Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 20:47 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:41e5r5lufg6o9dkttqtgjiaarsd18jpjb6(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" > <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >>100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >> >>Dave. > > What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a > computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to > perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. > Is buying a piece of equipment and modifying it yourself to use yourself without trying to profit from it at all a criminal act in the USA? Does that mean you can't put go faster stripes on your car if the manufacturer had a version that had a similar product? Remember there are no warranties with such a modified product, usually the disclaimer states any modification or tampering simply voids the warranty. As long as you don't directly profit from that modification e.g. by selling them on I can't see the problem. Software is another issue. With software you have a license to use not necessarily to own, and there may well be clauses that prohibit reverse engineering or using multiple installs, but these are clauses in a contract that are clearly stated at the time of purchase. Not so when buying things like scopes on eBay. > I have some sympathy for Rigol here. Many of our products have an > option that can be enabled in firmware, and that we charge for. We put > a lot of engineering effort into the firmware, and need to be paid for > it. If buyers of my gear can order the cheaper one and make it into > the expensive one, by copying an EPROM maybe, or setting a bit in > flash somewhere, I can't recover the cost of the feature. The act is > arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. > > Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP > is expensive. > > Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make > it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both > versions. I say! Sending encrypted packets over serial would be a good start. Also don't allow a simple hardware mod to allow switching between modes by bypassing any firmware change would be another. These are pretty basic mistakes, the only result is a potential hack and loss of revenue by not selling as many 100MHz versions. BTW this doesn't mean the users that have done this mod have deprived Rigol at all, they are now using a device that is now out of warranty and, more importantly, has no guarantee of performance. As long as they don't directly profit from that by reselling and claiming 100MHz operation I can't see how they have deprived anyone. > > I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital > filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies > than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a > few more. > > John >
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 21:47 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:38:08 +0100, "markp" <map.nospam(a)f2s.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:26i7r5t2l5ji2cra7k6r6cl0guvi5h2u0q(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:25:04 GMT, Swanny <swanny(a)nospam.org> wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >>>> <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >>>>> >>>>> Dave. >>>> >>>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to >>>> perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. >>>> >>> >>>So are all the overclockers in the USA in jail for depriving Intel of >>>revenue by not buying a higher grade CPU for more $? >> >> No. Overclocking is not illegal. >> >> John >> >But neither is hacking your own bought 50MHz scope. I can't see how your >views are consistent here. I'm not talking about "my views", I'm talking about the law. The US has a rather draconian anti-hack law, DCMA, and Dave et al may have conspired to violate it. Of course, he doesn't live here. My view is that it was a tasteless thing to do. John
From: George Jefferson on 31 Mar 2010 22:01 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:tco7r59okdp9d867t6rtq72678fco8lcl5(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:41:13 -0500, "George Jefferson" > <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >>> You can't know what their manufacturing procedures are. They may >>> select the better scopes to be the 100 MHz versions. >>> >>> John >> >>AND you can't be sure that they don't do anything more than just twiddle a >>bit, can you? You are sticking up for them as if you are 100% sure they >>did >>absolutely nothing wrong when all the evidence supports the opposite case. >>IMO they should have to prove they did nothing wrong which is quite >>simple. >>e.g., if you made inherently different performance versions of your >>product >>surely you can prove that they perform different? >> >>Your justifications only show that you fit in the same group as Rigol. I >>won't be buying anything from you and I hope your customers will find >>someone else to give their money to. >> > > My customers understand they they have to pay for firmware, because it > costs us money to develop. And they pay for extended temperature range > boards, and they pay for extended warranty, and they pay for BIST. We > offer them different things at different prices, and they have the > option to buy from anyone who makes them a better offer. I do expect > them to not hack my boards to steal our investment in firmware > development. They are professionals with ethics, and they don't. > Would you charge your customers for an update in firmware that just changed a version number but claimed to fix several bugs and improve performance? Well that's what Rigol is effectively doing and you are supporting them. So why do you expect me to believe that you are ethical? Of course no matter of your pleading to be believed to be ethical would convince me. All con artists attempt to deny their behavior and of other cons. A con artist wants everyone to believe they are legit and must also stick up for other cons so people don't "catch on". So you are against the hacking of the scope but not against them selling two identical models for two different prices under the false pretenses that they are truly different? Why are you against it? Simple! because the hacking revealed their improprieties. > I wouldn't sell to you, because you would. Of course you wouldn't... because you would be afraid I would find similar unethical behavior in your own products. There is nothing you can say to me that will change my attitude towards you. I have seen other posts where you mention such unethical business practices. Maybe they were jokes but if you are ethical then you would understand and be glad of my skepticism since it is the only way to keep those that are unethical honest.
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 22:30 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:nku7r5tgj010iq3r1l7roo0l8hjsl99a25(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:38:08 +0100, "markp" <map.nospam(a)f2s.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:26i7r5t2l5ji2cra7k6r6cl0guvi5h2u0q(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:25:04 GMT, Swanny <swanny(a)nospam.org> wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >>>>> <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into >>>>>> a >>>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave. >>>>> >>>>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>>>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to >>>>> perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>>So are all the overclockers in the USA in jail for depriving Intel of >>>>revenue by not buying a higher grade CPU for more $? >>> >>> No. Overclocking is not illegal. >>> >>> John >>> >>But neither is hacking your own bought 50MHz scope. I can't see how your >>views are consistent here. > > I'm not talking about "my views", I'm talking about the law. The US > has a rather draconian anti-hack law, DCMA, and Dave et al may have > conspired to violate it. Of course, he doesn't live here. > > My view is that it was a tasteless thing to do. > > John The key word is *may*. I don't believe any law has been broken because in reality anyone who mods something would not be breaking the law as such unless the reason is to defraud. However, what they get after the hack is not guaranteed to work. It's an unofficial hack, no guarantees it'll be stable or anything else. Furthermore if no EULA is signed, no agreement is made not to modify or reverse engineer for personal use, no attempt is made to sell or pass it off as a 100MHz scope, there can be no attempt to defraud. They are not doing anything but using the hardware they were sold and running it 'out of spec', and for no financial gain. The argument comes down to you thinking this is 'tasteless'. But presumably you think that overclocking ADCs beyond their rated spec, not buying proper rated parts and flogging that as a guaranteed working product is OK because that's 'not illegal'? I find your position somewhat un-tenable. Mark.
From: terryc on 31 Mar 2010 22:53
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it > deprives the IP owner of revenue. There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). |