| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:00AM -0500 In article <q056c2$rsc$1@dont-email.me>, sms > Understood, but for a paid app, that is extremely popular, with > >1,000,00 installs and >55,000 reviews, you'd think that the pain might > be worth it for the author. nope. if it's only one person, his hands are full with that one app. developing for and supporting two different platforms is a lot more work than just one and it's hard to do both well. > Especially because you often see people > asking "is there an equivalent app to Torque Pro for the iPhone?" nope, but for those that do ask, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. > apps (which were a pain because you could only have one Wi-Fi connection > at a time from a phone, but still usable for diagnostics, just not > continuous monitoring). false. it works quite well for continuous monitoring, but the main intent of a wifi dongle was for laptop use. > Developing for BLE is more difficult than using > Bluetooth SPP, but not magnitudes more difficult. nonsense. developing for bluetooth le is *significantly* easier for a number reasons. i've done both. you have not. stop making up shit. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 08:09AM -0700 On 12/27/2018 09:27 PM, nospam wrote: > development, you're even less in a position to comment. > i've done native app development for both ios and android, and ios is > *much* easier. Yeah, you've made it abundantly clear that you're an Apple fanboi. Personally, I've had one Apple product in my life -- a Shuffle someone gave me. It isn't bad but itunes sucks. I'm a hired gun so I would have worked on Apple stuff if anyone ever wanted to pay me to do so, but they never did. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 08:22AM -0700 On 12/28/2018 05:53 AM, sms wrote: >>1,000,00 installs and >55,000 reviews, you'd think that the pain might > be worth it for the author. Especially because you often see people > asking "is there an equivalent app to Torque Pro for the iPhone?" Maybe, if a million iPhone users were asking for it... Buying the Apple hardware to develop on, learning the new toolchain, and dealing with the Apple store puts a little bump in the road. For Android you download Android Studio to your Windows box, pick up a cheap Android device, and you're good to go. I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but they're not there yet. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:42AM -0500 In article <g8msjgFgl59U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > > i've done native app development for both ios and android, and ios is > > *much* easier. > Yeah, you've made it abundantly clear that you're an Apple fanboi. ad hominem. two can play that game: you've made it abundantly clear that you're an apple hater fueled by myths. > Personally, I've had one Apple product in my life -- a Shuffle someone > gave me. It isn't bad but itunes sucks. then you're even less in a position to comment. > I'm a hired gun so I would have worked on Apple stuff if anyone ever > wanted to pay me to do so, but they never did. you're asking the wrong people. there's a *huge* demand for apple development and it pays *quite* well. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:42AM -0500 In article <g8mtapFgptgU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > Maybe, if a million iPhone users were asking for it... Buying the Apple > hardware to develop on, learning the new toolchain, and dealing with the > Apple store puts a little bump in the road. not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app is done, submit it. > For Android you download > Android Studio to your Windows box, pick up a cheap Android device, and > you're good to go. same for ios. xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware. > I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no > powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but > they're not there yet. a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 07:18PM -0700 On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote: > you're asking the wrong people. there's a *huge* demand for apple > development and it pays *quite* well. I'm sure it does if you're in the right field, but the world I live in doesn't do Apple. If we do something for iPhones it is only as peripherals. There may be emergency dispatch centers that run on os x but I don't know of any. Generally the RFQ's spec Windows Server, SQL Server, ESRI, and so forth. Even ESRI is a killer; ArcDesktop can run on a Mac -- sort of. Fire up Boot Camp or VMWare and run Windows. I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could meet TEMPEST requirements. I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's not been my meal ticket. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 07:25PM -0700 On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote: > not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times > over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app > is done, submit it. Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the way to go. > xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if > you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the > simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware. Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore... >> powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but >> they're not there yet. > a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad. I never said it was. However it is an Android device that I can side load an apk on. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:43PM -0500 In article <g8o3ouFopeqU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in > that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could > meet TEMPEST requirements. the cube was a *long* time ago. > I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always > associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's > not been my meal ticket. there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge* and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer focused. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:43PM -0500 In article <g8o45vForqhU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary > applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the > way to go. you didn't mention proprietary apps, however, there are alternative methods for app deployment that do *not* involve the app store at all for exactly that scenario. the app store is not the only option. > > you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the > > simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware. > Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore... you've never used it, so you're not in a position to comment. it was simply a suggestion for those who *really* want to cheap out. > >> they're not there yet. > > a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad. > I never said it was. yet you compared its price to an iphone or ipad. the reason it's $50 is because its specs are lower. > However it is an Android device that I can side > load an apk on. that would depend on what the apk does. if it needs functionality not found in a $50 device, you're going to have problems. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 29 01:06PM -0700 On 12/28/2018 08:43 PM, nospam wrote: >> that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could >> meet TEMPEST requirements. > the cube was a *long* time ago. Yes, it was. 1985, iirc. My end of the project involved the TI TMS9900 microprocessor. It had little going for it other than being one of the few radiation hardened devices at the time. The Macs were used for documentation and as I said were selected because they meant TEMPEST specifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29 The Russkies were squatting out in the bushes, dontcha know. It's always the Russians. I doubt if they bothered to skulk around our bushes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985:_The_Year_of_the_Spy > there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge* > and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer > focused. Certainly there's nothing wrong with consumer products. I've never worked in that sector, and hence have never been involved with Apple products. iPhones and iPads have started making some inroads as information delivery devices in my world. However the focus has been more on ruggedized devices, be they laptops or tablets. https://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc/the-ipad-vs-the-rugged-tablet-whats-what-0001 That is not a market Apple addresses and being a walled garden no third party can do so. End of the World Industries can make an Android tablet that will survive, but it better not start with 'i'. That said, personal devices are penetrating the workspace and if some cop prefers to use an iPhone we've got to deal with it. Sometime. It won't be me personally. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 29 05:06PM -0500 In article <g8q2c0F78d6U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > >> meet TEMPEST requirements. > > the cube was a *long* time ago. > Yes, it was. 1985, iirc. no it wasn't. the cube was 2000-2001: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube> it was a tip of the hat to steve jobs' original next cube, which was announced in 1989 and shipped in 1990: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube> in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late 1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986. > Certainly there's nothing wrong with consumer products. I've never > worked in that sector, and hence have never been involved with Apple > products. apple does more than just consumer, although that is definitely where they're strongest. > iPhones and iPads have started making some inroads as > information delivery devices in my world. However the focus has been > more on ruggedized devices, be they laptops or tablets. there's more to an iphone and ipad than information delivery. > That is not a market Apple addresses and being a walled garden no third > party can do so. End of the World Industries can make an Android tablet > that will survive, but it better not start with 'i'. nonsense. there are numerous ruggedized cases for iphones and ipads, with otterbox being the most well known. they're bulky, but they do withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that will never die. here's one with a keyboard: <https://www.zagg.com/eu/en_eu/keyboards/rugged-book-keyboard-case> here's a screen protector that withstands hammering: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsxl1bRTldo> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtMn79-hr9E> and there's even a bulletproof case: <http://www.marudai-corp.com/iphone-case/e-info-product.html> > That said, personal devices are penetrating the workspace and if some > cop prefers to use an iPhone we've got to deal with it. Sometime. It > won't be me personally. your loss. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 29 03:54PM -0700 On 12/29/2018 03:06 PM, nospam wrote: > no it wasn't. > the cube was 2000-2001: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube> Excuse me. Not being an Apple user I'm not familiar with the pet terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K To my eyes it looked like a cube. > in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late > 1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986. Precisely. The rather cubical looking Mac... > there's more to an iphone and ipad than information delivery. Yes there is. However all we are concerned with is delivering updated incident or dispatch information to emergency responders. If they want to play Angry Birds in their spare time, good for them. > otterbox being the most well known. they're bulky, but they do > withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that > will never die. Obviously you didn't read the link. An iPad in an otterbox is NOT a ruggedized tablet. https://gizmodo.com/should-the-supreme-court-knock-the-first-brick-out-of-a-1830569176 You're right. The walled garden is the myth that will never die. The strategy has worked well for Apple so don't try to deny it. > your loss. Not in the least. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 30 12:10AM -0500 In article <g8qc7aF9aqpU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > > the cube was 2000-2001: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube> > Excuse me. Not being an Apple user I'm not familiar with the pet terms. it's not a pet term. it was called a cube because it was actually a cube. it did have an acrylic casing to raise it off the table for cable management, however. it was also designed to *easily* be opened without any tools. flip it over, push in the handle to pop it out, then lift, giving full access to the internals, the very opposite of a 'walled garden'. <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/Pw6YRIHwmiDYUWTX.large> <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/2STkBEy42mB2okjN.large> <https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/AuJkNVuB3RH4NjKl.large> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K > To my eyes it looked like a cube. then your eyes need to be checked, along with a refresher on geometry. > > in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late > > 1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986. > Precisely. The rather cubical looking Mac... it did not look like a cube: <http://photos2.insidercdn.com/1125-128kmac-2.jpg> > Yes there is. However all we are concerned with is delivering updated > incident or dispatch information to emergency responders. If they want > to play Angry Birds in their spare time, good for them. angry birds is passe. even pokemon go is mostly passe. fortnite is where it's at now. > > withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that > > will never die. > Obviously you didn't read the link. i did and it's bullshit. rugged means able to withstand extreme conditions and abuse. rugged does *not* mean encryption, tco and compatibility, what the article discusses. all ios devices are fully encrypted, can be remote wiped if necessary and centrally managed for large (or not so large) deployment, so that is not an issue. the article speculates that an ipad would overall cost more despite having a lower initial cost due to frequent failures, however, they offer with zero evidence to support that. it also incorrectly assumes that by the time an app is released, a newer incompatible ipad would be released, which is also wrong. the article was surprised that american airlines would choose ipads for the cockpit, something other airlines have also done since the article was written, due to their reliability and lower cost versus managing the paper it replaces. that alone contradicts the article's claims. it's also a 6 year old article which is even more incorrect now than it was when written. > An iPad in an otterbox is NOT a > ruggedized tablet. yes it is. rugged means it's able to withstand extremes and abuse, which is already pretty good but with an otterbox even more so. it does not mean encryption, tco or app compatibility. > 30569176 > You're right. The walled garden is the myth that will never die. The > strategy has worked well for Apple so don't try to deny it. that's not a walled garden, especially since the app store not the only way to install apps. nothing prevents anyone from writing their own custom ios apps for whatever purpose or hiring someone to do so if they lack the skills. there is no requirement to use the app store (which i explained in another post). there are a *lot* of custom corporate apps on ios that never see the app store. and let's not forget windows 10s, which *only* runs apps from the microsoft app store, making *it* the walled garden, not apple. game consoles also have very limited options for titles, also walled. having an app store with vetted apps is not inherently bad. it greatly reduces the amount of malware and other crap that people install, rending a system unstable and/or not secure. the malware vectors where one can pwn a windows system do not exist on ios. nothing is perfect and something could potentially slip through the cracks, but if it does, it's quickly removed from the store. in extreme cases, it can be uninstalled, something google has had to do on several occasions, while apple has not. in other words, ios software is 'rugged'. |
| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Dec 28 09:52PM Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet loss. What happens, as a result, is that in any given phone call, the voice drops, or is blurbled, for seconds at a time. I don't quite understand how losing one packet in 400 on average is causing that, but they said take it up with the WISP who has already said it's as good as he can make it. Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set. Is there a cordless phone set you're happy with? The base MUST be a full phone (speaker + dialer + wired handset) with as many cordless as is feasible (usually 2 to 4 come with the set). Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.) |
| arlen holder <arlen@holder.com>: Dec 29 10:33PM On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:41:10 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > That's actually very good, especially with an RF link. Hi Jeff, Thanks for your advice, as I'm also in the Santa Cruz mountains (other side of the hill from you) where WISP is the only thing in town (although Comcast threatens to bring up cable some day, which would put the small-guy WISPs like Dave & Brett at Surfnet, Loren at Hilltop, Mike at Ridge, and Bob at Etheric out of business in a heartbeat - all of whom I presume you know well). I'm on 5GHz with a 30dBi Rocketdish with a straight shot, mountain to mountain, of about 25 miles by road, but only a couple of miles (maybe two and a half to three miles?) air-to-air (which is what counts). The Ooma technical folks ran a probe, after trying to talk me into hooking the "modem" (I never tell them it's a transceiver because that just confuses them) directly to the Ooma box, where my Ooma box is hanging off the router. The telephone base is hanging off the Ooma box, and then I use hand helds around the house. The problem is mostly on the handhelds, but I can't imagine that they're causing the 0.25% packet loss that Ooma tech support measured. > continuous ping test to your WISP's router or access point (so that > you're only testing the wireless path). For Windoze, something like: > ping -t ip_address_of_WISP This is a good idea. I need to log it though, so I'm running a ping -t to an internal hop that I found using a tracert. Is something like that what you are suggesting? C:\> ping -t WISP_AP_IP >> ping.log > retransmissions, usually due to interference or collisions. For more > accuracy, try Fping: > <http://blog.perceptus.ca/2017/11/10/fping-windows-download-the-last-version/> I'll check that out, as if I find missing packets, that would explain where the problem lies. > HD also incorporates adaptive redundancy — the Ooma Telo VoIP > home phone system detects packet loss and issues duplicate > packets to cover the gap. Hmmmmm.... I'm not sure if I can tell that is kicking in or not, nor what to do about it if it does kick in. > That can be packet loss, but my guess(tm) is that it's jitter or > packets lots in the Asterisk switch. I'm not sure what an "Asterisk" switch is, where googling, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk_(PBX)> "Asterisk supports several standard voice over IP protocols". I guess it's part of the VOIP protocol that Ooma Telo uses...? > and your Omma device. It does not show anything happening between the > POTS line and the Omma servers, which can product garble, without > showing any packet loss. It happens on almost all calls, so, I'd "think" it's on my side. (But that's why I ask for debugging help.) > phone. Try testing the cordless phone at some other location with a > POTS line, or temporarily replacing the cordless phone with a wired > POTS phone. It _does_ seem to be better (less garbled) when I use the wired handset which is directly connected to the Ooma device. That diagnostic, alone, might indicate it's the phones. But do older (maybe 5 to 10 years?) Panasonic Costco phones cause garbling in and of themselves? And even so, as you said, they wouldn't cause 0.25% packet loss (they said the jitter was only 1ms where 20ms would be a problem, as I recall). > I would say something about the included wireless handset that comes > with some Ooma base units, but since you didn't see fit to provide the > model you're using, I won't bother. My bad. I apologize. It's a Panasonic KXTG6671 base plus a few Panasonic PNLC1017 cordless charger units spread about the home. It was a Costco thing, which, in reality, I never did like so I'm looking for an excuse to replace it. > <https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info> > <https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest> > You'll also find a jitter test, which might be useful. Looking at your next post, I first tried this: <http://ooma.speedtestcustom.com> Which reported 3ms jitter, which was more than Ooma had reported <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3773901ooma01.jpg> Pressing the "Again" button reported a 15ms jitter, which is huge <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4418379ooma02.jpg> And, one more time, in sequence, gave me a 2 ms jitter: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4255229ooma03.jpg> Go figure. The 2ms is ok, but the 15 ms is at the limit, or nearly so. I also tried this nice suggestion of yours... <https://www.onsip.com/blog/what-your-voip-test-results-mean> Which seemed, by the GUI, to be EXACTLY the same as the Ooma test, only, for some odd reason, it picked New York to test against, where it came up with a 4ms jitter, even as it went across the country: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8371168ooma04.jpg> The second in the sequence came up with 4ms jitter: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2265190ooma05.jpg> And yet, the third, came up whoppingly high with 98ms jitter! <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8194174ooma06.jpg> How is _that_ for lack of consistency! The Sourceforge site says it's "designed to test your current Internet connection speed for Latency/Ping, Jitter, Download Speed, Upload Speed, Buffer Bloat, and Packet Loss", which seems like a good test for me! <https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info> Wow, those are detailed results, where the jitter was 4ms and the packet loss was a whoppingly high 4% as shown in the screenshot below. <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3699166ooma07.jpg> Surprisingly, even with a 4% packet loss, the quality metric was 4.1 out of 5, which seems higher than it should be with such high packet losses: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9173143ooma08.jpg> And, just as surprisingly, they gave VOIP a checkmark in the summary: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2095808ooma09.jpg> Looking at that last suggestion, it seems to be an EXACT copy of the Sourceforge site where it came up with 4ms jitter & 0% packet loss: <https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest> But this doesn't show the same level of detail as did Sourceforge: <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2921509ooma10.jpg> > Play with the codec selection on your Ooma phone. > <https://support.ooma.com/home/star-codes-on-your-ooma-device/> > Try iLBC (default) and G.711. Hey Jeff! Now that's interesting. Very interesting. I normally do a "*82" or a "*67" but I didn't know about the others. The first thing I tried was "*#*#001" which reported "240828". Kewl. Then I made a phone call using: *82*96-1-408-123-4567 which had decent call quality. I'll keep doing this "*96" stuff, which might be the cat's meow. Thanks. |
| Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca>: Dec 29 05:11PM -0600 On 12/29/2018 4:58 PM, arlen holder wrote: > Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: > Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2141ms, Average = 19ms > Control-C Trimmed all your shit, Ya dumb Prick |
| Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>: Dec 28 01:34PM +0100 One works with electromagnetic force, the other works with piezoelectric force. The first is low impedance and good for low frequencies, it uses current. The other is high impedance and good for high frequencies, it uses voltage. With a typical 8-Ohm or 32-Ohm output, the crystal headphone is useless. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 17 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment