SDS800X HD Bug Reports + Firmware

[2N3055]

Here's another bug (or at least sloppy/lazy programming). SDS800X HD basically ignores DHCP lease times. Below is with the lease time set to 8 hours. Instead of renewing every 4 hours (1/2 lease time) as is normal, it's doing it every minute or so. Although technically allowed by the DHCP spec, I've never seen another client do this, and it is unnecessarily abusive. Ugggh.

Code: [Select]

Feb  8 14:13:04 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPDISCOVER(br0) 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:13:04 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPOFFER(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:13:04 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:13:04 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
Feb  8 14:14:23 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:14:23 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
Feb  8 14:15:37 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:15:37 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
Feb  8 14:16:52 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:16:52 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
Feb  8 14:18:06 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:18:06 dnsmasq-dhcp[710342]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
Feb  8 14:19:21 dnsmasq-dhcp[711671]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83
Feb  8 14:19:21 dnsmasq-dhcp[711671]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.168.71 74:5b:c5:23:68:83 scope
...continues ad infinitum.


Yep,
 you are right.
I just tried. It will refresh every 75 seconds or so....

As you said it is technically not in violation of DHCP specs, and shooting off several 342 bytes long UDP packets is hardly "abusive".
But I agree that it should be done right...

Will report.

Best,

[eTobey]

Today i got bloody annoyed by that scope again:
Plugging it in on LAN to get a screenshot out, since i am using it on another place. Nice, LAN does not work yet again (Yes, i am not an IT expert). Ok, lets use it with USB, since it has that. Of course since it does not have a RTC, it does not have the right time. OK, that is not a problem for a "great" scope... Sortet the filenames of the screenshots, as the screenshot i wanted to get out is the last one. And surprise surprise, this "great" scope would not present you the last screenshot, since the filename of the screenshot are poorly choosen:
I am looking for screenshot No. 529, but what i get when sorting is:
99
92
90
89
88

And yet this is not the only issue with sorting:
"c" comes after "S"

 

I hope you understand, that i will not deliver a screenshot for now. 

The "G" in "SDS800X HD" stands for "great"

EDIT:
It does not bloody stop! Just when i go to copy the screenshot, the last number is hidden. More clicks needed... 

[shapirus]

I am looking for screenshot No. 529, but what i get when sorting is:
99
92
90
89
88

Yes, another consequence of hiring inexperienced programmers. This is a beginner's mistake.

This is a result of using alphabetic rather than numeric sorting, where "99" ends up greater when compared to "899". This can be fixed by utilising a proper file naming scheme (which is usually the easier way) or modifying the sort algorithm.

It is a very, very widespread mistake in user interfaces. Programmers write code without giving a thought to how it will work in different scenarios and testing it.

And yet this is not the only issue with sorting:
"c" comes after "S"

Same thing, but this one is even easier to fix: use case-insensitive sorting.

[eTobey]

Same thing, but this one is even easier to fix: use case-insensitive sorting.

Yeah, those are easy to fix. More difficult would be to get Siglent to fix such bugs. I have already contacted the support about other issues multiple times, but i guess i had some "bad luck", not getting the competence i wanted. The first guy used an old firmware with different values than i stated (different in orders of magnitude), and the next one was seemingly annoyed with such "unimportant" issues...

I wonder if there will be a firmware update in the near future, or if they are just working on other new "great" products...

[awakephd]

Today i got bloody annoyed by that scope again:
Plugging it in on LAN to get a screenshot out, since i am using it on another place. Nice, LAN does not work yet again (Yes, i am not an IT expert). Ok, lets use it with USB, since it has that. Of course since it does not have a RTC, it does not have the right time. OK, that is not a problem for a "great" scope... Sortet the filenames of the screenshots, as the screenshot i wanted to get out is the last one. And surprise surprise, this "great" scope would not present you the last screenshot, since the filename of the screenshot are poorly choosen:
I am looking for screenshot No. 529, but what i get when sorting is:
99
92
90
89
88

And yet this is not the only issue with sorting:
"c" comes after "S"

 

I hope you understand, that i will not deliver a screenshot for now. 

The "G" in "SDS800X HD" stands for "great"

EDIT:
It does not bloody stop! Just when i go to copy the screenshot, the last number is hidden. More clicks needed... 

I apologize if this is a red herring, and I am still enough of a newbie that I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. But just in case: I noticed in a couple of screenshots in a post on Jan 7 that you have the sorting set to descending rather than ascending - which is exactly what the screenshot showed, and would seem to be what you are indicating above. Could that be what is going on?

[eTobey]

...

I apologize if this is a red herring, and I am still enough of a newbie that I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. But just in case: I noticed in a couple of screenshots in a post on Jan 7 that you have the sorting set to descending rather than ascending - which is exactly what the screenshot showed, and would seem to be what you are indicating above. Could that be what is going on?

Why would you think, that i am refering to those screenshots?

[awakephd]

...

I apologize if this is a red herring, and I am still enough of a newbie that I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. But just in case: I noticed in a couple of screenshots in a post on Jan 7 that you have the sorting set to descending rather than ascending - which is exactly what the screenshot showed, and would seem to be what you are indicating above. Could that be what is going on?

Why would you think, that i am refering to those screenshots?

As I said, I may be on the wrong track. In post # 428, you referred to problems with sorting, and you attached screenshots. It seemed that you were reporting a similar problem with sorting in post # 451, and you list the results in question. In both cases, the results (regardless of how they are shown - screenshot or list) look to me as though they are sorted perfectly ... just descending, rather than ascending. Again, I can only apologize if I have misunderstood what you are describing.

[2N3055]

Yes there is sorting direction and also Linux is case sensitive.
It is perfectly Ok to have files named:
mike
Mike
MiKe
In the same folder.

And in reverse order it will sort Upercase, Lovercase and numbers. Or opposite in the ascending sort.

[shapirus]

Yes there is sorting direction and also Linux is case sensitive.
It is perfectly Ok to have files named:
mike
Mike
MiKe
In the same folder.

And in reverse order it will sort Upercase, Lovercase and numbers. Or opposite in the ascending sort.

Exactly.

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

[mikes]

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

What do you think "the user experience issue" is, and how would the example be sorted to fix it?

[shapirus]

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

What do you think "the user experience issue" is, and how would the example be sorted to fix it?

Well it's described in the post that started this discussion.

One way to fix it would be to:

a) (this one's a minor annoyance IMO) give the user an option to choose between case-sensitive and case-insensitive sorting in the file dialog;
b) (this one's much more serious IMO) use zero padded numeric values in file names that are suffixed with an auto-incrementing number (e.g. "shot000001.png .. shot999999.png" instead of "shot1.png .. shot999999.png"). Using a timestamp-based suffix is more convenient, but it's not possible where there is no RTC chip (or time isn't set via NTP).

[eTobey]

Yes there is sorting direction and also Linux is case sensitive.
It is perfectly Ok to have files named:
mike
Mike
MiKe
In the same folder.

And in reverse order it will sort Upercase, Lovercase and numbers. Or opposite in the ascending sort.

Exactly.

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

I do ignore the dude you quoted, but as i have read that by accident, i will reply:
"Mike" is beeing sorted well behind "z" !! 

But what do i know. I am just a noob that cant sort filenames... 

For reference see pictures, and notice how "V***" is "far away" from "v***":

...

[mikes]

option to choose between case-sensitive and case-insensitive sorting in the file dialog;

What's the difference? In the example given above, if it's case-insensitive, which comes first, "Mike" or "mike"? Whichever you pick, why is that "case-insensitive? Or should it just be random?

(this one's much more serious IMO) use zero padded numeric values in file names that are suffixed with an auto-incrementing number (e.g. "shot000001.png .. shot999999.png" instead of "shot1.png .. shot999999.png")

That's got nothing to do with sorting, per se, and your response was to a post about sort order which said nothing about how files are named.

[2N3055]

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

What do you think "the user experience issue" is, and how would the example be sorted to fix it?

Well it's described in the post that started this discussion.

One way to fix it would be to:

a) (this one's a minor annoyance IMO) give the user an option to choose between case-sensitive and case-insensitive sorting in the file dialog;
b) (this one's much more serious IMO) use zero padded numeric values in file names that are suffixed with an auto-incrementing number (e.g. "shot000001.png .. shot999999.png" instead of "shot1.png .. shot999999.png"). Using a timestamp-based suffix is more convenient, but it's not possible where there is no RTC chip (or time isn't set via NTP).

User experience is exactly the same as on Ubuntu Linux and all other linux GUI.
While I understand your position, nobody is going to rewrite standard operating system file dialogs.
I would rather they add something relevant to actual measurements.

And on top of that this is not a bug. It is normal behaviour from Linux.

[shapirus]

But it doesn't solve the user experience issue, it only explains why it works the way it does.

What do you think "the user experience issue" is, and how would the example be sorted to fix it?

Well it's described in the post that started this discussion.

One way to fix it would be to:

a) (this one's a minor annoyance IMO) give the user an option to choose between case-sensitive and case-insensitive sorting in the file dialog;
b) (this one's much more serious IMO) use zero padded numeric values in file names that are suffixed with an auto-incrementing number (e.g. "shot000001.png .. shot999999.png" instead of "shot1.png .. shot999999.png"). Using a timestamp-based suffix is more convenient, but it's not possible where there is no RTC chip (or time isn't set via NTP).

User experience is exactly the same as on Ubuntu Linux and all other linux GUI.
While I understand your position, nobody is going to rewrite standard operating system file dialogs.
I would rather they add something relevant to actual measurements.

And on top of that this is not a bug. It is normal behaviour from Linux.

There is nothing wrong with file dialogs. They're fine. Having an option for case-insensitive sorting would be a nice improvement to them, but it's minor.

Having consecutively numbered files sorted out of numeric order, however, is a worse issue.

