Searching \ for '[PIC] PICLIST admin stuff' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'PICLIST admin stuff'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] PICLIST admin stuff'
2008\07\12@192657 by Dan Smith

face picon face
I'd like to welcome Bob Blick and Russell to the admin team as list
moderators :-)

We've set up another topic tag called [TECH] which Russell has agreed
to police (along with [OT]).  Bob will be helping to police the [PIC]
and [EE] tags.  This will allow us to refocus some of the other tags.

** Please note that if you want to receive [TECH] posts and you don't
receive the daily digest version of the Piclist, you will have to
visit <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist> and opt in. **

The new topic definitions effective immediately are:

[PIC]
Should be at the start of the subject line for most postings to the
PICList. This says that a PIC microcontroller (or clone) is directly
involved, connected or the entire subject of the post. Any person who
works with PICs would want to read it...

[SX]
Items specific to the Scenix SX microcontrollers

[AVR]
Items specific to the Atmel AVR microcontrollers

[ARM]
Items specific to ARM microcontrollers

[EE]
The doing of Electrical/Electronic Engineering that you can do
yourself. Power stations go into TECH unless it's a power station that
you can build. So too eg Magnetohydrodynamics etc. Windmill
alternators and related systems and alternate energy at the doing
level go into EE. Windfarms into TECH. etc

[TECH]
About technology, Engineering other than EE, science hard stuff. NOT
the philosophy of science in any depth. New discoveries in QM,
cosmology etc are fine. Almost anything that gets a long thread that
diverges can probably evolve into OT once people know it exists. Those
who care can follow it. eg Global Warming is TECH at the latest
discoveries level but not discussions of "An inconvenient truth" or
"The great global warming swindle" etc. This may rate an occasional
mention in TECH but long ramblings can go to OT.

[BUY]
People looking for parts, equipment, or consultants will use this topic.

[AD]
This is for advertisements of a commercial product or service. Don't
spam, do post [AD]!

[OT]
This label is for posts that are completely off the topic of
engineering/technology. The only things we don't ever want to see are
religious/metaphysical, sex, hate, or political messages.

Hopefully, these definitions are pretty clear, but if you have any
questions please ask away and the admin team will do our best to
answer :-)

Dan

2008\07\12@211240 by Dr Skip

picon face
The EE and TECH division are not clear, at least to me. I suggest a long list,
based on the topic headings recently  written (generalized a little perhaps)
over the last few months and post an example list. Since this topic division
obsession tends to create near-online-violence at times, I fear posting unless
there are concrete examples. My Venn diagram of tech and EE overlap quite a bit.

Specifically, what EE topics are TECH and what PC topics go where? Software?
CAD software Q's? Backup software Q's? Engineering software suggestions?
Writing software vs using software? USB design? USB software? USB usage? You
get the idea...


Dan Smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\07\12@215555 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
It's actually pretty easy. If it's something I'd object to seeing in
[EE], then it goes in [TECH]

That was supposed to get a chuckle, c'mon!

I don't particularly enjoy seeing "using PC software" posts. Some of
them are clearly [EE] though, such as CAD footprints and file formats
for PC board houses. Backup software and "Fedora 9 first impression" are
pretty far from [EE] and bore me intensely and probably Russell too.
That's what Linux mailing lists are for.

Don't try to out-think it, we will see how it shakes out, and probably
flesh out the guidelines as the days and weeks progress.

Cheerful regards,

Bob


Dr Skip wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\07\12@222100 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
I'll leave this in PIC as Dan started it there and it seems
appropriate that all see it. No doubt future fine tuning of
the OT/TECH/EE divide can be posted on a non-PIC tag.

{Quote hidden}

There will be no violence in [TECH] !!!! :-).
I suggest that you post any EE/TECH uncertain material in
[TECH] and we see what evolves. If something seems to belong
in EE I'll suggest accordingly and we'll see what Bob and co
decide.

At the EE end of TECH there will be no reason for any
'violence'. Anything that strays from EE into TECH will be
most welcome (as I perceive what it's all about) but may be
gently returned to its true home if it seems in the
interests of the majority to have it happen.

