Time to Upgrade ?:-}

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:13:30 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

I never liked "Occam's razor", but a definitely like 555's razor.
 
On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-08-15, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-08-11, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

That sounds like a sizeable bug in VirtualBox.

It's not really a VirtualBox issue. It's 64 bit Linux with 32 bit XP incompatibility.

I almost always use bridged networking rather than NAT in VirtualBox, so perhaps that's why I have no problems.

Then we can't have static IP.

??? bridged puts the virtual machine on rhe same network segment
as the host machine with an individual IP addresses, you can use
DHCP, autoconfiguration, or static allocation as you see fit.
NAT hides it on a virtual LAN behiond the host's IP address.


That's for bridging the VM interface to the PM.

That sounds like what I said. This feels like a terminology or
context mismatch. What do you mean by "Then we can't have static IP" above?

In our case, we have dual interfaces on the host PM.

The public interface is static. The private interface is 192.168.20.1
and the server VM bridged to it. The server VM is running XP with Sybase/SQL server. The host PM interfaces are iptables firewall/NAT/dnsmasqed.

Now, the problem has nothing to do with VM. Networked XPs on
192.168.20 subnet would time-out with or without any VM running on the
PM. Without consideration of VM, it's just a simple dual ported
router/server. I am sure someone has the same setup running, perhaps
with different hardwares/drivers.

We're running someting similar at work, the DHCP/router box has a 32-bit
kernel and runs isc-dhcp-server,

32 bit XPs on physical hardware or on virtualbox-linux (64 or 32 bit)
work fine. I have not tried a 64bit DHCP server.

We tried, but real XPs would time-out on 64 bit DHCP server.

Since it works fine for 32 bit, i am inclined to believe it is 64
bit hardware/driver problem.

I'd suspect a bug in the source, or an optimiser bug.

maybe all you need to do is install the 32 bit dhcpd, or one of the
other dhcp setvers. (udhcpd, dhcpd5, or one of newer ones)

How do you run 32 bit binary in 64 bit kernel?
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

snip

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

Not really. There's a distinction between "best" and "tolerable".

---
The "distinction" seems to be an irrelevant fabrication, in this case,
in that you can't post any hard evidence to refute my argument and
want, rather, to derail the discussion with your nonsense.
---

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.

Gilding the lily implies adding unnecessary features. Doing a more comprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gilding any lilies.

---
Gilding the lily means spoiling something that's already perfect by
presuming to make it "better", which would certainly include
unwarranted overoptimization.
---

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on.

Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.

More asses than workhorses.

---
You don't work, do you?
---

The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient
as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.

Rather like the US constitution, which is long past it's sell-by date, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on to better solutions.

---
You need to look up "red herring" and post facts, instead of
self-indulgent,irrelevant twaddle.
---

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that. :)

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

I see. You can't flesh out "some other way" so you revert to ad
hominem.

I can't be bothered fleshing out "some other way".

---
Sounds to me like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
---

The market has been doing that for some 25 years now, but legacy
designers are still doinbg what worked for them back in the 1970's.

---
Well, then, if that technology's been standing still for decades and
you've been keeping up with the times, it ought to be duck soup for
you to come up with at least something showing you know what you're
talking about, yes?
---

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

Nor did I say it was, my position being that one uses what's
appropriate for the work at hand, as opposed to using a silk purse
when a sow's ear would be good enough.

The 555 is hardly ever appropriate for the work in hand now, and hasn't been for some 25 years now.

---
Unless you can explain where a billion units a year are going, I'd
have to say that there's something seriously wrong with your
presumption to know what the work in hand is now.
---

which is that It's not inappropriate enough that you can't get away
with using it, and if you need to cheap-skate on design time,
doing what you did back in 1975 does save effort.

---
Having kept up and been in the trenches, I'm well aware of what's
available now and how to use it, and if I decide to use a 555 because
it fits an application perfectly, Then guess what...
---


As for the flint-knapping, I asked for an example backing up your
claim, not a competition.

