Re: Switching audio via an Ocelot and SECU's

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

In defense of ADI, most of their personnel are engineers. Some got drafted
to do the documentation and set up the forum. It's really outside their
skillset. And the HA market is much, much smaller than all the sturm und
drang in CHA might lead one to believe.

Also, running a forum on a company server requires some real expertise to
avoid security issues. One "security expert" who spews BS here frequently
runs a system that's wide open to exploitation and hasn't the foggiest
glimmer of what he's risking. ;)

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:6csEf.909$fM1.140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:fuqdnd-k3fvHgH_eRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> >
>> > I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS
>> and
>> > they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!!
>That's
>> > *not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware
>> from.
>> > "We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the
>attitude
>> > such I read from poor website design.  From what I managed to glean from
>> > Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started
>> his
>> > own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
>> > apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their
>job
>> > for them.  No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.
>>
>> I have to jump in here to defend ADI.  Being a wizard on imbedded system
>> design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA.  They are different
>> skills.  And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
>> hardware designing my automation equipment.
>
>C'mon Jeff, you don't have to a wizard to know there are serious, serious
>problems with the ADI site.  Part of being a good manager is to *find* the
>people with the skills you lack to perform quality work that you can't do,
>but that *should* be done.  I really feel as if I have to pull teeth to get
>to information buried in the forum.  A company's website projects its
>corporate image - that's just how it is - it's not my interpretation.  If a
>company's website is full of warts, it just *has* to make a logical person
>stop, think, and worry about overall quality issues.
>
>> Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches.  That is expected
>of
>> industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
>> People here talk about X10 not being reliable.  I would never trust my
>> automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
>> complicated than DOS.
>
>I'd use Linux on a MiniITX with a fanless 1GHz CPU, ethernet, video, audio,
>USB, 256MB of memory, Firewire, serial and parallel ports and it would cost
>me *less* than one Ocelot and one SECU or Bobcat module.   It would likely
>take up the same amount of cabinet space, too.  But it would be infinitely
>more capable.  What happens when you run out of memory on the Ocelot?  Can
>you snap in another 1GB?
>
>Then there's C-MAX,  It's a natural language for microcoders like you and
>Dave but it's just plain bizarre to anyone like me who was taught structured
>and modular programming.  So, to use an Ocelot I need to learn a new
>webforum tool, a new programming language unlike any I have ever dealt with
>and work around frustrating limitations in I/O and RF connectivity.  With a
>major player leaving like Dan Boone leaving, a website with a homepage
>invitation to a *2005* conference, a hard to search, hard to use forum and a
>*unique* programming language, Ocelot's fading fast as a serious candidate
>for running my new home for the next 20 years.  It's also a PITA to have to
>search for Ocelot or Leopard information because 99% of such search words
>lead to cats.  There's lots and lots of discussion of the VIA Eden MiniITX
>boxes:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=via+eden&sa=N&tab=wg
>
>in lots of different conferences.  It's a vibrant, growing product and there
>are dozens of websites devoted to some really creative uses of the product.
>Sadly many of these apps can't run via Ocelot, they are really too complex.
>Maybe the ADI site and the "feline" product line is moribund because the
>handwriting is already on the wall.  Fanless, low-power CPU PC's running
>Linux from a compact flash card are the future for HA embedded controllers.
>
>Then there's the issues of spares.  If I carried on-site spares for my
>Ocelot system I'd have a box of extra and expensive HW doing nothing.  A
>spare for a MiniITX box is a working computer that can be earning its keep
>running tests while still serving as a spare for the HA server.
>
>I haven't punched all the factors into my Multiple Attribute Decision
>Modeling software, <g> but it's becoming more and more clear that a mini PC
>is the way for *me* to go, especially now that they have so many I/O ports
>embedded on the motherboard.  I can store data from transponders which the
>Ocelot won't easily allow, I can hook in digital capture boards, use large
>touchscreen monitors, incorporate talking caller ID, MUX switching via
>serial port, IR I/O via the printer port.  For HA purposes Dave's BXAHT was
>the missing link for me.  While I would have to work it over hard to talk to
>an Ocelot the way I wanted, it can talk to a PC serial port just fine!  The
>execution speed of a 1 GHz PC running from a CF card should be quite fast
>enough for most apps!
>
>Will a mini PC crash more than an Ocelot?  Absolutely.  But if you run the
>right OS, modern PCs are really far more reliable now than they ever were.
>Can it do more than the Ocelot?  Absolutely.  Given that they cost the same
>now, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make.   It's a tradeoff I feel I *have*
>to make because I sense a wilting of ADI's commitment to the Ocelot world.
>I've been orphaned more than once my manufacturers big and small.  It's not
>a pleasant position.
>
>A mini PC can support real-time video using a USB LCD touch screen for less
>than the cost of a Leopard.  It may be that we've reached the "tipping
>point" for microcontrollers in that price range.