At the bottom end OT/TECH it may get a tiny bit rougher but
only marginally so. As I see it (and while I am now named as
an admin (moderator?) I don't see myself largely doing more
than acting as a guiding hand) anything with a GENUINELY
technical content can get at least a start in TECH. Anything
that gets long and wandering or controversial can be ushered
gently into OT. Examples that may go that way include
Cosmology, Global Warming, possibly (possibly) even
Evolution/Intelligent Design. I say 'possibly' for the
latter as, while the subject SHOULD be able to be discussed
rationally and logically, this is almost never what happens,
so if any flame appears then it's off to OT with it.

> Specifically, what EE topics are TECH and what PC topics
> go where?
> CAD software Q's? Backup software Q's? Engineering
> software suggestions?
> Writing software vs using software? USB design? USB
> software? USB usage? You
> get the idea...

IMHO:
I'd say most of that is TECH. I'd be happy for eg Bob to
indicate otherwise.

TECH
CAD software Q's?
Backup software Q's?
Engineering software suggestions?
Writing software vs using software?

EE                   USB design?
EE probably    USB software?
???                   USB usage?



               Russell


2008\07\12@222534 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> It's actually pretty easy. If it's something I'd object to
> seeing in
> [EE], then it goes in [TECH]

Or that I object to :-).
I'm as keen as Bob to see a good EE list now that we have
the capability.

> That was supposed to get a chuckle, c'mon!

Chuckle.


       Russell


2008\07\12@232318 by Jinx

face picon face
> Specifically, what EE topics are TECH and what PC topics go where?
> CAD software Q's? Backup software Q's? Engineering software
> suggestions? Writing software vs using software? USB design? USB
> software? USB usage? You get the idea...
>
> IMHO:
> I'd say most of that is TECH. I'd be happy for eg Bob to
> indicate otherwise.

I'd suggest that anything to do with Eagle for example would be [EE],
and anything CAD that helps make better PCBs for eg PICs to go on,
or enclosures, machining, milling etc

Not directly related to PICs, soldering, components, etc - [TECH]. If
there is or could be a schematic - [EE]

USB at the electrical level - [EE] or [PIC]. USB as a back-up strategy
for a PC - [TECH]. Unless maybe it's got a PIC in it or it's an [EE] hack
for example, then it could get 'promoted'

Software - hmmm. Directly related to better engineering - [EE]. Win or
Linux as general OS's IMO don't qualify as [EE]. A particular part of
an OS might be appropriate in [EE] or even [PIC], for example specific
s/w, drivers, interfacing (as per USB above), that sort of thing. But
otherwise, probably [TECH]

2008\07\12@235011 by Dr Skip

picon face
This would mean the latest "parallel USB" thread would have moved through Ee,
then tech, then pic... Is that the intent? Even through its evolution, it still
had tie-back to the original idea, which was generally, pulling power from a
second port (is it legal, how do you do it, why you do it, can a pic do it).

I found the evolution informative, and the peripheral discussion (not to be
confused with discussions of peripherals ;) very enlightening. It all involved
the same genesis, and from a knowledge management perspective, should probably
stay together. This way, it gets split up as some sort of set of database
entries, without any relations. And with variations in subscriptions to the
various topics, participation would get fragmented.

Perhaps we stay in the original group, even if content evolves? Even though
that wasn't mentioned.



Jinx wrote:
>
> USB at the electrical level - [EE] or [PIC]. USB as a back-up strategy
> for a PC - [TECH]. Unless maybe it's got a PIC in it or it's an [EE] hack
> for example, then it could get 'promoted'
>

2008\07\13@002236 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face


Dr Skip wrote:
> This would mean the latest "parallel USB" thread would have moved through Ee,
> then tech, then pic... Is that the intent? Even through its evolution

The intent is to keep the quality of the posts high, and allow people to
opt-out of content they don't want.

If you keep the quality high, there won't be complaints about "thread
(de)evolution".

All you have to do is draw parallels in your mind to the [PIC] tag and
how it is not a dumping ground for random thoughts or chit-chat.