We've been here before. It's not the kind of claim that needs backing up one more time.

---
Well, be that as it may, It'd be nice to see it backed up once in a
row.

John Fields
 
On 2015-08-15, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-08-11, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

That sounds like a sizeable bug in VirtualBox.

It's not really a VirtualBox issue. It's 64 bit Linux with 32 bit XP incompatibility.

I almost always use bridged networking rather than NAT in VirtualBox, so perhaps that's why I have no problems.

Then we can't have static IP.

??? bridged puts the virtual machine on rhe same network segment
as the host machine with an individual IP addresses, you can use
DHCP, autoconfiguration, or static allocation as you see fit.
NAT hides it on a virtual LAN behiond the host's IP address.


That's for bridging the VM interface to the PM.

That sounds like what I said. This feels like a terminology or
context mismatch. What do you mean by "Then we can't have static IP" above?

In our case, we have dual interfaces on the host PM.

The public interface is static. The private interface is 192.168.20.1
and the server VM bridged to it. The server VM is running XP with Sybase/SQL server. The host PM interfaces are iptables firewall/NAT/dnsmasqed.

Now, the problem has nothing to do with VM. Networked XPs on
192.168.20 subnet would time-out with or without any VM running on the
PM. Without consideration of VM, it's just a simple dual ported
router/server. I am sure someone has the same setup running, perhaps
with different hardwares/drivers.

We're running someting similar at work, the DHCP/router box has a 32-bit
kernel and runs isc-dhcp-server,

32 bit XPs on physical hardware or on virtualbox-linux (64 or 32 bit)
work fine. I have not tried a 64bit DHCP server.

Since it works fine for 32 bit, i am inclined to believe it is 64
bit hardware/driver problem.

I'd suspect a bug in the source, or an optimiser bug.

maybe all you need to do is install the 32 bit dhcpd, or one of the
other dhcp setvers. (udhcpd, dhcpd5, or one of newer ones)

last week I founsd a corner-case bug in a mailserver that's been there for
years and only seems to show up on 64 bit, or it could be compiler bug.
A couple of years back frabs was unplayable on debian stable (32 bit)
due to an optimiser bug which presented in the fast_atan2() code


--
\_(ツ)_
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:14:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

>Go away and get an education.

Fuck off and die, you retarded bastard.
 
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:04:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

So have a lot of other, REAL engineers, you retarded bastard.

As a janitor, and never having designed anything electronic in your
life, how would you know what real engineers do?

They are STILL used in a lot of "modern designs", you pathetic
cringing milksop.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian
Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US
constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided
some of them.

Right... Australia.... the place NOBODY but rich folks with masters
degrees are allowed to immigrate to.

Otherwise all one is permitted to do is be a tourist/visitor.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

As a janitor

Go away, janitor... You are not wanted, nor is your pathetic tripe
needed.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:04:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

So have a lot of other, REAL engineers, you retarded bastard.

As a janitor, and never having designed anything electronic in your
life, how would you know what real engineers do?


They are STILL used in a lot of "modern designs", you pathetic
cringing milksop.

A janitor, in my past, was an amazing fellow...

Mid '70's I'm working late night at ICE's office so I can use their
lab space.

Cleaning crew comes in to do their thing.

One of the janitors approaches me and says he has an idea for a
burglar alarm... would I be interested in assisting in the
development.

Turns out he's ex-con... so proficient at safe-cracking that he gives
lectures to the FBI >:-}

So, together, we develop a motion detector style system.

My favorite use of the 555...

<http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/NoiseBlank.pdf>


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 22:51:39 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

snip

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the
years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

Not really. There's a distinction between "best" and "tolerable".

The "distinction" seems to be an irrelevant fabrication, in this case,
in that you can't post any hard evidence to refute my argument and
want, rather, to derail the discussion with your nonsense.

Your claim is that the 555 isn't obsolescent. That isn't an argument, but rather a opinion. The hard evidence was posted here years ago, when most of the people who bothered to comment said that they'd not used a 555 for for years, and pretty much all the rest said that they'd used for quick and dirty solutions when they couldn't be bothered to find something better.

