opinion on Willem programmer?

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On May 7, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Ray Newman wrote:
> But the key word in my mind of what I do first is "design"
> BUT
> job searching keyword  "design", is drafting
>
> what is the proper terminology?

"Design Engineering" ?

(That's what's on the magazine subscription forms.)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Vasile Surducan-2]

On 5/7/08, SM Ling <sm.ling11@...> wrote:
> Usage: non production need, general R&D, repair and hacking purposes.
> Comments?
>
> Cheers, Ling SM

Pickit2 is so inexpensive than haking (very easy) is not worth a dime.
If you have available a serial port, then two-three transistors and
one MAX232 is enough for a proffesional prototyping programmer
supplied from the target board with only 5V.
An excellent upgradable free software is winpic.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Ray Newman-2]

>>

> Let's see if I remember my management mindset.
>
> It doesn't have your name on it!
>
> I find the resume poor at describing your SKILLS.  Owner/designer/
> manager is pretty ambiguous.  How big are these companies?  Did you
> design circuits?  Did you write code?  Did you write specs for an
> offshore team of coders to implement on reference-design hardware?
> Which Microcontroller/Microprocessors?  What languages?  What
> design tools? Which foreign languages did you communicate in?
> About the only thing recent that you mention specifically is
> dealing with injection molding companies, which I don't think is
> the job you're aiming for.
> Pick a recent project or two that are relatively recent and not too
> restricted under NDA, and describe what you did in more detail.
> LOTS more detail.

That makes sense, so I will have to make up different resumes for each field.
It come down to that I have no clue of how to search for each field.


>
>> Introduced CMOS, logic, and microprocessors to the motor control
>> industry.
>> Introduced microprocessors into the industrial automation control
>> industry.
>>
> Broad claims, without published papers, books, or presentations to
> back it up?

NO!
Had letters from Intel and RCA from back then but have long lost.
Same with brochures from same period that are lost.

> You could say "designed the first microprocessor controlled motor
> thingee implemented at company xxx" without raising as many
> eyebrows.
thanks
>
>> Developed products that became industry standard
> Such as?

Ah' that was generated by my resume writer.
Copied but not sure if standard.
Thanks,

>
> Someone all ready mentioned HR departments.  Your resume is also
> "keyword poor" WRT getting past HR screeners.  That should get
> better as you address the previous paragraphs, but keep it in mind
> elsewhere.  "Electronic Circuit Design for ...", "Firmware",
> "Software engineering", "MPLAB", "C language."  (I'm not so
> familiar with the areas you have worked in, but presumably there
> are relevant keywords there as well; specific home automation
> protocols, perhaps? Echelon, X10, RS232, etc?)
thanks
>
> You might want to have two resumes.  One for when you're applying
> for manufacturing engineering/management jobs, and another for
> design/ development engineering.  The current resume is a bit
> confused; the top paragraph mentions a LOT of manufacturing
> management stuff, and de-emphasizes "design" (one whole word!)  But
> a lot of the rest of the resume talks about things you designed...
>
Thanks

>
>> my last 4 companies over the past 20 years where purchased by the
>> Chinese
>
>
> Hmm.  If you don't mind my asking, how is it that you sold a
> company (or two) that you owned, and aren't set to retire?  Aren't
> you doing things backwards?  You've owned your own company since
> shortly after you graduated, and now you want a regular job?
> Shouldn't you be getting tired of your regular job and be
> interested in semi- retirement to a self-owned consulting business?

Companies I consulted and or manufactured for.
Not my companies.

I was never a good business manager for myself.
I was getting so good at offshore manufacturing I started to give away  designs to get the manufacturing rights.
This was back in the early 1990's
Turns out customer were just using me for testing the market.
Also purchased a large inventory for Solar Drapes (5-8 years ahead of their time) but they went belly up because
the big window covering manufactures felt nobody really needed a remote controlled window covering!
I had to go bankrupt and have not recovered since.

At least 7 companies on this list:
http://www.nortek-inc.com/companys.htm
where my customers.

Some say Nortek is not Chinese but that is not what I was told by these companies.

Thanks for the help.
Ray



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Ray Newman-2]

It comes down to it is a badly written resume.
I was ALWAYS bad at technical writing.
Same with documentation after I design something.
I paid over $500 to a local resume writer.
She just moved things around and improved the language.

