Driver to drive?

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:1qtdj4lim5icg14p475ps2s5ch9kbro71s@4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:55:31 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

J.A. Legris wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:12 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyol...@NETTALLY.COM> wrote:

Only by idiots..
Ah,if you disagree,you are an idiot;Typical liberal stance.


Evidently a typical paranoid right-wing whack-job response too. Then
he shoots you.

--
Joe

Actually, I'd bet most shooters / violent criminals are liberals.

Seriously.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I think that's a given. Reason: Inadequacy breeds paranoia which, in
turn, breeds criminal behavior.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Liberals irrationality is the source of their paranoia.

They are the ones who claimed a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

(when in reality,it's a Vast LEFT-Wing Conspiracy.They've been saying for
many years that they intend to impose socialism thru disinformation and
socialist education in schools.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:493725E8.64890A94@hovnanian.com:

Jim Yanik wrote:

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrngj9f4k.h2l.don@manx.misty.com:

In article <Xns9B67EC6B175Ajyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87>, Jim Yanik
wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyolite@NETTALLY.COM> wrote in
news:4934a215$0$17061$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com:

krw wrote:
(snip)

I had to show my (unaltered, sealed) birth certificate last week to
get a drivers license.

So? Mine looks like a piece of crumbled trash from 54 years ago.
Still good, yet anyone could have forged it.

Why won't NObama show his to demonstrate he
has one of the qualifications to be President?

He has, you saw it.

then what hospital was he born at?
I would think that the hospital would be PROUD to claim that a
President was born there.And it doesn't reveal anything that would
threaten his privacy or identity.

(as if any crook would be dumb enough to try to use Obama's ID....)

I would think that if the hospital violated or even only arguably
violated any state, local or Federal law including any part of HIPPA
in verifying Obama's birth there, then I would expect the swiftboaters
to sue and prosecute (even if by private criminal complaint) to such
an extent as to *at least* cause a very expensive defense burden.

No law would be violated by a hospital saying Obama had been born there.


Have any hospitals where any previous US Presidents have been born
bragged about having Presidents born there?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)


what OTHER President's citizenship has been so questioned?
(and so publicly)

McCain's
Click to expand...
and McCain PROMPTLY released his birth certificate;A REAL BC.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:46:43 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:30:23 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:55:31 GMT, James Arthur wrote:

J.A. Legris wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:12 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyol...@NETTALLY.COM> wrote:
Only by idiots..
Ah,if you disagree,you are an idiot;Typical liberal stance.

Evidently a typical paranoid right-wing whack-job response too. Then
he shoots you.
Actually, I'd bet most shooters / violent criminals are liberals.

Seriously.
I think that's a given. Reason: Inadequacy breeds paranoia which, in
turn, breeds criminal behavior.

...Jim Thompson
Naw, what I said was from my impression of the
beliefs expressed by prison inmates, as well as
the ex-felon controversy from the 2000 election.



You don't think Liberals feel inadequate ?:)

I dunno.

Joe Legris said he thought paranoid right-wing whack-jobs
would shoot you.
Click to expand...
Shoot me? That'll be the day ;-)

So I was reacting to Joe's stereotype, not making a
comment about liberals in general--liberals do not
generally shoot people.

The rank-and-file guy who shoots you, though, the
common thug...generally espouses 'liberal' views,
AFAICT.


Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"Liberals" (aka leftist weenies) are very confused people.
Anyone they disagree with, they label as "moron".
Yet the truth is that the most moronic & gullible people in the
world are "liberals".

Clearly "liberal" is an oxymoron.
 
On 4 Dec 2008 00:52:44 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:493725E8.64890A94@hovnanian.com:

Jim Yanik wrote:

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrngj9f4k.h2l.don@manx.misty.com:

In article <Xns9B67EC6B175Ajyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87>, Jim Yanik
wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyolite@NETTALLY.COM> wrote in
news:4934a215$0$17061$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com:

krw wrote:
(snip)

I had to show my (unaltered, sealed) birth certificate last week to
get a drivers license.

So? Mine looks like a piece of crumbled trash from 54 years ago.
Still good, yet anyone could have forged it.

Why won't NObama show his to demonstrate he
has one of the qualifications to be President?