Let's wrap this up or take it [OT], OK? This doesn't belong under the
[PIC] tag any more. Thanks.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2008\07\13@002833 by Forrest W. Christian

flavicon
face
Let me suggest a better clarification:  At least in my mind... although
I'm obviously not the moderator:

If one is building or designing an *electronic circuit* - from concept
through design and production (where applicable), then questions related
to this operation, in my mind belongs in [EE].  That is, it has to do
with the actual engineering.   Electronics CAD/CAM would be [EE],
circuit board design would be [EE], soldering techniques would be [EE],
selection of components would be [EE] and so on.    Or perhaps, put
another way, would this topic be something that an EE would either need
to know, or should know, or has to do to make a circuit or electronic
product work.   I would think of [EE] as the generic workhorse of the
piclist, where people can ask an electronics-related question, and get
an answer.

[PIC], [AVR], etc are more strict interpretations of [EE]... that is,
[EE] to do with a pic or avr processor.  

If the topic does not relate to the actual building or design of an
*electronic circuit*, then this is either [TECH] or [OT].   I have
little desire to try to help define the line between [TECH] and [OT] so
I won't.   Instead, here are a few things I would expect people might
think were EE, but in my mind weren't:  

Not EE: New technology developments, even if they are electronics
related:  X releasing a new processor, Y having some breakthrough which
will affect electronics, etc..  
Not EE: General world news and events
Not EE: Global warming
Not EE: Space events, even that which is electronics related (unless you
are building a satellite or similar)
Not EE: Solar systems, except specific solar system projects (someone
trying to build a charger is [EE], news story about someone building a
new solar charger, not EE).

And perhaps a few grey areas the other way:

[EE] : Sources of Enclosures
[EE] : Adhesives for electronics

And so on...

-forrest

2008\07\13@010619 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I'd suggest that anything to do with Eagle for example
> would be [EE],
> and anything CAD that helps make better PCBs for eg PICs
> to go on,
> or enclosures, machining, milling etc

OK

> Not directly related to PICs, soldering, components, etc -
> [TECH]. If
> there is or could be a schematic - [EE]

Um.
I went to disagree and then realised that the statement was
ambiguous.
If you mean "not releated to any of ..." then OK.

> USB at the electrical level - [EE] or [PIC]. USB as a
> back-up strategy
> for a PC - [TECH]. Unless maybe it's got a PIC in it or
> it's an [EE] hack
> for example, then it could get 'promoted'

Yes. A bit vague. It will self clarify.
If in doubt throw into EE and Bob will rule on it ;-).

> Software - hmmm. Directly related to better engineering -
> [EE]. Win or
> Linux as general OS's IMO don't qualify as [EE]. A
> particular part of
> an OS might be appropriate in [EE] or even [PIC], for
> example specific
> s/w, drivers, interfacing (as per USB above), that sort of
> thing. But
> otherwise, probably [TECH]

Largely agree.


   R

2008\07\13@011700 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
"Forrest W. Christian" said

> Let me suggest a better clarification:
... snip ...

That whole list of examples looked quite good.
Worth looking at as a guide for anyone feeling bemused.

I was amused to note that

> Not EE: Space events, even that which is electronics
> related (unless you
> are building a satellite or similar)

Meant that probably only Alan Pearce can post on satellites
in [EE].



       R

2008\07\13@033344 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Bob Blick <spam_OUTbobblickTakeThisOuTspamftml.net> wrote:
> I don't particularly enjoy seeing "using PC software" posts. Some of
> them are clearly [EE] though, such as CAD footprints and file formats
> for PC board houses. Backup software and "Fedora 9 first impression" are
> pretty far from [EE] and bore me intensely and probably Russell too.
> That's what Linux mailing lists are for.

So at least it will be qualified as [OT], right?

I will continue to opt in [EE] and [OT] thanks to the creation of [TECH]
which I would not opt in.

