On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> >Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. > >JohnWhat makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope from a Chinese maker. Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. He might have hurt or helped them.
Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
Started by ●March 30, 2010
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >>Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >> >>John > >What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >from a Chinese maker. > >Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. > >He might have hurt or helped them.I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. But he chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol did not. So why did he do it? John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:28 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:> > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:00:33 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky >> <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> >>>But, why varicap and that lousy circuit? Looks like Rigol analog >>>designers don't have a clue... They are probably as unexperienced as >>>their programmers... >> >> >> Do you think that it doesn't work? And that their firmware was coded >> by inexperienced programmers? > >There are many small details which indicate that the software was >written by indiots.I've only had mine a couple of weeks, but I haven't seen any problems. What are they? The menus take a minute to figure out (and of cource I haven't cracked the manual) but generally make sense. The cursor logic is a little annoying. I like the selectable filtering, specifically the lowpass. The digital filters aren't perfect, but the slower lowpass settings are the most useful to me and behave well. For around $550, with memory stick slot and RS232 and USB, it's stunning. I'm going to get one for our cabin in Truckee. You never know when you'll need a scope. John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
Quite orthogonal to all of the commentary so far... when viewing the YouTube video of the hack, I accidentally turned on the "closed-caption decoder" feature in the playback (up-arrow at the lower right corner of the window). The result was... well, interesting. The closest analogy I can come up with at the moment is "beatnik free verse". I think the auto-transcription feature being used has a problem with David's accent :-) -- Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Larkin wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski > <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 1, 1:14 am, John Larkin >> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >>>> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >>>> padlock in the least. Would you? >>> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. >> Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- >> produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the >> 4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, >> and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the >> 3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of >> the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing >> 4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less >> money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones >> Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut >> costs, and their children go hungry. >> >> Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story? >> > > It's too hypothetical. Each extra room costs real money to build and > has real value on the market. IP costs real money to develop, has > market value, but costs nothing to reproduce. That's why an EDA vendor > can charge you $60K for each copy of a DVD, and why the law protects > their right to do so. > > There's a clear legal distinction between physical property and > intellectual property.If the hardware wasn't capable of 100MHz, then the software wouldn't make it so. Therefore, flipping a software switch is just like cutting a lock. If it needs a completely different load of software to do 100MHz, then the manufacturer is playing games with the law.>>> Jones >>> has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is >>> probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at >>> least. >> I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what >> the crime was. > > Under US law, I belive it's criminal conspiracy to use a computer to > hack software for profit. Which I think is illegal.Define "hack". And yes, it is probably illegal, and if he's really hacking it by my definition of hack, then wrongly so. If he's taking a software load from another Rigol scope, and that load is under copyright, then that's going beyond hacking. If he's finding a way to reach in there and flip a switch to turn on the 100MHz capability, then that should be legal.>>> So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the >>> whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real >>> revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. >> Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. > > Well, I do. Especially telling the world how to do it, which will cost > Rigel serious revenue.Arresting a career criminal will cost him serious revenue -- should we refrain from that? Preventing Kennith Lay from raping Enron would have cost him serious revenue, had someone done it -- had it been legally possible, should we have refrained? Making food manufacturers print lists of ingredients on their products, and insisting that what they produce is safe no doubt costs them serious revenue -- should we stop? The digital copyright protection act gives IP providers extreme and egregious tools to extort money from consumers, and repealing it would cost them serious revenue when they use it to do things that are just plain wrong. Should we refrain from repealing it? -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Larkin a �crit :> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>> >>> John >> What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >> dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >>from a Chinese maker. >> Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. >> >> He might have hurt or helped them. > > I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will > buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. But he > chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol did not. > > So why did he do it? > > John >Just suppose that Rigol isn't so dumb and that they've done this on purpose so that when the word of mouse spreads they sell tons of 50MHz scopes because buyers will be supposed to have a bargain... Who's weird? (well not me) -- Thanks, Fred.