Thanks for all the information.
Ray


On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:27:26 -0700, Chops\ wrote:

>
> On May 7, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Ray Newman wrote:
>
>> But the key word in my mind of what I do first is "design" BUT
>> job searching keyword  "design", is drafting
>>
>> what is the proper terminology?
>>
> "Design Engineering" ?
>
> (That's what's on the magazine subscription forms.)
>
> BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Mark Rages]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Martin <martin@...> wrote:

> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>  > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Martin <martin@...> wrote:
>  >> The USBProg is "open source" in the sense that the schematic is
>  >> available, as is the firmware and host-side protocol:
>  >> <http://www.embedinc.com/products/usbprog/index.htm>
>  >> It's not an open-source license but I'd bet that you can't find a better
>  >> programmer for 80 USD.
>  >> -
>  >
>  > Better is subjective. To me PICkit 2 at US$35 is better than
>  > USBprog since it supports more PICs. It even supports PIC32 that
>  > I am now experimenting with.
>  >
>  > Yes USBprog solved one problem for PICKit 2 (USB port voltage
>  > can be low) so it is better in a way.
>  >
>  > Xiaofan
>
>
>  I said $80, the PICkit is $35 ;)
>  The USBprog can write/verify at different voltages, Olin gives out the
>  host source code, that makes it a better programmer by my standard (yes
>  it's subjective... etc etc etc)
>

PICkit 2 can write and verify at different voltages, but not at
voltages greater than the USB voltage.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages@...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Mark Rages]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@...> wrote:

> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>  > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the
>  > license limit.
>
>  That's quite unfair.  Just about all "open" software has some usage
>  limitation.  People seem to consider GPL source "open", although its
>  restrictions can be rather onerous in some cases.  My restrictions are
>  different, but the important point is the code is open for all to see.  If
>  you require that "open" also means totally free to use for whatever you want
>  in any way you want, then most of what is commonly referred to as "open"
>  isn't, including everything from the Open Software Foundation.

Your last sentence is incorrect.

Freedom 0 is the freedom to use the software for any purpose.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages@...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@...> wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the
> > license limit.
>
> That's quite unfair.  Just about all "open" software has some usage
> limitation.

I based on the popular definition of "open source".

> People seem to consider GPL source "open", although its
> restrictions can be rather onerous in some cases.

Agreed. Personally I believe Modified BSD license is actually
more "free" even according to FSF's meaning of "free".

**********************************************************************
Quoting:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
"Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms
that every user should have:

the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
the freedom to share the changes you make.
When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free software."
************************************************************************

To me GPL does not meet the 3rd condition of free. But in practical,
GPL is more successful than BSD (but BSD is also very successful)
and thus it is good to me as well.

> My restrictions are
> different, but the important point is the code is open for all to see.  If
> you require that "open" also means totally free to use for whatever you want
> in any way you want, then most of what is commonly referred to as "open"
> isn't, including everything from the Open Software Foundation.

You restriction is perfectly ok to me. I am a pracgmatist. I am not a
Linux fan boy or a GPL fan boy.

> If your goal is to make your own firmware for a USBProg, then my copyright
> doesn't stop you.  Note that you could even sell your modified code without
> having to disclose the source, which is something you couldn't do with GPL
> code.

No I do not have a USBprog and I have no plan with it. I was interested in
your USB firmware framework since it has some features that Microchip's
did not have. I still have some interests but less now that Microchip's USB
firmware is getting better.

> > It is also not easy to hack as well.
>
> Sure it is.  The source code and build scripts are all there.
> What exactly did you find "not easy to hack"?  Did you even try or look at
> the source code?  I'm generally willing to help people with it.

Yes I am looking at it but with low priority. I am more at home
with C18 than assembly.

>
> > EasyProg's source
> > codes have been available for years and nobody has even write the
> > host software for it under Linux. The EmbedInc programming
> > specification
> > is also available long ago and only one very old attempt was made to
> > use it with Wisp628 (http://www.philpem.me.uk/elec/pic/easyisp/).
>
> And this is the fault of the code or the specification how exactly?

No, it is not your fault. I just want to tell Alan Pearce that by
having the source and specification does not mean someone
can easily hack the things.

> I think this mostly points out that open source is overrated.  Far too many
> people make a big deal about whether code is open or not, but in the end
> most people just want to get their job done and not have to screw with their
> tools to do so.

I actually agree with you on the programmer part. It is a tool. It
is no fun reading the programming specifications. So it is better
to leave the jobs to experts like you.

I always recommend people to buy a proper programmer like
PICkit 2 and not mess with those simple programmers like
JDM or whatever it is called.

> However, I recognize that a small few do want to hack the
> code, so I've made it available and am even willing to help.  What more
> exactly do you want?

