, and not a one is very happy with them at all. Many of them get surprisingly violent when asked about them. > And you'll probably won't do much of it walking down TESCO stores and > deciding which item of the displayed goods is the least crap from your > needs' point of view. The problem is, though, those who create for themselves and want to share with others are hindered by patents. My Kestrel project was affected badly by patents. Now it's affected by my inability to reach a target price point for the kit. I just can't win. > I don't see any point in creating something what is already banned > from distribution at the time of it's birth by some huge company that > just wants to rake, rake, rake money. It's like not creating anything > actually because is of a very limitted utility for the society. What? You totally didn't make any sense here. > You'll be probably have a feeling that your attempts are void and be > called communists, your trying economically inefficient etc. however I Economically inefficient? I've never heard that term before. > It seems to me that evil has some inherent property that it's design > is basically flawed so that it has lots of security holes and one of > them is free software, hardware etc. ;-) Not true. Free software came about in a free society, 1970s era America. Free software would never have come about in Taliban Afghanistan, Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany. Absolutely never. Freedom requires freedom to thrive. > Trying to imagine being born into a world where no free programs > existed at the time I was
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Saturday 21 August 2004 12:24 pm, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > Isn't it somehow connected with all the lisp, lispm, clisp > and Symbolics stuff that has been discussed recently here? yes.
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 09:05:07AM -0700, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> On Saturday 21 August 2004 08:42 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> > I don't consider it a threat, but consider it to suck. Opinions
> > of others?
>
> Closed hardware is itself as much a threat as closed software is. The
> industrial revolution took off with the introduction of standardized
> parts. Prior to that point, all components for machines were custom
> made, every single time, and you could get them only through ONE vendor,
> who was free to charge whatever they liked for them. If I remember
> rightly, this was actually a rather significant problem for the American
> Civil War, where components for one soldier's gun would not fit on
> another soldier's gun (if it wasn't the Civil War, then it most
> definitely was the case for the Independence War). This was true for
> both sides.
>
> Back in the hey-day of computers, each component from a vendor actually
> came with full schematics. Indeed, everywhere you look in computer
> history, you find people taking their PDP-8s or IBM 7054s or whatever,
> and implementing some new feature that was officially unsupported by the
> original vendors. Case in point: Unix was originally developed on a
> PDP-7. But this was not an unadorned PDP-7. To support more efficient
> swapping of processes to and from core, they bolted on a KS-10 (which
> was never intended for the PDP-7, and certainly not officially supported
> by the folks at DEC). For the longest time, it wouldn't work.
> Thankfully, due to the existance of full schematics, they tracked the
> problem down to a missing inverter chip.
>
> I challenge anyone to do something like this with currently available
> computer technology.
Take a high school full of adolescents and persuade them that reverse
engineering hardware is more cool than free sex, drugs, booze and pot together.
(This is impossible, of course). Then you'll probably end up with a PC
schematic.
However much easier would be to persuade them into hardware hacking instead
(also impossible ;-) ) because designing a computer from scratch is IMHO less
pain that reverse engineering the crap that is on today's markets.
Sometimes I wonder when I see that Ronja is built be people I would dismiss as
evil on a first sight meeting them on a street. Lastly I got a feeling that
much evil that is induced in young minds is not generated by themselves, but by
the stupid system held by the structures behind commercialization,
globalization and these stuffs.
When they are growing up they don't have any other option than passively
consume what is being served to them. They are told on every corner that
creation is some kind of communism and they just need to rake, rake, rake money
otherwise they'll die down in the dirt of "modern" (actually obsolete ;-) )
society.
This is however bad. I have read random parts of some christian book
(I am not a christian myself and am not considering becoming one) and
got a feeling they want to say that the evil resides in the idleness and
passivity. So that, the program is simple:
#include
#include
#include
while(1){
creat();
}
And you'll probably won't do much of it walking down TESCO stores and deciding
which item of the displayed goods is the least crap from your needs' point of
view.
I don't see any point in creating something what is already banned from
distribution at the time of it's birth by some huge company that just wants
to rake, rake, rake money. It's like not creating anything actually because
is of a very limitted utility for the society.