Xiaofan

2008\07\13@044814 by Dan Smith

face picon face
With the recent changes to the list, I thought it would be good to
clarify who the members of the admin team are :-)

In no particular order,

Josh Koffman
Herbert Graaf
Alexandre Guimarães
Mauricio Jancic
Bob Blick
Russell McMahon
Dan Smith

If you need to contact us, please email .....piclist-ownerKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu and your
email will be distributed to the whole team.  With us being spread
around the globe, chances are at least one of us will be awake at any
one time!

Dan

2008\07\13@062922 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> I don't particularly enjoy seeing "using PC software"
>> posts. Some of
>> them are clearly [EE] though, such as CAD footprints and
>> file formats
>> for PC board houses. Backup software and "Fedora 9 first
>> impression" are
>> pretty far from [EE] and bore me intensely and probably
>> Russell too.
>> That's what Linux mailing lists are for.

> So at least it will be qualified as [OT], right?

Maybe not.

They will be welcome in TECH to start and we will see what
people think once the new "sub community" establishes. Just
because something bores me doesn't mean it doesn't belong
:-).

Tag subscription choices are of course up to each member
*BUT* if you get EE and OT now then it will be a really
really really really good idea [tm] to subscribe to TECH for
a while to see how things work out. Failing to do this may
leave you less informed than you wish to be. Your choice &
YMMV.


           Russell


2008\07\13@064259 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Apptech <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> I don't particularly enjoy seeing "using PC software"
>>> posts. Some of
>>> them are clearly [EE] though, such as CAD footprints and
>>> file formats
>>> for PC board houses. Backup software and "Fedora 9 first
>>> impression" are
>>> pretty far from [EE] and bore me intensely and probably
>>> Russell too.
>>> That's what Linux mailing lists are for.
>
>> So at least it will be qualified as [OT], right?
>
> Maybe not.
>

That is a strange assertion. But since you are now part of
the admin team, I will respect that decision. And I will
just turn off [OT] now that it is of little use to me. [PIC]
and [EE] should be good enough for me.

Xiaofan

2008\07\13@082825 by olin piclist

face picon face
Dr Skip wrote:
> The EE and TECH division are not clear, at least to me.

Me neither.  I'm rather confused about EE and the purpose of making a
distinction between what you can do yourself versus not.  At some point,
*somebody* is doing all the things that are being done worldwide.  So I can
talk about controlling a 30A relay for a safety shutoff to my home table
saw, but not how a PIC can control a contactor that protects a 750KV power
line?  This doesn't make any sense, especially if I happen to be working on
a PIC controlled contactor to protect a 750KV power line (which I'm not,
this is just a example).  It seems to me the real purpose is to allow
discussion of the things around your PIC even though it's not about the PIC
itself.

I suggest we get rid of EE (since at various times it's been called
Electrical Engineering, then the vague Everything Engineering, and now I'm
not sure what) and replace it with EMB for EmBedded Systems.  This is for
scientific and engineering discussion of the things around your PIC.  If
you're doing a PIC project (or AVR or ARM, etc) and have questions about the
wider system it fits into, then this is where to ask.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\07\13@083027 by olin piclist

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> Backup software and "Fedora 9 first impression"
> are
> pretty far from [EE] and bore me intensely and probably Russell too.
> That's what Linux mailing lists are for.

Hear, hear!  It's about time someone put a stop to that drivel.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\07\13@083226 by olin piclist

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
> I'll leave this in PIC as Dan started it there and it seems
> appropriate that all see it.

This brings up another issue I have with topics.  It's always awkward to
find a topic to talk about the list itself.  I suggest there be a topic
called LIST where those that care about how the PIClist is run can talk
about that.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\07\13@084315 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam.....embedinc.com> wrote:
> I suggest we get rid of EE (since at various times it's been called
> Electrical Engineering, then the vague Everything Engineering, and now I'm
> not sure what) and replace it with EMB for EmBedded Systems.  This is for
> scientific and engineering discussion of the things around your PIC.  If
> you're doing a PIC project (or AVR or ARM, etc) and have questions about the
> wider system it fits into, then this is where to ask.
>

This is a good idea. Just redefine EE as Embedded System. EMB is not
as easy to remember as EE and we already has a EE tag.