He has, you saw it.

then what hospital was he born at?
I would think that the hospital would be PROUD to claim that a
President was born there.And it doesn't reveal anything that would
threaten his privacy or identity.

(as if any crook would be dumb enough to try to use Obama's ID....)

I would think that if the hospital violated or even only arguably
violated any state, local or Federal law including any part of HIPPA
in verifying Obama's birth there, then I would expect the swiftboaters
to sue and prosecute (even if by private criminal complaint) to such
an extent as to *at least* cause a very expensive defense burden.

No law would be violated by a hospital saying Obama had been born there.


Have any hospitals where any previous US Presidents have been born
bragged about having Presidents born there?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)


what OTHER President's citizenship has been so questioned?
(and so publicly)

McCain's


and McCain PROMPTLY released his birth certificate;A REAL BC.
Click to expand...
Paul Hovnanian == Liberal Ignorance at its Finest/Well-Honed!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"Liberals" (aka leftist weenies) are very confused people.
Anyone they disagree with, they label as "moron".
Yet the truth is that the most moronic & gullible people in the
world are "liberals".

Clearly "liberal" is an oxymoron.
 
On Dec 3, 7:46 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:30:23 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:55:31 GMT, James Arthur wrote:

J.A. Legris wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:12 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyol...@NETTALLY.COM> wrote:
Only by idiots..
Ah,if you disagree,you are an idiot;Typical liberal stance.

Evidently a typical paranoid right-wing whack-job response too. Then
he shoots you.
Actually, I'd bet most shooters / violent criminals are liberals.

Seriously.
I think that's a given.  Reason: Inadequacy breeds paranoia which, in
turn, breeds criminal behavior.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
Naw, what I said was from my impression of the
beliefs expressed by prison inmates, as well as
the ex-felon controversy from the 2000 election.

You don't think Liberals feel inadequate ?:)

I dunno.

Joe Legris said he thought paranoid right-wing whack-jobs
would shoot you.

So I was reacting to Joe's stereotype, not making a
comment about liberals in general--liberals do not
generally shoot people.

The rank-and-file guy who shoots you, though, the
common thug...generally espouses 'liberal' views,
AFAICT.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Click to expand...
Ahem ... I was mocking Yanik's generalization on liberals. Both
characterizations are obviously ridiculous and unsupportable. You and
Thompson are debating pure fluff.

The discourse in these O.T. threads is appallingly crude - sometimes I
wonder if an aptitude for electronics design is actually some form of
intellectual deficit. Of course there are obvious exceptions, such as
Win Hill, but then he's smart enough to stay away most of the time.

--
Joe
 
On Oct 12, 8:14 pm, Micky <guu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
"academic degrees and honors".
Click to expand...
Why is it important that we see Obama's finger paintings? Because only
in this way can we see the thoughts of the young Obama before he
learns to cover them up. Is he a Muslim? Does he do drawings of
suicide bombers? Do they show the Kenyan flag flying?

And we won't accept copies! Only notarized, sealed originals!
 
J.A. Legris wrote:
On Dec 3, 7:46 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:30:23 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:55:31 GMT, James Arthur wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:12 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyol...@NETTALLY.COM> wrote:
Only by idiots..
Ah,if you disagree,you are an idiot;Typical liberal stance.
Evidently a typical paranoid right-wing whack-job response too. Then
he shoots you.
Actually, I'd bet most shooters / violent criminals are liberals.
Seriously.
I think that's a given. Reason: Inadequacy breeds paranoia which, in
turn, breeds criminal behavior.
...Jim Thompson
Naw, what I said was from my impression of the
beliefs expressed by prison inmates, as well as
the ex-felon controversy from the 2000 election.
You don't think Liberals feel inadequate ?:)
I dunno.

Joe Legris said he thought paranoid right-wing whack-jobs
would shoot you.

So I was reacting to Joe's stereotype, not making a
comment about liberals in general--liberals do not
generally shoot people.

The rank-and-file guy who shoots you, though, the
common thug...generally espouses 'liberal' views,
AFAICT.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Ahem ... I was mocking Yanik's generalization on liberals. Both
characterizations are obviously ridiculous and unsupportable. You and
Thompson are debating pure fluff.

The discourse in these O.T. threads is appallingly crude - sometimes I
wonder if an aptitude for electronics design is actually some form of
intellectual deficit. Of course there are obvious exceptions, such as
Win Hill, but then he's smart enough to stay away most of the time.

--
Joe
Click to expand...
Well then, much ado about nothing, yes?

Best wishes,
James Arthur
 
On 2008-12-03, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

The question is there,there IS reasonable doubt,and a simple declaration
from the hospital would solve it,WITHOUT revealing any personal
information.
Click to expand...
what planet are you from?

place of birth, by definition, is personal information.
 
On 2008-12-04, z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:14 pm, Micky <guu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
"academic degrees and honors".

Why is it important that we see Obama's finger paintings? Because only
in this way can we see the thoughts of the young Obama before he
learns to cover them up. Is he a Muslim? Does he do drawings of
suicide bombers? Do they show the Kenyan flag flying?

And we won't accept copies! Only notarized, sealed originals!
Click to expand...
That's bullshit too.

if you only accept originals you'll hvat to personally visit the
beaureu to see it, (if it has not been lost)

most people will accept notarised copies, or notarised transcripts
from the register etc.
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:46:43 +0000, James Arthur wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:30:23 GMT, James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net
wrote:

Naw, what I said was from my impression of the beliefs expressed by
prison inmates, as well as the ex-felon controversy from the 2000
election.

You don't think Liberals feel inadequate ?:)

Joe Legris said he thought paranoid right-wing whack-jobs would shoot you.

So I was reacting to Joe's stereotype, not making a comment about liberals
in general--liberals do not generally shoot people.

No, they have their Glorious Infallible Leader(s) do it for them.
Click to expand...

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:20 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Liberals irrationality is the source of their paranoia.
Click to expand...
That should be "liberals'".

They are the ones who claimed a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

(when in reality,it's a Vast LEFT-Wing Conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Geez! Do you even HEAR yourself?

BOTH extremes have abandoned their capacity for rational thought.
("If you're not one of US, then you're one of THEM, therefore, I
must kill you.")

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:29:51 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

place of birth, by definition, is personal information.
Click to expand...
Yeah. So, why is he so adamantly withholding it? You want some damn
foreigner running the country?

Thanks,
Rich
 
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:46:43 +0000, James Arthur wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:30:23 GMT, James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net
wrote:

Naw, what I said was from my impression of the beliefs expressed by
prison inmates, as well as the ex-felon controversy from the 2000
election.

You don't think Liberals feel inadequate ?:)
Joe Legris said he thought paranoid right-wing whack-jobs would shoot you.

So I was reacting to Joe's stereotype, not making a comment about liberals
in general--liberals do not generally shoot people.

No, they have their Glorious Infallible Leader(s) do it for them.

Cheers!
Rich
Click to expand...
What was it Bastiat said?

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus
the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their
acts would otherwise involve." --Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them
and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong.
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another
by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing
a crime." --ibid

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:49:35 -0800 (PST), Steve <ser511@hotmail.com>
wrote:

What specific gadget/s (as in the brand and model) can't you
currently
(seriously or humorously) leave your home without and please say why,
for anything named. It's fine if anything mentioned is primarily
cell
phone - mobile phone related, but it doesn't have to be.
Click to expand...
I don't need no stinkin' gadgets!
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:57:02 -0500, "asdf" <sadf@sdff.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me the format behind "Revision/Release" notation? For
example: Rev. 1.30.35; which is so common in software (and some hardware).
Is it an arbitrary system? I've tried searching for it, but come up empty
handed. I've been able to query on this:

IEEE standard taxonomy for software engineering standards

but, I keep coming up with sites that want me to pay for the article. Not to
mention the fact that the above article will have way more information that
I'm looking for. I can't think of what else to search on.

Any help?

Thanks,

Scott
Click to expand...
The 4.00.02b notation is crap, and I can't see any patterns in actual
use.

As engineers, we use revision letters for code and for hardware. A
piece of embedded firmware is 28E346 rev A; the next release is B. All
the source files are named in the same pattern... assembly source is
28E346A.MAC and the associated FPGA config file might be 28C346A.RBT.
The shippable binary might be 28E346A.ROM.