You'll be probably have a feeling that your attempts are void and be called
communists, your trying economically inefficient etc. however I think this is
just an illusion. A common sense says to me that it can't be true. If there
is something inefficient out there, then it's today's society.
So that, what logically remains, is free hardware, free software, free
everything. Or are my deductions flawed somewhere?
It seems to me that evil has some inherent property that it's design is
basically flawed so that it has lots of security holes and one of them is free
software, hardware etc. ;-)
Trying to imagine being born into a world where no free programs existed at the
time I was at high school or the beginning of university, I would probably die
from boredom ;-)
I don't have any blue pills at home, but am having a whole bottle of red ones.
They are labeled "Vitamin E 200mg" ;-)
Cl<
>
> The distribution model for open hardware need not be the same as that for
> open source software. Nobody, I think, is asking that to happen.
> Hardware requires tangibles to manufacture, and labor to assemble and
> ship. These resources must be paid for. But that doesn't mean that the
> guts of the product should be wrapped up so tightly that even God can't
> see what's inside.
>
> Remember the old 8-bit computer magazines? It seems like a month didn't
> go by wh
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 11:33:34AM -0400, Al Davis wrote: > On Monday 16 August 2004 03:18 am, Dave McGuire wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > > > Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free > > > software revolution start there? Didn't Stallman work in > > > MIT AI Lab? > > > > Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world > > for decades. Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. > > If you read his own comments, you will see that he knows that. > He was working on a project he thought was free, then the group > leader took it proprietary, in effect stealing it from him and > others in the development group. The real intent of GPL is to > protect developers from losing their own work. > > Check out history of Macsyma and Maxima for more info. Isn't it somehow connected with all the lisp, lispm, clisp and Symbolics stuff that has been discussed recently here? Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Saturday 21 August 2004 08:42 am, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > I don't consider it a threat, but consider it to suck. Opinions > of others? Closed hardware is itself as much a threat as closed software is. The industrial revolution took off with the introduction of standardized parts. Prior to that point, all components for machines were custom made, every single time, and you could get them only through ONE vendor, who was free to charge whatever they liked for them. If I remember rightly, this was actually a rather significant problem for the American Civil War, where components for one soldier's gun would not fit on another soldier's gun (if it wasn't the Civil War, then it most definitely was the case for the Independence War). This was true for both sides. Back in the hey-day of computers, each component from a vendor actually came with full schematics. Indeed, everywhere you look in computer history, you find people taking their PDP-8s or IBM 7054s or whatever, and implementing some new feature that was officially unsupported by the original vendors. Case in point: Unix was originally developed on a PDP-7. But this was not an unadorned PDP-7. To support more efficient swapping of processes to and from core, they bolted on a KS-10 (which was never intended for the PDP-7, and certainly not officially supported by the folks at DEC). For the longest time, it wouldn't work. Thankfully, due to the existance of full schematics, they tracked the problem down to a missing inverter chip. I challenge anyone to do something like this with currently available computer technology. The distribution model for open hardware need not be the same as that for open source software. Nobody, I think, is asking that to happen. Hardware requires tangibles to manufacture, and labor to assemble and ship. These resources must be paid for. But that doesn't mean that the guts of the product should be wrapped up so tightly that even God can't see what's inside. Remember the old 8-bit computer magazines? It seems like a month didn't go by when someone didn't have some kind of new and exciting hardware-level hack for their computer, that made it work better, run faster, address more memory, or display more colors, etc. They could do these things because schematics were generally available for their computers, and hardware-level information for any of their custom chips were easily available as well. Today, homebrew hacking has been reduced to a hobby so marginalized that most computer users don't even know it's happening, and indeed, MOST hobbiests don't even know who else is participating as well! In the ham radio community, for example, most computer-interfaced projects I've seen work via the parallel port, or via the serial port -- that is it. These are ports that have a very limited lifespan in modern PC architectures. USB is the next "entry-level" port that is available to use, and the barrier to entry in using that is immense. I cannot think of a single ham radio, home-brew