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote:>On Apr 1, 12:01�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> People buy the standard and Pro versions of Windows knowing the only >> difference is a few flags. Windows consumer versions are brain-damaged >> to allow only a small number of network connections at a time, and >> cost almost nothing bundled with a PC. Windows Server removes the >> limit and costs about $2K. > >Well, not really. You don't buy the software, you only license it. You >have to agree to the EULA for it to install. If you figure out how to >use regedit to enable certain features, it isn't illegal to tell >people how to do so (of course they may be violating the EULA if they >do) > >> It's Rigol's choice how to price their products and amortize their >> engineering. Buying their 50 MHz scope and hacking it, and gleefully >> telling the world how to do it, it is essentially vandalism. Legally, >> it may be criminal conspiracy to use a computer to commit a crime. > >Hang on a second. It's only Rigol's scope until I buy it. When I buy >it, it's mine. Not theirs. You don't have to sign an agreement that >says you won't modify it. > >What crime is possibly being committed?It may be a felony under DCMA. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.now> wrote:>John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski >> <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 1, 1:14 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >>>>> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >>>>> padlock in the least. Would you? >>>> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. >>> Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- >>> produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the >>> 4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, >>> and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the >>> 3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of >>> the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing >>> 4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less >>> money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones >>> Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut >>> costs, and their children go hungry. >>> >>> Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story? >>> >> >> It's too hypothetical. Each extra room costs real money to build and >> has real value on the market. IP costs real money to develop, has >> market value, but costs nothing to reproduce. That's why an EDA vendor >> can charge you $60K for each copy of a DVD, and why the law protects >> their right to do so. >> >> There's a clear legal distinction between physical property and >> intellectual property. > >If the hardware wasn't capable of 100MHz, then the software wouldn't >make it so. Therefore, flipping a software switch is just like cutting >a lock. If it needs a completely different load of software to do >100MHz, then the manufacturer is playing games with the law. > >>>> Jones >>>> has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is >>>> probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at >>>> least. >>> I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what >>> the crime was. >> >> Under US law, I belive it's criminal conspiracy to use a computer to >> hack software for profit. Which I think is illegal. > >Define "hack". And yes, it is probably illegal, and if he's really >hacking it by my definition of hack, then wrongly so. > >If he's taking a software load from another Rigol scope, and that load >is under copyright, then that's going beyond hacking. If he's finding a >way to reach in there and flip a switch to turn on the 100MHz >capability, then that should be legal. > >>>> So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the >>>> whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real >>>> revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. >>> Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. >> >> Well, I do. Especially telling the world how to do it, which will cost >> Rigel serious revenue. > >Arresting a career criminal will cost him serious revenue -- should we >refrain from that? > >Preventing Kennith Lay from raping Enron would have cost him serious >revenue, had someone done it -- had it been legally possible, should we >have refrained? > >Making food manufacturers print lists of ingredients on their products, >and insisting that what they produce is safe no doubt costs them serious >revenue -- should we stop? > >The digital copyright protection act gives IP providers extreme and >egregious tools to extort money from consumers, and repealing it would >cost them serious revenue when they use it to do things that are just >plain wrong. Should we refrain from repealing it?How does DCMA extort money from customers? If you don't like a product and its price/terms, don't buy it. DCMA prevents you from using a computer to violate the contract you made with the seller, and from spreading around copies of his IP. If you want to repeal DCMA, write to your Congressman or whatever. Get rid of the patent office while you're at it. John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:45:38 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:>Nial Stewart wrote: >>> It's also very dishonest and goes to show why humanity will never >>> make it very far. People like Larkin are too arrogant to understand >>> this. Do you think people would buy their products if they knew that >>> the only difference between the low end and high end versions is the >>> price.... >> >> ...and access to extended functionality that someone's had to be paid >> to develop? > >In this case Rigol actually went to the trouble to design-in circuitry to >enable this 50MHz "cripple" feature. The front end was clearly designed from >day one to be at least 100MHz bandwidth, and they then decided to dumb it >down to meet a lower end market and price point by adding the cripple >feature. >So George is essentially right, the only effective difference is the price. > >>> At the very least they could have added some true functional >>> improvement that made it justifiable but simply changing the model >>> number.... >> >> ...and access to further functionality that someone's had to be paid >> to develop.... > >The only extra functionality is being able to go to 2ns timebase instead of >5ns, everything else is identical. A couple of lines of code? > >Any extra design effort that has gone into this product all went in to >designing the cripple feature to dumb it down! > >>> doesn't justify a 40% price increase. >> >> By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs >> of the DVD when they sell Windows7. > >A completely silly analogy.Not at all. IP costs money to develop and has to be paid for. And there are economies of scale from building one hardware platform and marketing competitive products that have different firmware. Rigol's error was to make the hack too easy. It's like stealing stuff out of cars. People will steal thongs if you don't roll up the windows and lock the doors, so everybody has to roll up the windows and lock the doors. Ditto big steel vaults in banks. It's inefficient because a minority of people will game the rules any way they can, sometimes just because they can.> >Dave.Rigol did the engineering and selected a business model, and you chose to break it based on some moral judgement of your own. They will have to react somehow, which will cost them money one way or another. Why did you do this? Did you feel that Rigol was cheating the public and deserved to be exposed and, additionally, deprived of revenue? John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Mar 31, 11:53=A0am, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > > > > > <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 30, 8:29=A0pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into =a> >> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLnhXfVYWYXE > > >> Dave. > > >> -- > >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D==3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> >> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.e=evblog.com> > >Excellent, =A0I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E! =A0The best news is that > >even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is.... (just > >scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.) > > >George H. > > It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70) MHz > bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do the hack > even if it was morally and legally fine. > > This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has loads > of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the price. > > Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -Oh I don't plan on hacking it. I just figured that there might be a tick up in sales of the 50MHz version and I should get mine before they sell out. And yeah the pulse response looked nice. (I also like that it's a bit faster than the spec.) I'm not sure about the rattiness of the 100MHz response.. after all the 100MHz TEK pulse looked ratty too and it might have been that Dave was hitting it with a raggy pulse to begin with. (Sorry Dave, I don't mean to dis your bench test skills.) I think Dave likes Rigol and I'm not sure his hack will hurt sales. I would guess it's only a small fraction of users that would want the hack anyway. I would bet.. though I don't know how to prove it.. that Dave has been good for Rigol sales. (He is certainly responsible for my purchase of one.) George H.