Xiaofan

2008\07\13@084409 by Jinx

face picon face
> So I can talk about controlling a 30A relay for a safety shutoff to
> my home table saw, but not how a PIC can control a contactor
> that protects a 750KV power line?

Yes. It would be [PIC]

I see one difference between [EE] and [TECH] as that of scale. eg
if it doesn't fit on the (my) bench. You might discuss how to make an
anemometer for weather station with [PIC] or [EE], but a windfarm
would be [TECH]. It's of technical interest but probably not in the
scope of most engineers. If someone here did happen to be making
a windfarm or electric car, then it would be quite legitimate to talk
about the constructional details outside of [TECH]. But otherwise,
as a general concept or industry, in [TECH]

2008\07\13@113255 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>
> Dr Skip wrote:
>> This would mean the latest "parallel USB" thread would have moved through Ee,
>> then tech, then pic... Is that the intent? Even through its evolution
>
> The intent is to keep the quality of the posts high, and allow people to
> opt-out of content they don't want.

Then why is this whole thread which has nothing to do with PIC's still
under [PIC]?  ;-) :-P  LOL!

Nate

2008\07\13@123454 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Where is James?
Gaston

Dan Smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\07\13@162334 by Dennis Crawley

picon face
I think James said good bye from the mail controlling but not from the web
site.
It was more than 10 years of service for free.
I have to say thank to him for all his help.

Dennis

On Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:34 PM [GMT-3=CET],
Gaston Gagnon  wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2008\07\13@181423 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> ** Please note that if you want to receive [TECH] posts and you don't
>> receive the daily digest version of the Piclist, you will have to
>> visit <http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist> and opt  
>> in. **

Not quite; it looks like subscribers who had never turned on any  
filtering (ie "receive all topics") continue to receive all topics,  
including "tech"...

I think.  At least, I received the initial message without opt-in,  
and when I went to the piclist web page, that's how it looked to be...

BillW

2008\07\16@101754 by Mongol Herdsman
picon face
I propose to consider new [ASP/SQL] tag on this list.

Actually PIC based devices could serve as light web clients within
ASP.NET/MS SQL applications. This kicks off huge market. Hope MCHP
people will understand it not too late.

For example, your know, here in "Texas" sized Inner Mongolia we would
like to equip every camel with cheap Internet-over-GPRS enabled
PIC-based mobile to report to California based web server about the
current condition of the camel and its load.

The "data logger" software on the server would report in real time
about camel status, and would predict camel possible failure, so a
herdsman would receive warning SMS and could care of the situation in
timely manner.

We have a good number of camels roaming around the desert. So the
project seems to be quite big.

Some good/gold level PIC professionals are on the list to consult
with. And for ASP.NET/MS SQL part of the project we'd like to have
consultants on the list too to keep the development consistent.

So, again, why not new [ASP/SQL] tag on this list.

Thanks.

On 7/13/08, Dan Smith <@spam@galoophKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\07\16@102802 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Is camel load measured as a decimal value, where values over 1.00 mean
that loads are being deferred to a later time?

Cheerful regards,

Bob

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:17:31 +0300, "Mongol Herdsman"
<KILLspaminner.mongolia.herdKILLspamspamgmail.com> said:
{Quote hidden}

2008\07\16@110655 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
On 7/16/08, Bob Blick <spamBeGonebobblickspamBeGonespamftml.net> wrote:
> Is camel load measured as a decimal value, where values over 1.00 mean
> that loads are being deferred to a later time?

A good question in fact. I consulted with our shaman. He waved a dead
fish (Moon is exactly in right phase now), established a direct
telepathic chanell to one famous gold consultant lost in cold swamps
on the edge of The World,  and received a message that we are not
restricted to PIC10F line and it would be better off to start with
PIC32 line, so we won't be limited to pack everything in one decimal
value.

Thanks for raising the important question, brother picster.