project I've seen documented in any ham radio publication that even once employs the USB interface. I do not believe this to be a coincidence -- while the availability of 8051s and other (relatively) inexpensive microcontrollers exist that can interface directly to the USB hardware layer, the *software* must be insanely complex (if not inside the microcontroller, then certainly on the host computer OS side of things!). I believe that open hardware can firmly mitigate every one of the aforementioned problems. While it won't solve everything, it will at least let people make more informed choices, and choose technology based on a solid analysis of needs-vs-wants, instead of whatever is the latest fad in interfacing. For example: why is there a need for USB at all? Why not just take IEEE-488, serialize it (which most definitely has been done before, by both HP and Commodore, to name just two. And HP's solution was fully auto-configuring too!), and make the PHY layer faster to accomodate more devices? Why go through the whole process of designing a WHOLE new wire-level protocol? That's a LOT of money wasted, JUST to somehow "be different." Such a difference allows them to more easily control who has access to the SIG, and how much they PAY to be a member, to get unique device IDs and such. Give me a break. The computer industry lasted 30+ years before such things were needed. Criminey, Amiga's Zorro bus was also fully auto-config (in fact, that's what distinguished it from its competitors at the time; even Macintoshes didn't have expansion buses then!), and Commodore just gave away company IDs (and device IDs were freely chosen by the company within the context of a company ID). The only thing they did was maintain a registry. No need for SIGs here. Anyway, I'm going to get off my soap-box now. These are my opinions, as requested. -- Samuel A. Falvo II
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:59:57AM -0400, Al Davis wrote: > (referring to Richard Stallman) > On Friday 13 August 2004 06:32 pm, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > > He probably doesn't believe in social incentive of free > > technology in hardware field or how this philosophical > > question is actually exactly called. > > Actually, he has commented on that. He limits his scope to > software because he can't take on everything, and doesn't > consider proprietary hardware to be as much of a threat as > proprietary software. I don't consider it a threat, but consider it to suck. Opinions of others? Cl<
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Monday 16 August 2004 03:18 am, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Aug 13, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > > Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free > > software revolution start there? Didn't Stallman work in > > MIT AI Lab? > > Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world > for decades. Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. If you read his own comments, you will see that he knows that. He was working on a project he thought was free, then the group leader took it proprietary, in effect stealing it from him and others in the development group. The real intent of GPL is to protect developers from losing their own work. Check out history of Macsyma and Maxima for more info.
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
(referring to Richard Stallman) On Friday 13 August 2004 06:32 pm, Karel Kulhavý wrote: > He probably doesn't believe in social incentive of free > technology in hardware field or how this philosophical > question is actually exactly called. Actually, he has commented on that. He limits his scope to software because he can't take on everything, and doesn't consider proprietary hardware to be as much of a threat as proprietary software.
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 16, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote: Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world for decades. Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. Free as in what? Beer or speach? Free as in beer. Most HW manufacturers gave the OS away with the machine because the customer paid so much anyway. I'm talking about non-OS stuff. I think it was when Amdahl started making cheap IBM lookalikes that big blue decided that they would not give away something that could be used on cheaper hardware. It may be that I am wrong, but name a couple of pre-Stallman names that fronted free speach software the way he do. If they exist, they need to come out in the great wide open. No, I'm not talking about loud-mouthed evangelism, I'm talking about "software that you can get for free". Heck, even in the non-UNIX world, twenty years ago, I was getting everything I needed in the DEC world for free through DECUS, which acted as a clearinghouse and exchange point for software for DEC machines (PDP-11, VAX, etc)...circuit simulation software, document formatters, utilities, language compilers, etc. As a big name, Kermit comes to mind. It's been free since day one (and still is), and has been around for decades. By the way, the printer driver problem that he wanted to solve hasn't improved much. Installing a printer on a linux machine is still the most tedious part of getting rid of MS Windows from the desktop. Yes I've run into this too. My biggest pet peeve has been the scourge of "WinPrinters" floating around on the market, and the people who were clueless enough to buy them. I've not tried recently, but as of maybe a year ago I've had no luck whatsoever in getting any of them working when helping people get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] out of Microsoft's stranglehold on their wallets. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Monday 16 August 2004 09:18, Dave McGuire wrote: > Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world for decades. > Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. Free as in what? Beer or speach? Most HW manufacturers gave the OS away with the machine because the customer paid so much anyway. I think it was when Amdahl started making cheap IBM lookalikes that big blue decided that they would not give away something that could be used on cheaper hardware. It may be that I am wrong, but name a couple of pre-Stallman names that fronted free speach software the way he do. If they exist, they need to come out in the great wide open. By the way, the printer driver problem that he wanted to solve hasn't improved much. Installing a printer on a linux machine is still the most tedious part of getting rid of MS Windows from the desktop. -- Svenn
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Aug 13, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Karel Kulhavý wrote: - Announcing Free Dog -- the Free EDA User's Group! - Owing to the growing interest in free EDA tools, the time time has come to form a user group dedicated to supporting and promoting open-source design tools! To meet this need, we are forming "Free Dog": the "Free EDA Users Group". (FreeEDAUG -- try pronouncing it!) Free Dog will begin holding monthly meetings starting this September 1st (2004). We will meet at MIT (Cambridge, MA, USA) in Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free software revolution start there? Didn't Stallman work in MIT AI Lab? Sigh. Free software has been the way of the UNIX world for decades. Stallman *rode* it...he didn't invent it. -Dave -- Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> > > Free Dog will begin holding monthly meetings starting this > > > September 1st (2004). We will meet at MIT (Cambridge, MA, USA) in > > > > Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free software revolution > > start there? Didn't Stallman work in MIT AI Lab? > > Yes. He apparently still has an office in the new Stata center. He > is not aware of Free Dog, as far as I know. But who knows? I'm > trying to advertise at MIT and he might show up . . . . He probably doesn't believe in social incentive of free technology in hardware field or how this philosophical question is actually exactly called. And, aside from Ronja, it looks like we are preparing another free technology project here, it seems to be an 3kW inversion burning wood stove with 0 emissions, and in future possibly with some sophisticated control electronics. Because my brother built a forward burner turbo wood stove and was impressed by the results obtained through use of free technology (a partial building guide published by our friend earlier - CZ only: http://www.volny.cz/ondrej.tesar/drivkac.htm). The material costs next-to-nothing, manufacture is fast and easy at home, the power output is astonishing (about like a electric fast-boiling kettle). And the fuel costs 0 too (it's dry organic waste like wood sticks you can find nearly everywhere). The device is portable, collapsible and lightweight. It costs nearly nothing, costs nothing to operate, and is good - what should we wish more? I have noticed someone saying "all the best things in life are for free". Cl< > > Stuart
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:58:59PM -0400, Stuart Brorson wrote: > > - Announcing Free Dog -- the Free EDA User's Group! - > > > > Owing to the growing interest in free EDA tools, the time time has > > come to form a user group dedicated to supporting and promoting > > open-source design tools! To meet this need, we are forming "Free > > Dog": the "Free EDA Users Group". (FreeEDAUG -- try pronouncing it!) > > > > Free Dog will begin holding monthly meetings starting this > > September 1st (2004). We will meet at MIT (Cambridge, MA, USA) in > > Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free software revolution > start there? Didn't Stallman work in MIT AI Lab? Yes. He apparently still has an office in the new Stata center. He is not aware of Free Dog, as far as I know. But who knows? I'm trying to advertise at MIT and he might show up . . . . Stuart
Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meetings at MIT starting this September!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:58:59PM -0400, Stuart Brorson wrote: > - Announcing Free Dog -- the Free EDA User's Group! - > > Owing to the growing interest in free EDA tools, the time time has > come to form a user group dedicated to supporting and promoting > open-source design tools! To meet this need, we are forming "Free > Dog": the "Free EDA Users Group". (FreeEDAUG -- try pronouncing it!) > > Free Dog will begin holding monthly meetings starting this > September 1st (2004). We will meet at MIT (Cambridge, MA, USA) in Hey the MIT sounds familiar to me - didn't the free software revolution start there? Didn't Stallman work in MIT AI Lab? Cl<