No more. I think your offering is very reasonable and good enough
for that small few. But I am just thinking that "small few" is
almost "zero" now.

 > > And hacking a programmer is actually difficult for PICs. Even though
> > PICkit 2's source codes are available, it is not really that easy to
> > understand it thanks to the complexity of Microchip programming
> > specifications.
>
> Yes, the programming specifications are complex, and you shouldn't expect to
> understand code that implements them without understanding the
> specifications.  However, have you looked at my code?  I think you will find
> its documentation to be above all others.

I agree. But it is still complicated. I am more interested in the USB
part and not the programmer part.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

What kind of job do you want ?
Office, tele-commute or both ?
How many hours ?
How much do you want to make an hour ?
cc

>
> On May 7, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Ray Newman wrote:
>
> Interesting.
> Thanks,
> Ray
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 20:06 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.Pearce@...> wrote:
> > >Is there another open source programmer around?  or better one with USB
> > >support?
> >
> > Well Olin recently made his USB programmer source open for download, so if
> > there is a specific requirement you have, then that would be eminently
> > hackable.
> >
>
> Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the
> license limit.

Umm, sorry Xiaofan, but I think you are confusing terms. AFAIK, Olin has
released the source (which is ALWAYS appreciated in my world), and
allowed people to "play" with it for their own uses. By pretty much ANY
definition I can think of this is "open source".

Open source doesn't mean "free". Have a read of the GPL license (which
much of what is open source uses), it's pretty restrictive in certain
ways, not much less so then what Olin has stipulated.

> It is also not easy to hack as well.

That of course is your opinion. That said, have you ever actually looked
at some "open source" code out there? It's often VERY confusing to
decipher, made more so by the fact that it's rarely commented.

I haven't looked at Olin's code, but I would bet at least a donut that
it is VERY well documented. That alone makes it miles better then much
of what's open source. As for program structure, I'm sure some of the
"not niceness" is due way more to the insanity that is the MChip
programming specs then it is Olin's coding style.

On this topic I will say: way to go Olin. TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[SM Ling]

>  > > >Is there another open source programmer around?  or better one with USB
>  > > >support?
>  > >
>  > > Well Olin recently made his USB programmer source open for download, so if
>  > > there is a specific requirement you have, then that would be eminently
>  > > hackable.
>  > >
>  >
>  > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the
>  > license limit.

If we the focus on "catching rat" than the color of cat shall become
less important.  IMHO both pickits 2 and Olin's programmer are pretty
good cats.  If Olin's programmer can also ride on pickit 2 software
then it maybe a marriage match-in-heaven.

Lacking is one that can also do parallel devices which is in the same class.

Cheers, Ling SM
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On 5/8/08, Herbert Graf <mailinglist4@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 20:06 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the
> > license limit.
>
> Umm, sorry Xiaofan, but I think you are confusing terms. AFAIK, Olin has
> released the source (which is ALWAYS appreciated in my world), and
> allowed people to "play" with it for their own uses. By pretty much ANY
> definition I can think of this is "open source".
>
> Open source doesn't mean "free". Have a read of the GPL license (which
> much of what is open source uses), it's pretty restrictive in certain
> ways, not much less so then what Olin has stipulated.
>

Just read my reply to Olin and you will know I was just talking
based on the popular definition of "open source".

I have no problems with Olin's license. It is good and fair enough.
Just like PICkit 2's license. It is fair enough for the license holder
to apply whatever license they like.

And for those open source license, I like GPL the least in
terms of "free" and I like modified BSD much better
than GPL. But in reality, Linux is better than FreeBSD
in many aspects. So GPL is very good to me as well.

I really do not care about license. I am also OS
neutral. I am not a Linux fan boy. I am not a
GPL fan boy. I am not a Microsoft apologist either
as described by Bob Blick at one time.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On 5/8/08, SM Ling <sm.ling11@...> wrote:
> If we the focus on "catching rat" than the color of cat shall become
> less important.

I agree. I do not really care about the color of cats. But
modern cats do not really catch rats, at least in Singapore.
I've seen a cat ran away when seeing a big rat. ;-)

> IMHO both pickits 2 and Olin's programmer are pretty
> good cats.

Agreed.

> If Olin's programmer can also ride on pickit 2 software
> then it maybe a marriage match-in-heaven.

That is a bit strange suggestion and I think Olin will not
agree. Olin's software is good enough as far as I tried
last time.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan B. Pearce]

>No, it is not your fault. I just want to tell Alan Pearce that
>by having the source and specification does not mean someone
>can easily hack the things.