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.

Gilding the lily implies adding unnecessary features. Doing a more comprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gilding any lilies.

Gilding the lily means spoiling something that's already perfect by
presuming to make it "better", which would certainly include
unwarranted overoptimization.

The NE555 was never perfect -

---
Nor did I say it was.

My point, which you either missed or decided to trample, was that if a
555 is perfect for a given application - with due diligence paid to
the optimization required for the task - then overoptimization is
gilding the lily since it serves no useful purpose and is wasteful of
resources.

Is that an alien concept to you?
---
Hans Camenzind mentioned the thing he could have done better in his book
and it's stuck with a pathetic power transistor for doing the switching.

---
And had he not mentioned it, would you have been able to "fix" his
original design and hit the same performance, cost, and schduling
targets he had to meet? I think the answer to that question is a
resounding "NO!"

It's not a single power transistor, it's a totem pole which can source
and sink enough current to drive decent loads.

Or are you talking about the discharge transistor?
---

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on.

Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.

More asses than workhorses.

You don't work, do you?

I don't get paid.

---
Hmm...

I've always heard that one gets what one pays for.
---

The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as
efficient as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.

Rather like the US constitution, which is long past it's sell-by date, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on to better solutions.

You need to look up "red herring" and post facts, instead of
self-indulgent,irrelevant twaddle.

The self-indulgent twaddle is what's posted by people like James Arthur, who idolises the founding tax evaders, and claim that the US constitution is the peak of constitutional design, never subsequently equalled - when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided some of them. Sadly, it didn't go for proportional representation with the enthusiasm it should have, and the 1948 German constitution leaves it for dead.

---
Wow... A clumsy leap from technology into politics designed, no doubt,
to relieve you of the need to justify your earlier non-tenable
technical position and allow you to start afresh without admitting to
those who weren't watching your a priori failures.

Moreover, the Australian constitution is a fiction since it can be
revoked at any time the Queen sees fit,




The analogy with your enthusiasm for the 555 is striking.

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that. :)

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

I see. You can't flesh out "some other way" so you revert to ad
hominem.

I can't be bothered fleshing out "some other way".

Sounds to me like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm anything but stuck - I can use any component I like. There was a time when idiot managers would suggest that I might use the 555 for some job or other, and I'd have to set them straight, but those times are long past.

The market has been doing that for some 25 years now, but legacy
designers are still doing what worked for them back in the 1970's.

Well, then, if that technology's been standing still for decades and
you've been keeping up with the times, it ought to be duck soup for
you to come up with at least something showing you know what you're
talking about, yes?

Probably. However, I've pointed out here from time to time that the cheapest MOS power transistor is better than what you get in a 555, and the dimmest micro makes a better timer than the 555, and you never seem to get the message.

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

Nor did I say it was, my position being that one uses what's
appropriate for the work at hand, as opposed to using a silk purse
when a sow's ear would be good enough.

The 555 is hardly ever appropriate for the work in hand now, and hasn't been for some 25 years now.

Unless you can explain where a billion units a year are going, I'd
have to say that there's something seriously wrong with your
presumption to know what the work in hand is now.

As I keep on repeating, the billion units a year are going into legacy designs, and there are "legacy designers" around who thing that because the 555 was the answer to a maiden's prayer in 1971, it's still the obvious choice for similar sorts of jobs forty years later.

You seem to be one of them.

It's not inappropriate enough that you can't get away
with using it, and if you need to cheap-skate on design time,
doing what you did back in 1975 does save effort.

Having kept up and been in the trenches, I'm well aware of what's
available now and how to use it, and if I decide to use a 555 because
it fits an application perfectly, Then guess what...

It fits the application "perfectly" because it was what you used the last hundred times you did much the same job, and you can't be bothered thinking up a different solution.

As for the flint-knapping, I asked for an example backing up your
claim, not a competition.

We've been here before. It's not the kind of claim that needs backing up one more time.

Well, be that as it may, It'd be nice to see it backed up once in a
row.

"In a row"? You want a "row" of examples of non-uses of the 555?

I've spent my career not using it. Not intentionally - it came up once or twice, but was never good enough for the stuff I needed done at the time.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:02:57 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 22:51:39 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson

Folks gotta listen to master jimbo... he's the boss of this group.

Bwuahahahahahaahah! Right.

Must be the wine.

Remember "Used Cars"? Ol' JT is like the asshole brother Grandpa
hauled off to jail.... Roy L. Fuchs.

Except the JimmyTard can't box... Verbally or otherwise.
 
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 03:14:28 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian
Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US
constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided
some of them.

Right... Australia.... the place NOBODY but rich folks with masters
degrees are allowed to immigrate to.

Otherwise all one is permitted to do is be a tourist/visitor.

Not strictly accurate. Get on a board a boat and try to get in as an illegal immigrant and the current government gets very up-tight. There are a range of other options.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia

I certainly wasn't arguing that the current Australian constitution is perfect - in the way that some Americans claim that the US constitution is - and I'm not all that fond of the way Australian politics works. I'm not sure that a better constitution would improve that, since the current Australian education system has very obvious defects which saddle the country with crummier politicians than is entirely desirable.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney
 
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 05:03:04 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 22:51:39 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

<snip>

Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.

Gilding the lily implies adding unnecessary features. Doing a more comprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gilding any lilies.

Gilding the lily means spoiling something that's already perfect by
presuming to make it "better", which would certainly include
unwarranted overoptimization.

The NE555 was never perfect -

Nor did I say it was.

My point, which you either missed or decided to trample, was that if a
555 is perfect for a given application - with due diligence paid to
the optimization required for the task - then overoptimization is
gilding the lily since it serves no useful purpose and is wasteful of
resources.

This requires that the 555 be "perfect" for the application in the first place - which it hardly ever is.

> Is that an alien concept to you?

The alien concept is of the 555 being perfect for any purpose. I'm sure that if you slice and dice your applications sufficiently finely you will find one or two where the defects of the 555 don't matter much, but the reality is that it's mostly used where better solutions exist and the designer is too lazy impliment them or too ignorant to realise that they exist.

Hans Camenzind mentioned the thing he could have done better in his book
and it's stuck with a pathetic power transistor for doing the switching.

And had he not mentioned it, would you have been able to "fix" his
original design and hit the same performance, cost, and scheduling
targets he had to meet? I think the answer to that question is a
resounding "NO!"

Sure. It was a useful device at the time, largely because he managed to squeeze the function down to eight pins - a point he makes in his book. That time was 1971, a while ago now.

It's not a single power transistor, it's a totem pole which can source
and sink enough current to drive decent loads.

For a very wimpy value of "decent load".

> Or are you talking about the discharge transistor?

Obviously not.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more
horses to use them on.

Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.

More asses than workhorses.

You don't work, do you?

I don't get paid.

Hmm...

I've always heard that one gets what one pays for.

The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as
efficient as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.

Rather like the US constitution, which is long past it's sell-by date, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on to better solutions.

You need to look up "red herring" and post facts, instead of
self-indulgent,irrelevant twaddle.

The self-indulgent twaddle is what's posted by people like James Arthur, who idolises the founding tax evaders, and claim that the US constitution is the peak of constitutional design, never subsequently equalled - when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided some of them. Sadly, it didn't go for proportional representation with the enthusiasm it should have, and the 1948 German constitution leaves it for dead.

Wow... A clumsy leap from technology into politics designed, no doubt,
to relieve you of the need to justify your earlier non-tenable
technical position and allow you to start afresh without admitting to
those who weren't watching your a priori failures.

My position on the obsolescence of the 555 is up there with motherhood and apple pie. If it's a failure it's only because - as a cliche - it's a failure of originality.

Moreover, the Australian constitution is a fiction since it can be
revoked at any time the Queen sees fit,

Really? How interesting. The same sort of in-depth analysis that got you there would seem to be of the same kind that supports your use of the 555.