2008\07\16@113604 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:06:52 +0300, "Mongol Herdsman"
<TakeThisOuTinner.mongolia.herdEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> said:
> On 7/16/08, Bob Blick <RemoveMEbobblickspamTakeThisOuTftml.net> wrote:
> > Is camel load measured as a decimal value, where values over 1.00 mean
> > that loads are being deferred to a later time?
>
> A good question in fact. I consulted with our shaman. He waved a dead
> fish (Moon is exactly in right phase now), established a direct
> telepathic chanell to one famous gold consultant lost in cold swamps
> on the edge of The World,  and received a message that we are not
> restricted to PIC10F line and it would be better off to start with
> PIC32 line, so we won't be limited to pack everything in one decimal
> value.
>
> Thanks for raising the important question, brother picster.
> --

2008\07\16@144652 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
As long as it is "open camel season" I would like to propose the
[theBigBangTheoryIsDeadLongLiveStangeGravitatationalEffectsTheory]  
tag.  This will reduce the amount of hot scented air that is produced  
by the PIClist.
cc


On Jul 16, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Bob Blick wrote:


On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:06:52 +0300, "Mongol Herdsman"
<inner.mongolia.herdEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> said:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\07\16@145715 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Mongol Herdsman wrote:
> I propose to consider new [ASP/SQL] tag on this list.

I propose we consider a new [PONY] tag too, because we all want ponies!

(And yeah, I'm replying to yet another non-PIC posting under [PIC].  Sorry.)

Nate

2008\07\16@154510 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Nate Duehr <RemoveMEnateEraseMEspamEraseMEnatetech.com> wrote:
> Mongol Herdsman wrote:
>> I propose to consider new [ASP/SQL] tag on this list.
>
> I propose we consider a new [PONY] tag too, because we all want ponies!
>
> (And yeah, I'm replying to yet another non-PIC posting under [PIC].  Sorry.)
>

Maybe now is the time to implement my wished-for tag:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.pic/75234

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
RemoveMEmarkragesspam_OUTspamKILLspammidwesttelecine.com

2008\07\16@162715 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Mongol Herdsman wrote:

> I propose to consider new [ASP/SQL] tag on this list.
>
There is, or should be, a law about creating new "topics" in a  
forum.  You SPLIT existing topics when some piece of discussion  
starts to take up a lot of time and messages, and some people start  
to complain about the traffic.  You DO NOT add additional topics just  
because you think it is "logical" to do so, or because you hope to  
"stimulate" discussion in a new topic; this just leads to many unused  
topics (you can see this on LOTS of forums...)

So [TECH] exists of complaints about excessive "random" discussions  
in [EE]; I think of it as the Russel topic :-)  It's probably the  
most sensible split in ages. [ARM] was probably premature, and while  
[AVR] and [SX] seemed appropriate at the time, traffic hasn't  
sustained them :-(

Feel free to start you ASP/SQL discussion in [EE], or [TECH], and  
we'll all see how it goes...

BillW

2008\07\16@172342 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
On 7/16/08, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwTakeThisOuTspamspammac.com> wrote:
> Feel free to start you ASP/SQL discussion in [EE], or [TECH],
> and we'll all see how it goes...

I started the discussion with my post. The idea is to consider a cheap
PIC based device as a client in ASP.NET/SQL app with asynchronous
communication between a client and a server. It requires some
out-of-box style of thinking to realize the scale of the idea. Most
probably Microsoft will employ it.

EE gurus seem not to be able to grasp the value of the system, say MS
public  ASP.NET/SQL server + powerful database/statistic software on
the server and cheap client PIC based hardware to aquire data. It's
easier for gurus to blame on MS afterwards for monopolizing
everything, than to make a little effort to think out-of-box now.

2008\07\16@173543 by olin piclist

face picon face
Mongol Herdsman wrote:
> The idea is to consider a cheap
> PIC based device as a client in ASP.NET/SQL app with asynchronous
> communication between a client and a server.

Huh?  So the PIC is going to be a client, but I guess you mean it will be
talking to a remote server that is serving SQL and somehow has something to
do with ASP?  All that is layered on TCP, which PICs can do.  So get a big
18F and start writing the code, although it's not at all clear exactly what
this PIC is supposed to accomplish once it talks to this remote server.

What exactly is your question?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...