Current situation:

Code: [Select]

$ ls|sort
shot10.png
shot11.png
shot12.png
shot13.png
shot14.png
shot15.png
shot16.png
shot17.png
shot18.png
shot19.png
shot1.png
shot20.png
shot2.png
shot3.png
shot4.png
shot5.png
shot6.png
shot7.png
shot8.png
shot9.png

Despite normal expectations, older files will come last with the ascending sort order. No need to explain why this happens, it is clear. I am not talking about implementation details, I am talking about how this is seen from the user's perspective, and that is also very clear: sorting is screwed up. Yes it's technically not a bug. But it is a UX issue nonetheless.

Solution? It's trivial. No need to modify the standard system file dialog! Just change the screenshot utility or function to generate the file names like so:

Code: [Select]

$ ls|sort
shot000001.png
shot000002.png
shot000003.png
shot000004.png
shot000005.png
shot000006.png
shot000007.png
shot000008.png
shot000009.png
shot000010.png
shot000011.png
shot000012.png
shot000013.png
shot000014.png
shot000015.png
shot000016.png
shot000017.png
shot000018.png
shot000019.png
shot000020.png

I hope my point is clear now. This is as detailed as I could explain it.

[2N3055]

I hope my point is clear now. This is as detailed as I could explain it.

The naming with leading zeros to sort right?

I agree. That is good suggestion.

[mawyatt]

I do ignore the dude you quoted, but as i have read that by accident, i will reply:

Another "Brilliant" deduction my friend

2N3055 knows more about these instruments than you, me and most others combined ever will!!! One of the very few that actually knows what they are talking about rather than spewing a bunch of total random nonsense and misinformation.

Best rethink your position my friend, you just might learn something valuable and add some real value rather than the usual misconceptions, misunderstandings, worthless complaints and ramblings

Best 

[tv84]

Best rethink your position my friend, you just might learn something valuable and add some real value rather than the usual misconceptions, misunderstandings, worthless complaints and ramblings

Totally agree. I deeply regret opening this thread today to see all the BS comments that have been going on for awhile. 

[eTobey]

2N3055 knows more about these instruments than you, me and most others combined ever will!!! One of the very few that actually knows what they are talking about rather than spewing a bunch of total random nonsense and misinformation.

Best rethink your position my friend, you just might learn something valuable and add some real value rather than the usual misconceptions, misunderstandings, worthless complaints and ramblings

Well, cant remember, that he showed much of his knowledge, often a lot of "i dont understand, but i spew out some knowledge", and some "i know everything, and anybody else knows nothing".

And then, specific questions were not answered.

Had such a Professor: Had some good knowledge about things, but in the end that was of no use in the first exam, because it was knowledge about unrelevant stuff!

[mawyatt]

Had such a Professor: Had some good knowledge about things, but in the end that was of no use in the first exam, because it was knowledge about unrelevant stuff!

We had a Grad Student, kinda smart but didn't listen, always complained, thought things had to work his way or no way, he flunked the 1st exam (complained about the questions) and dropped the course

Best

[eTobey]

Because some people dont understand, i try to illustrate the issue with just one picture.

Notice the "B" and its place (notice the case also).

Not how i would expect it to be sorted, but i guess i should stop complaining... 

[mikes]

Yes there is sorting direction and also Linux is case sensitive.
It is perfectly Ok to have files named:
mike
Mike
MiKe
In the same folder.

That's not quite correct. Linux itself has no sort order. However,  the canonical GNU sort command does. I think what shapirus meant wasn't "case insensitive" but lexical order (dictionary order), which GNU sort does, but the scope does not, so "because, Linux" is not an excuse. For example, this list in the default GNU sort lexical order:

Code: [Select]

aaa
AAA
bbb
BBB
ccc
CCC
Would be sorted by the scope as:

Code: [Select]

AAA
BBB
CCC
aaa
bbb
ccc...which is actually ASCII encoding order. (or perhaps UTF-8 encoding order, which would be even worse if the scope allows non-ASCII characters)

Regarding file names, the following list of files, as they would be sorted by the scope:

Code: [Select]

file10.png
file11.png
file1.png
file20.png
file2.png... could be sorted in a more human friendly manner with GNU "sort -V" without having to use some arbitrary number of digits when creating them:

Code: [Select]

file1.png
file2.png
file10.png
file11.png
file20.png

[eTobey]

... could be sorted in a more human friendly manner with GNU "sort -V" without having to use some arbitrary number of digits when creating them:

Code: [Select]

file1.png
file2.png
file10.png
file11.png
file20.png

Leading zeros would add the benefit of that they can be used in scripts. I believe the same lame scheme is used with filenames of other data types...

[tautech]

    

Can no one work with what they already have without the need to muck with it and impact on a whole product line ? 

Don't like internal/local memory filename structure ?
Connect a USB keyboard and properly name your filenames......or is that too hard ? 

[Furna]

If anything has to be suggested to Siglent, I would go for the "leading zeros" approach.

This approach eliminates a few unpredictable variables ...
- common linux file systems are case senitive
- ordering of the files is done by the shell in use
- saving the file on a NAS/SMB share add one more varaible; Samba can be instructed to honour case sensitive or not
- than it comes to Windows File Explorer

Just use the "leading zeros" and the "issue" is solved.

Now, for the first letter in the filename, capital or non capital?