A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic
aerospace notation.

Before it defines a product, hardware and firmware documentation is
formally released to the company library, with a genuinely useful
README file, which library is where manufacturing always gets stuff
from. And it's all tested *before* it's released!

We also require that all software tools be identified, version
controlled, and released to the library too. So 10 years from now we
can run one batch file to regenerate the whole build, and know we'll
get exactly the same firmware, byte for byte.

John
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:57:02 -0500, "asdf" <sadf@sdff.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me the format behind "Revision/Release" notation? For
example: Rev. 1.30.35; which is so common in software (and some hardware).
Is it an arbitrary system? I've tried searching for it, but come up empty
handed. I've been able to query on this:

IEEE standard taxonomy for software engineering standards

but, I keep coming up with sites that want me to pay for the article. Not to
mention the fact that the above article will have way more information that
I'm looking for. I can't think of what else to search on.

Any help?

Thanks,

Scott




The 4.00.02b notation is crap, and I can't see any patterns in actual
use.

As engineers, we use revision letters for code and for hardware. A
piece of embedded firmware is 28E346 rev A; the next release is B. All
the source files are named in the same pattern... assembly source is
28E346A.MAC and the associated FPGA config file might be 28C346A.RBT.
The shippable binary might be 28E346A.ROM.

A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic
aerospace notation.
Click to expand...
Yep, same here.


Before it defines a product, hardware and firmware documentation is
formally released to the company library, with a genuinely useful
README file, which library is where manufacturing always gets stuff
from. And it's all tested *before* it's released!

We also require that all software tools be identified, version
controlled, and released to the library too. So 10 years from now we
can run one batch file to regenerate the whole build, and know we'll
get exactly the same firmware, byte for byte.
Click to expand...
Then make sure you never use any dongled SW because that could seriously
throw a wrench in there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:46:14 -0800, Joerg wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:57:02 -0500, "asdf" <sadf@sdff.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me the format behind "Revision/Release" notation? For
example: Rev. 1.30.35; which is so common in software (and some
hardware). Is it an arbitrary system? I've tried searching for it, but
come up empty handed. I've been able to query on this:

IEEE standard taxonomy for software engineering standards

but, I keep coming up with sites that want me to pay for the article.
Not to mention the fact that the above article will have way more
information that I'm looking for. I can't think of what else to search
on.

Any help?

Thanks,

Scott




The 4.00.02b notation is crap, and I can't see any patterns in actual
use.

As engineers, we use revision letters for code and for hardware. A
piece of embedded firmware is 28E346 rev A; the next release is B. All
the source files are named in the same pattern... assembly source is
28E346A.MAC and the associated FPGA config file might be 28C346A.RBT.
The shippable binary might be 28E346A.ROM.

A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic aerospace
notation.


Yep, same here.


Before it defines a product, hardware and firmware documentation is
formally released to the company library, with a genuinely useful
README file, which library is where manufacturing always gets stuff
from. And it's all tested *before* it's released!

We also require that all software tools be identified, version
controlled, and released to the library too. So 10 years from now we
can run one batch file to regenerate the whole build, and know we'll
get exactly the same firmware, byte for byte.


Then make sure you never use any dongled SW because that could seriously
throw a wrench in there.
Click to expand...
I try to be a nice guy, and one of the ways that I try to be a nice guy
is to be sensitive to those times when a vendor really doesn't want me to
be a customer. When a vendor starts throwing out subtle "we don't want
your business" clues, I do my best to find an alternate source, and allow
the grumpy vendor to go on with their business free of an risk of getting
my money.

Dongles are, IMHO, one way that a vendor screams "we don't want your
business, thank you".

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
 
Tim Wescott wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:46:14 -0800, Joerg wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:57:02 -0500, "asdf" <sadf@sdff.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me the format behind "Revision/Release" notation? For
example: Rev. 1.30.35; which is so common in software (and some
hardware). Is it an arbitrary system? I've tried searching for it, but
come up empty handed. I've been able to query on this:

IEEE standard taxonomy for software engineering standards

but, I keep coming up with sites that want me to pay for the article.
Not to mention the fact that the above article will have way more
information that I'm looking for. I can't think of what else to search
on.

Any help?

Thanks,

Scott




The 4.00.02b notation is crap, and I can't see any patterns in actual
use.

As engineers, we use revision letters for code and for hardware. A
piece of embedded firmware is 28E346 rev A; the next release is B. All
the source files are named in the same pattern... assembly source is
28E346A.MAC and the associated FPGA config file might be 28C346A.RBT.
The shippable binary might be 28E346A.ROM.

A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic aerospace
notation.


Yep, same here.


Before it defines a product, hardware and firmware documentation is
formally released to the company library, with a genuinely useful
README file, which library is where manufacturing always gets stuff
from. And it's all tested *before* it's released!

We also require that all software tools be identified, version
controlled, and released to the library too. So 10 years from now we
can run one batch file to regenerate the whole build, and know we'll
get exactly the same firmware, byte for byte.


Then make sure you never use any dongled SW because that could seriously
throw a wrench in there.

I try to be a nice guy, and one of the ways that I try to be a nice guy
is to be sensitive to those times when a vendor really doesn't want me to
be a customer. When a vendor starts throwing out subtle "we don't want
your business" clues, I do my best to find an alternate source, and allow
the grumpy vendor to go on with their business free of an risk of getting
my money.

Dongles are, IMHO, one way that a vendor screams "we don't want your
business, thank you".
Click to expand...
Complete agreement in this here office :)

I have never bought dongled SW in over 20 years. Not one.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic
aerospace notation.
Click to expand...
How do you define the difference between a "version" and a "revision"?

Are all version 3 products interchangeable, for example?

--

John Devereux
 
On Dec 7, 11:01 am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
A hardware top assembly could be 28A346-3B, where -3 is a version
(literally the "dash number") and B is the rev. This is basic
aerospace notation.

How do you define the difference between a "version" and a "revision"?
Click to expand...
I've seen a lot of different variations between industries, companies
within industries, etc. Sometimes you'll see it expressed as "VxRy"
or some variation that makes it a little easier to visualize.
Basically, there are 3 "levels" of change. The top level represents
basic, fundamental issues such as platform, core, basic features &
capabilities, etc. The next level might represent "secondary"
features, added to the primary ones at the top level. The 3rd level
would be changes based on problem corrections, that don't add any
particular feature or capability.

As an example, a company I used to work for used "V" numbers to define
the core processor & basic architecture generation of the system. V1
was the original, 8080-based system; V2 was 8086-based & fit the same
cabinets, but included some major changes to the inter-processor
communications & disk subsystems. V3 was a complete repackaging, with
upgrades to several subsystems but retention of the same CPU & inter-
processor comm. V4 was a consolidation & downsizing. V5 was another
complete repackaging with several upgrades to subsystems.

Within each Version 'x' were several revisions. Each revision level
introduced some new major features..Within each Revision 'y' were
potentially many lettered "Sub-revisions" that included bug fixes &
sometimes a new, minor feature. Sometimes, a R-level upgrade required
a corresponding hardware and/or firmware upgrade to go with it.

Are all version 3 products interchangeable, for example?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. In the above example, V2R05A & V3R05A would
represent identical levels of feature enhancements & bug fixes, but
due to the base hardware platform differences between V2 & V3, neither
would run on the other platform. Also, V3R07A might not be backward-
compatible with V3R05C due to an hardware/firmware change(s) somewhere
in the system, to accommodate features in R7 that weren't in R5.
Generally, with a VxRy there was universal compatibility (i.e. you
could go back & forth between V3R8x & V3R8y with no problem other than
the possible reintroduction of bugs; sometimes a subrelease to "fix"
one bug created another, creating a need to accept the lesser bug
temporarily & revert to a prior level). Different "V" levels may also
have different "R" levels as well. Sometimes, a bug appears entirely
due to the change in "top" level so there's no corresponding need to
"fix" it in a prior level, since it doesn't exist there. Also, prior
"top" levels may become obsolete, with both feature enhancements and/
or bug fixes suspended.

The 'xxx.yyy.zzz' notation might represent similar levels, such as
'xxx' = base platform, core feature set, etc.; 'yyy' = feature
additions; 'zzz' = bug fixes. Then again, it might not.

As with so many things, "it depends".

JM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top