But it does make it considerably easier - especially when you can determine
the original programmers intent by the comments in the code, and Olins code
is always well commented ...

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On 5/8/08, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.Pearce@...> wrote:
> >No, it is not your fault. I just want to tell Alan Pearce that
> >by having the source and specification does not mean someone
> >can easily hack the things.
>
> But it does make it considerably easier - especially when you can determine
> the original programmers intent by the comments in the code, and Olins code
> is always well commented ...

And yet how many people are using his assembly based firmware
framework even though it is supposed to be better?

At least for me I would not want to use assembly for the things I
am interested now (USB, TCPIP, etc), even with Olin's "high level"
assembly. C18 is way easier.

I know and I have learned quite some assembly. I know
and I highly respect experts like Olin who can make assembly
working wonderfully. And there are even people who insisted on
using assmbly even with very complex projects.
http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=336190

But I would not want to waste the time to perfect
my assembly skills.

Xiaofan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I agree. But it is still complicated. I am more interested in the USB
> part and not the programmer part.

Is this for personal or commercial purposes?  If personal, then I'm not
trying to get in your way.  If you want to do something for personal use
that my copyright prevents, let me know and there's a good chance I can give
you explicit permission.

Basically I don't want to stop anyone that just wants to play around with
USB or make a USB device for their own use.  I don't even want to stop
someone from evaluating the USB framework to determine whether it is
suitable for their commercial use.  However, I spent some time and money
developing the framework, and I'd like to get something back if others use
my efforts to make a profit.

Drawing the line exactly between personal and commercial in a few sentences
of legal speak is impossible.  So I did it conservatively because I can
always grant permission for individual cases, whereas I can't go backwards
the other way.

So again, if you or anyone else wants to use the USB framework in a way you
think is non-commercial but you think the restrictions get in the way, send
me a note describing the project.  If you have a commercial project in mind,
you should also get in touch with me because I've done this a few times
already and can save you time and trouble, which saves $$ in the end.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Just read my reply to Olin and you will know I was just talking
> based on the popular definition of "open source".

Then you misunderstand the popular definition.  I think the general
consensus of "open source" means you can look at it.  In most cases you can
do more, usually much more.  But some restrictions, like GPL or my
copyright, don't disqualify it from being "open source".

There are probably others listening in wondering what the fuss is about.
Here is the copyright notice of the source files that do not directly
implement a programming algorithm or are part of the USB framework:

***************************************************************
* Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com)     *
*                                                             *
* Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this     *
* copyright notice is included in its entirety at the         *
* beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole  *
* or in part and regardless of whether other information is   *
* added to the copy.                                          *
*                                                             *
* The contents of this file may be used in any way,           *
* commercial or otherwise.  This file is provided "as is",    *
* and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a          *
* particular purpose nor assumes any liability resulting from *
* its use.                                                    *
***************************************************************

Geesh guys, all I'm asking for is to be credited in the source, and you
don't even need to show it to your customers or anyone else.  This is a
*way* less restrictive than the GPL.  By the way, all my PIC development
environment (http://www.embedinc.com/pic) code either has this same
copyright or none at all.

The USBProg USB framework modules or modules that implement programming
algorithms are more restricted:

****************************************************************
* Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com).     *
* All rights reserved except as explicitly noted here.         *
*                                                              *
* Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this      *
* copyright notice is included in its entirety at the          *
* beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole   *
* or in part and regardless of whether other information is    *
* added to the copy, and one of the following conditions is    *
* met:                                                         *
*                                                              *
*   1 - Any executable derived from the this file is only run  *
*       on a Embed Inc product.                                *
*                                                              *
*   2 - Any device that contains executable code derived from  *
*       this file is not sold, not distributed for commercial  *
*       advantage, and not more than 10 (ten) instances of the *
*       device are created.                                    *
*                                                              *
* To copy this file otherwise requires explicit permission     *
* from Embed Inc and may also require a fee.                   *
*                                                              *
* The information in this file is provided "as is".  Embed Inc *
* makes no claims of suitability for any particular purpose    *
* nor assumes any liability resulting from its use.            *
****************************************************************

Basically I don't want my hard work coming back and competing with me, and
if someone else is going to make a buck from it I want a make some too.  I'm
not trying to stop anyone that is truly doing personal projects, and note
that any hacking of a USBProg is explicitly allowed.  You could even add a
feature to the USBProg and sell your modified firmware for profit without
disclosing the code, which is something you couldn't do under the GPL.

But the main point is, restrictions or not, it's still "open source" by
common usage of that term.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist