Hi
Wouldn't a USB2.0 analyzer unit still be useful since
even USB3 devices of interest
could be tested while connected to a USB2 host?
Steve
What can we learn from this?
Give me an example of 3 devices you would need to debug USB 2.0 communications today (and its impossible to do in virtual machine or using Wireshark/USBlyzer).
Smart people are being denied the chance to help out.
why?
As one of bushing's friends, I can at least vouch that he not a scammer, nor has he benefited personally from the project (in fact he's volunteered a significant amount from his personal savings).
The last news I heard is that the developers have received the (final revision) boards and are working on the firmware for them.
This project may have been a significant trainwreck the way it was managed, but it is not a scam, nor is it dead.
Well, from that aspect I can understand.
When you run a public campaign (or blog ) you have to very careful about accepting offers of help, as generous and genuine as they may be.
Even the best "experts" can come in and completely ruin things, waste your time, take you in wrong directions etc.
Ask 10 "experts" for advice on something technical and you'll likely get 10 different answers.
I can see what you're talking about. But this project was sold as open.
On the other hand there are those gold binding posts You cant know everything, and when you are struggling its better to ask for help than just sit on your ass (or on backers money).
I can see what you're talking about. But this project was sold as open..... You end up with a thousand people screaming at you to do it this way, do it that way, asking questions and demanding things which start getting you off track etc.
Ben and Phil have demonstrated that they are quite capable of ignoring any amount of screaming. They could have published the design for peer review and still ignored the replies (there are only 580 backers, not thousands).
I backed this project because it was billed as "open", it's in the title of the project!
As Smokey pointed out in the OP, they made silly mistakes which could easily have been picked up by the more knowledgeable backers (of which there are many). Once could be described unfortunate, but we are now on at least the third major revision of the PCB.
Ben and Phil have demonstrated that they are quite capable of ignoring any amount of screaming. They could have published the design for peer review and still ignored the replies (there are only 580 backers, not thousands).
How can you know that? Just because they don't reply much? ...
Unless you have been in this position it's hard to understand.
[QuoteI backed this project because it was billed as "open", it's in the title of the project!
Like I said, that does not have to extend to the design process.
If you think it does/should, then that's just your opinion and assumption.
Unless they specifically said they would share the info during the design process, then you can't just automatically assume they would do that.
And like I said again, there can be good reason not share that info unless it's released or close to released. Many OSHW people do not release info until the project is finished.
Have a look at the comments section of their project page. It contains many, many requests begging for an update, or even simple confirmation that they are still on the planet.
This, from the homepage of the project " OpenVizsla will be a completely open design of a device ...", and "We will release schematics and design files under a Creative Commons license and we will set up a community to develop the device firmware, FPGA HDL, and client software." Lacking any statement to the contrary I don't see it as an assumption to interpret "completely open" as meaning, completely open.
As I said, that is no indication what so ever that they would be "immune" to comment bombardment from an open design process as you claimed.
They made no statement at all saying they would open the hardware design process before the unit ships or they deem it to be ready to be released. The only thing it implies is that once it ships, the data has to be made available, or possibly once the hardware if finalised.
Once again, there are good reason not to release hardware info before the hardware is absolutely final.
What if they released the info as you wanted early and you spent ages working on the firmware or hacking it etc, only to find they changed the hardware again before release and all your work was for squat. You'd be a tad miffed, yeah? (also, replace "you" with "anyone else")
Sorry, but I think you may have simply assumed too much here.