john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (03/13/89)
In article <2140@cpoint.UUCP> die@cpoint.UUCP (David I. Emery) writes: > > I have been personally bequethed a broken Data Products LZR-1230 laser .......> > I have called Data Products up in an attempt to obtain >a schematic and was told "we don't release schematics to our distributors >or field service people any more and won't even consider selling them to you... >a mere customer. If you want the printer fixed you'd better pay us to >fix it ..." ( They do offer a board-changers-troubleshooting guide for $125 >with no schematics or detailed technical information) > [rest of a very good article about proprietary hardware deleted] > David I. Emery Clearpoint Research Corp. > 99 South Street, Hopkinton Ma. 01748 1-508-435-2000 > {decvax, cybvax0, mirror}!frog!cpoint!die Dave, I've been fighting the same problem for years. It is very seldom that I would attempt to fix hardware at a component level but detailed schematics and tech documentation allow me and my employees gain a more thorough understanding of the features and limitations of a piece of hardware. For instance, if I see that a serial port driver has been hooked to +- 5 volts to same money instead of the normal +-12, I know that a) the 5 volts I see on my meter is normal and b) don't expect to drive long cables with the device. Manufacturers seem to think that denying this information to users somehow protects proprietary designs. The truth of the matter is withholding tech information is almost irrelevant to those with the incentive to copy the technology. It's kinda like gun control - the only ones affected are the good guys. The only real way to fight this problem is with the allmighty Buck. I refuse to buy any equipment for which I cannot obtain technical documentation. When I have to decline a purchase, I make sure the proper people in the company know why they lost the sale and how much potential business they are loosing. About the only exception I make to this policy is in buying no-name PC-clone boards which are usually functionally equivilent to the documented IBM version. These boards are throw-aways so repair never enters the equation. In this wonderful world of competition, there is almost always someone who makes the same product who IS attuned to its customers and users. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
rrw@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) (03/14/89)
> In article <2140@cpoint.UUCP> die@cpoint.UUCP (David I. Emery) writes: >> >> I have been personally bequethed a broken Data Products LZR-1230 laser > .......> >> I have called Data Products up in an attempt to obtain >>a schematic and was told "we don't release schematics to our distributors >>or field service people any more and won't even consider selling them to you... >>a mere customer. If you want the printer fixed you'd better pay us to >>fix it ..." ( They do offer a board-changers-troubleshooting guide for $125 >>with no schematics or detailed technical information) About 13 years ago, I was a graduate student and would occasionally write articles for BYTE and some of the other computer mags. Since this was when personal computers (then called "home computers") were JUST getting started, there was a lack of I/O devices, particulary graphics devices. At that time, Fairchild introduced their "Channel F" video game which unlike previously available games had a cartridge which looked like an 8-track tape cartridge, but contained some type of electronics, which I assumed to be ROM, plus maybe some type of peripheral chip. ( I can't remember if the Atari system was out at that point or not). It occurred to me that if some type of plug-in interface could be made up using the cartridge slot, then any of the small computers of the day (I was using a SWTPCO 6800 system) could have a graphics output facility. If I could get something going, then I could write an article for one of the magainzes. Well, I called Fairchild, and it was obvious that they were not prepared for this type of request for technical information. After being shuffled from one department to the next, I was finally refered to a company, who had actually developed the system, which Fairchild was marketing. I contacted the original company, and was informed that since they were the "market leader" and had the "foremost position" in the video game industry that they were not prepared to release any technical information (especially to a mere graduate student, I inferred). I was gratified a short time later to see the "Channel F" system being sold for scrap parts by mail order surplus electronics places. - Bob Wier College of Engineering Flagstaff, Arizona Northern Arizona University ...arizona!naucse!rrw | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*
ddl@husc6.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) (03/15/89)
In article <1204@naucse.UUCP>, rrw@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) writes: > At that time, Fairchild introduced their "Channel F" video game which > unlike previously available games had a cartridge which looked like > an 8-track tape cartridge, but contained some type of electronics, > which I assumed to be ROM, plus maybe some type of peripheral chip. Funny thing--I also asked for (and got!) the schematics for that game. This was when it first came out, before they changed the name to "Channel F." (It was simply The Fairchild Video Entertainment System or somesuch.) It used an F8 processor and didn't look very hackable, though... Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (03/16/89)
I can think of quite a few reasons why a manufacturer would want to restrict the desimination of tech info, some of the good...some of them not so good. For example: They want to maintain proprietary rights to the info. They don't want competetors looking at it (see above). They don't want people modifying the design (or just screwing it up) and then turning to the company to fix it (or get sued because an end-user modification caused someone harm). They want to be able to modify the design without all that nifty tech info in the field being obsolete. They don't want Joe Hacker-wanna-be cracking it open and, say, playing with the power supply (hey, I got the schematics) and then having Jane Hacker-wanna-be sue because hubby bar-b-queued himself (yes, this stuff HAPPENS!). Servicemen don't like things changed. Lots of money can be made by repairing things at the factory. I could go on, but you get the idea. The idea of a Free Hardware Foundation is the only realistic way out, for the simple reason that you can disavow any legal responsability for the hardware and you don't have to worry about servicing. I like the idea of a FHF. Some friends and I have been discussing a 'public-domain workstation', a higher-end machine whose design is freely availible for anyone to build (look a the GNU license). The idea is to run the GNU kernal when and if it ever becomes availible. Then (theoreticly), you could build a workstation for cost of parts and time. We have evaluated several approaches to this design. Comments? ...ken seefried iii ken@gatech.edu
fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) (03/18/89)
> Xref: mcvax sci.electronics:4701 comp.periphs:1376 > I can think of quite a few reasons why a manufacturer would want to > restrict the desimination of tech info > They don't want competetors looking at it (see above). Competitors do reverse engineering (and so do we end users when we really want to know what's wrong with that box and the vendor does't want to help or just went broke). > They don't want people modifying the design (or just screwing > it up) and then turning to the company to fix it (or get sued > because an end-user modification caused someone harm). and this is the only valuable reason I can imagine if a company doesn't supply schematics. > Lots of money can be made by repairing things at the factory. So could YOU earn a lot of money when you had the schematics and an independent service company. > I like the idea of a FHF. Some friends and I have been discussing a > 'public-domain workstation', a higher-end machine whose design is > freely availible for anyone to build (look a the GNU license). For quite some time there was a vivid discussion about this in comp.sys.nsc.32k around a machine built upon the National semiconductor 32xxx chip set and as far as I recall complete systems but also designs where offered under what you can call FHF. fmr@cwi.nl -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? Maintainer's Motto: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke. These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.