Re: caller id (and talkworks)

["Frank Mc Alinden" <fmcalind@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian

>As Mark has pointed out, the differences require something of a
>trained eye,
>or at the very least, a grounding in network protocols. There are key
>differences in approach, and I think that the xPL approach is better
>(obviously: Otherwise I would be developing xAP) I can, however, see
>why
>some of the xAP protocol elements are handled the way they >are.

Fair enough

>The problem is that what you are asking is an incredibly >simplistic
>question, but also a very loaded one:

What i was saying was since very little hardware has been developed by
either protocol developers then both were basically pc based and therefore
the protocol differences  wouldnt be a real issue, but from your previous
comment , im way off  track............



As for your Rant........totally agree....i have adopted a very similiar
attitude towards developing any hardware ..........

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Lowe
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] caller id (and talkworks)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Mc Alinden" <fmcalind@xxxxxxx>
>If my assumptions are correct i cant for the life of me understand how
we
have ended up
>with two protocols.............????? as the pc applications are doing
all
the hard >work...........confused!!!

As Mark has pointed out, the differences require something of a trained
eye,
or at the very least, a grounding in network protocols. There are key
differences in approach, and I think that the xPL approach is better
(obviously: Otherwise I would be developing xAP) I can, however, see why
some of the xAP protocol elements are handled the way they are.

The problem is that what you are asking is an incredibly simplistic
question, but also a very loaded one: your own background is electronics,
so
you are looking for the production of electronics as progress. There isn't
any production xPL hardware yet, and Kevin's xAP-CBus gateway is probably
the first production xAP Hardware. I don't think, however, that it's fair
to
use this as some sort of marker for the success of either project.

The reason that PC applications have appeared first is simply that the
development tools and environments for PC software are friendlier and more
accessible than those for MCU development, More people have skills in
software, and it's much easier to go through many, many development cycles.
It's simply a matter of what people can do in their spare time. We all,
after all, have day jobs.

<RANT>
I'll stress right now that the following is *MY* opinion only, not that of
the other xPL guys. In fact, I think I'm at odds with them on this one,
(the
other guys haven't had the altruistic spirit bludgeoned out of them yet)
but
here goes:

A point I made at HA Scotland is that the development of xPL is built
around
the needs and wants of the core developers. We have asked for feedback and
testers repeatedly, and at every stage, the input from the main group has
been *pathetic*. The absolute indifference to what is being attempted is
jaw
dropping. Frankly, I doubt that we could get an enthusiastic positive
response from ukha_d if we brought along Liz Hurley Naked handing out free
twenty pound notes.

Graham and Andy developed Homeautomator, which looked absoutely amazing:
and
got so little feedback that it was hardly worth their time. It didn't get
past the homevision only stage, and I think I now understand why.

You built the FiRM units, and got so little interest that, again, you were
asking whether there was any point in continuing. Why bother to develop for
people when they simply do not care?

Well, here's the deal kids:

The development that we spend our hobby time on is for *OUR* benefit,
because when it comes to developing for the list members here, the Silence
of Apathy is deafening.

If we happen to build something that's useful for someone else's HA
environment, that's great. We'll help install it, hell, we even give free
support. We have spent *hours* helping people setup software tools, and are
not looking for a brass bead in return.

On the other hand, If we don't have a key component that someone
desperately
needs for their evironment, well I'm sorry, but Tough.  All that someone
has
to do to to get custom tools built specifically for them, tested and
supported is open their damn mouth and say so.

If that's too much hassle, then I'm afraid I for one simply don't care
enough to come chasing.
</RANT>