Do spell out how the Queen of England would revoke the Australian constitution, bearing in mind that her political power is limited to endorsing her - elected - government's choices, and - when that government loses the confidence of Parliament, inviting some MP to try and form a new government that could win a vote of confidence. It doesn't leave a lot of room for revoking the constitutions of other countries.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman
 
My point, which you either missed or decided to trample, was that if a
555 is perfect for a given application - with due diligence paid to
the optimization required for the task - then overoptimization is
gilding the lily since it serves no useful purpose and is wasteful of
resources.

This requires that the 555 be "perfect" for the application in the first place - which it hardly ever is.

---
Since you're not in a position to know all of the applications for
which a 555 is perfect, nor the situations determining what makes it
perfect for that application, you're really not in a position to make
that judgement call with any authority.
---

Is that an alien concept to you?

The alien concept is of the 555 being perfect for any purpose.

---
More sophistry.
---

I'm sure that if you slice and dice your applications sufficiently
finely you will find one or two where the defects of the 555 don't
matter much, but the reality is that it's mostly used where better
solutions exist and the designer is too lazy impliment them or too
ignorant to realise that they exist.

---
I believe that rather than ignorance ruling, pig-headed stubbornness
keeps some from using a 555 when it's the right part for the job.
---

Hans Camenzind mentioned the thing he could have done better in his book
and it's stuck with a pathetic power transistor for doing the switching.

And had he not mentioned it, would you have been able to "fix" his
original design and hit the same performance, cost, and scheduling
targets he had to meet? I think the answer to that question is a
resounding "NO!"

Sure. It was a useful device at the time, largely because he managed to squeeze the function down to eight pins - a point he makes in his book. That time was 1971, a while ago now.

---
And the device is still amazingly useful, as its astounding sales
show.
---

It's not a single power transistor, it's a totem pole which can source
and sink enough current to drive decent loads.

For a very wimpy value of "decent load".

---
So you'd advocate driving a tank to the grocery store to pick up a
dozen eggs?
---

Or are you talking about the discharge transistor?

Obviously not.

---
Not obvious at all since you wrote: "a pathetic power transistor"
which is, obviously, singular.


John Fields
 
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 18:39:52 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
My point, which you either missed or decided to trample, was that if a
555 is perfect for a given application - with due diligence paid to
the optimization required for the task - then overoptimization is
gilding the lily since it serves no useful purpose and is wasteful of
resources.

This requires that the 555 be "perfect" for the application in the first place - which it hardly ever is.

Since you're not in a position to know all of the applications for
which a 555 is perfect, nor the situations determining what makes it
perfect for that application, you're really not in a position to make
that judgement call with any authority.

That's a hoot. The 555 is a mediocre timer and an a pathetic NPN power switch on one package. It was good enough for a lot of applications back in 1971, but the competition got better rapidly.

Is that an alien concept to you?

The alien concept is of the 555 being perfect for any purpose.

More sophistry.

The sophistry is in the claim that the 555 is "perfect" for any purpose. You've got to be deludedly infatuated with the part to have made the claim in the first place.

I'm sure that if you slice and dice your applications sufficiently
finely you will find one or two where the defects of the 555 don't
matter much, but the reality is that it's mostly used where better
solutions exist and the designer is too lazy implement them or too
ignorant to realise that they exist.

I believe that rather than ignorance ruling, pig-headed stubbornness
keeps some from using a 555 when it's the right part for the job.

You would. It's the right part for vanishing few jobs, but some people have an exaggerated idea of virtues.

Hans Camenzind mentioned the thing he could have done better in his book
and it's stuck with a pathetic power transistor for doing the switching.

And had he not mentioned it, would you have been able to "fix" his
original design and hit the same performance, cost, and scheduling
targets he had to meet? I think the answer to that question is a
resounding "NO!"

Sure. It was a useful device at the time, largely because he managed to squeeze the function down to eight pins - a point he makes in his book. That time was 1971, a while ago now.

And the device is still amazingly useful, as its astounding sales
show.

The device is still being bought - which is sort of amazing when you realise how crummy it is - but less amazing when you see how many 741's are still being sold, which are at least as crummy.

It's not a single power transistor, it's a totem pole which can source
and sink enough current to drive decent loads.

For a very wimpy value of "decent load".

So you'd advocate driving a tank to the grocery store to pick up a
dozen eggs?

The 555 output can sink 10mA at 0.1V typ. 0.25V worst case. It can sink more current (and get hotter)if you can live with higher saturation voltages. There's a wide gap between that and any kind of "tank".

Or are you talking about the discharge transistor?

Obviously not.

Not obvious at all since you wrote: "a pathetic power transistor"
which is, obviously, singular.

In almost all application, it's the current sinking capacity that matters. The discharge transistor is only slightly more pathetic than NPN part of the output stage, but it is adequate for it's (more restricted) purpose.
Not that you will have let that inhibit your misplaced ingenuity..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:


As a janitor

Go away, janitor... You are not wanted, nor is your pathetic tripe
needed.

Answer the question, imbecile. Post a design of yours.
 
On 2015-08-15, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-08-15, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-08-11, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

That sounds like a sizeable bug in VirtualBox.

It's not really a VirtualBox issue. It's 64 bit Linux with 32 bit XP incompatibility.

I almost always use bridged networking rather than NAT in VirtualBox, so perhaps that's why I have no problems.

Then we can't have static IP.

??? bridged puts the virtual machine on rhe same network segment
as the host machine with an individual IP addresses, you can use
DHCP, autoconfiguration, or static allocation as you see fit.
NAT hides it on a virtual LAN behiond the host's IP address.


That's for bridging the VM interface to the PM.

That sounds like what I said. This feels like a terminology or
context mismatch. What do you mean by "Then we can't have static IP" above?

In our case, we have dual interfaces on the host PM.

The public interface is static. The private interface is 192.168.20.1
and the server VM bridged to it. The server VM is running XP with Sybase/SQL server. The host PM interfaces are iptables firewall/NAT/dnsmasqed.

Now, the problem has nothing to do with VM. Networked XPs on
192.168.20 subnet would time-out with or without any VM running on the
PM. Without consideration of VM, it's just a simple dual ported
router/server. I am sure someone has the same setup running, perhaps
with different hardwares/drivers.

We're running someting similar at work, the DHCP/router box has a 32-bit
kernel and runs isc-dhcp-server,

32 bit XPs on physical hardware or on virtualbox-linux (64 or 32 bit)
work fine. I have not tried a 64bit DHCP server.

We tried, but real XPs would time-out on 64 bit DHCP server.

Since it works fine for 32 bit, i am inclined to believe it is 64
bit hardware/driver problem.

I'd suspect a bug in the source, or an optimiser bug.

maybe all you need to do is install the 32 bit dhcpd, or one of the
other dhcp setvers. (udhcpd, dhcpd5, or one of newer ones)

How do you run 32 bit binary in 64 bit kernel?

I don't know the details, I just install them using the package
manaager, and they run. (I Think I did something one to enable "i386"
in somethig called "multiarch" which i beleive is debian specific.

--
\_(ツ)_
 
On 2015-08-16, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 03:14:28 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian
Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US
constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided
some of them.

Right... Australia.... the place NOBODY but rich folks with masters
degrees are allowed to immigrate to.

Otherwise all one is permitted to do is be a tourist/visitor.

Not strictly accurate. Get on a board a boat and try to get in as an
illegal immigrant and the current government gets very up-tight. There
are a range of other options.

I reckon they should named one of those immigrant detention centres
"Boundless Plains"

--
\_(ツ)_
 
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:


As a janitor

Go away, janitor... You are not wanted, nor is your pathetic tripe
needed.

Answer the question, imbecile. Post a design of yours.

Back in the seventies, they had "Janitor in a Drum".

You are "Janitor in a Newsgroup".
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top