Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > VHDL > ANNC: FPGA Design Software Webcast

Reply
Thread Tools

ANNC: FPGA Design Software Webcast

 
 
bart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2008
Lattice is holding a webcast today, Wednesday, May 7th, on our latest
version of our FPGA software design tools "ispLEVER 7.1 FPGA Design
Tool Technical Rollout." The presenter will be Troy Scott, from our
software marketing group.

If you're interested, the event takes place live at 11am Pacific,
18:00 GMT. In addition, you will be able to view this webcast archive
on-demand, at your convenience, starting a few hours after the live
event takes place.

You can register by clicking:
http://www.latticesemi.com/corporate...designtool.cfm

Bart Borosky, Lattice
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John_H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2008
John Larkin wrote:
>
> To Lattice:
>
> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.
>
>
> To the group:
>
> Whenever anybody spams us, please
>
> 1. Blackball them as a vendor
>
> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
> lots of google-searchable keywords.
>
> John


Was this really necessary?

If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.
If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
that frequent.

I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?

Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.

- John_H
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich Grise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2008
On Thu, 08 May 2008 07:37:44 +1200, Jim Granville wrote:

> Do all your design decisions have the same carefull reasoning basis ?


Does all your writing show the same careful editing? >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 
Reply With Quote
 
David L. Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2008

"BobW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "John Larkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT), John_H
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To Lattice:
>>>>
>>>> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
>>>> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the group:
>>>>
>>>> Whenever anybody spams us, please
>>>>
>>>> 1. Blackball them as a vendor
>>>>
>>>> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
>>>> lots of google-searchable keywords.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>Was this really necessary?
>>>
>>>If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
>>>to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.
>>>If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
>>>any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
>>>that frequent.
>>>
>>>I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
>>>trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
>>>almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?
>>>
>>>Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.
>>>
>>>- John_H

>>
>>
>> If we don't discourage commercial posts, newsgroups will be flooded
>> with them. I can't kill-file the tens of thousands of companies who
>> would spam newsgroups if they thought it would pay off. So let's make
>> sure it *doesn't* pay off.
>>
>> If they want to advertise, let them pay for it somewhere else.
>>
>>
>> John
>>

>
> For what it's worth, I agree with John.
>
> It's a real shame that we, now, have to go out of our way to filter
> commercial and sexual posts. There are proper places for both of those.
> Usenet is not one of them, in my opinion.


Come on guys, get over it, really.
The heading clearly had "ANNC:" and what it was about clearly stated, so the
OP did the right thing.
It only takes a split second to scan the header to see if you are
interested. If you aren't interested then you shouldn't have even opened it.
I'd consider this ON TOPIC and not spam as it was a one-off announcement to
the correct groups with the correct formatting.
Some people might very well be interested, this is a professional design
group with many FPGA designers afer all.

Dave.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rickman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2008
On May 8, 8:35 am, "David L. Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "BobW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Larkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> > messagenews1e424d2h2uldtu4qm4589v667lu96hip8@4ax .com...
> >> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT), John_H
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>>John Larkin wrote:

>
> >>>> To Lattice:

>
> >>>> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
> >>>> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.

>
> >>>> To the group:

>
> >>>> Whenever anybody spams us, please

>
> >>>> 1. Blackball them as a vendor

>
> >>>> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
> >>>> lots of google-searchable keywords.

>
> >>>> John

>
> >>>Was this really necessary?

>
> >>>If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
> >>>to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.
> >>>If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
> >>>any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
> >>>that frequent.

>
> >>>I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
> >>>trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
> >>>almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?

>
> >>>Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.

>
> >>>- John_H

>
> >> If we don't discourage commercial posts, newsgroups will be flooded
> >> with them. I can't kill-file the tens of thousands of companies who
> >> would spam newsgroups if they thought it would pay off. So let's make
> >> sure it *doesn't* pay off.

>
> >> If they want to advertise, let them pay for it somewhere else.

>
> >> John

>
> > For what it's worth, I agree with John.

>
> > It's a real shame that we, now, have to go out of our way to filter
> > commercial and sexual posts. There are proper places for both of those.
> > Usenet is not one of them, in my opinion.

>
> Come on guys, get over it, really.
> The heading clearly had "ANNC:" and what it was about clearly stated, so the
> OP did the right thing.
> It only takes a split second to scan the header to see if you are
> interested. If you aren't interested then you shouldn't have even opened it.
> I'd consider this ON TOPIC and not spam as it was a one-off announcement to
> the correct groups with the correct formatting.
> Some people might very well be interested, this is a professional design
> group with many FPGA designers afer all.
>
> Dave.


I have to agree with John L on this one. I don't think we should in
any way encourage commercial posts here. The issue is quantity. If
we are happy with one post, why not 100? There are a couple of groups
I visit that have been virtually ruined by advertising. No, it is not
on topic advertising, but I don't think that is the point. The
quantity is the problem. I can see some groups getting hundreds or
thousands of on topic posts a day if all vendors did this. Can you
imagine how flooded comp.arch.embedded would be if every maker of
MCUs, memory, I/O chips, etc. posted just one message a day?

If you like these messages and want to receive them, why not get on
the vendor's email list? I'm sure they will only be too happy to
directly email you with all sorts of information. Isn't that what opt-
in mail lists are for???
 
Reply With Quote
 
rickman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2008
On May 7, 2:11 pm, John Larkin
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 10:52:01 -0700 (PDT), bart
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Lattice is holding a webcast today, Wednesday, May 7th, on our latest
> >version of our FPGA software design tools "ispLEVER 7.1 FPGA Design
> >Tool Technical Rollout." The presenter will be Troy Scott, from our
> >software marketing group.

>
> >If you're interested, the event takes place live at 11am Pacific,
> >18:00 GMT. In addition, you will be able to view this webcast archive
> >on-demand, at your convenience, starting a few hours after the live
> >event takes place.

>
> >You can register by clicking:
> >http://www.latticesemi.com/corporate....1fpgadesignto...

>
> >Bart Borosky, Lattice

>
> To Lattice:
>
> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.
>
> To the group:
>
> Whenever anybody spams us, please
>
> 1. Blackball them as a vendor
>
> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
> lots of google-searchable keywords.
>
> John


I didn't realize that this thread is cross posted to... five different
groups. I guess we get to read it more than once as well.

I can't exactly blackball Lattice. I just designed in one of their
parts because it was almost the only part that would suit all of the
requirements. Altera has their new zero power PLDs (it's about time
guys) and Xilinx is still stuck in the 90's with their near total lack
of Flash based FPGAs. (yeah, I know they have a dual die spartan
flash chip, but they blew the packaging). So Lattice may not be
perfect, (is anyone?) but I can't blacklist them because they posted
to a newsgroup I read.

Rick
 
Reply With Quote
 
ehsjr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2008
CBFalconer wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>>bart <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lattice is holding a webcast today, Wednesday, May 7th, on our
>>>latest version of our FPGA software design tools "ispLEVER 7.1
>>>FPGA Design Tool Technical Rollout." The presenter will be Troy
>>>Scott, from our software marketing group.
>>>
>>>If you're interested, the event takes place live at 11am Pacific,
>>>18:00 GMT. In addition, you will be able to view this webcast
>>>archive on-demand, at your convenience, starting a few hours
>>>after the live event takes place.
>>>
>>>You can register by clicking:
>>> http://www.latticesemi.com/corporate...designtool.cfm

>>
>>We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance.
>>Now that you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.

>
>
> You're wrong. Proper announcements are quite topical. The quality
> may be questionable, and that is also suitable for discussion. Of
> course, making the announcement less than one hour before the event
> begins is indicative of poor thinking. Even 24 hours notice would
> be cutting it close.
>



It's a question of opinion, not of fact, so it's not a
matter of right or wrong.

Your observation "Proper announcements are quite topical."
supports the "it is not spam" point of view.

As you point out, Lattice (or at least its representative
Mr. Borosky) has not given a lot of thought to getting the
notice out in a "proper" manner. By "proper", I mean where
and when it would do Lattice the most good. That supports
the "it is spam" point of view.

For the record, I agree with JL. Posted here as it was it is
spam, in my opinion.

Ed
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Miles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2008

"David L. Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4822f3a7$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "BobW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>
>> "John Larkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> message news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT), John_H
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To Lattice:
>>>>>
>>>>> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
>>>>> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the group:
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever anybody spams us, please
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Blackball them as a vendor
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
>>>>> lots of google-searchable keywords.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>Was this really necessary?
>>>>
>>>>If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
>>>>to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.
>>>>If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
>>>>any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
>>>>that frequent.
>>>>
>>>>I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
>>>>trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
>>>>almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?
>>>>
>>>>Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.
>>>>
>>>>- John_H
>>>
>>>
>>> If we don't discourage commercial posts, newsgroups will be flooded
>>> with them. I can't kill-file the tens of thousands of companies who
>>> would spam newsgroups if they thought it would pay off. So let's make
>>> sure it *doesn't* pay off.
>>>
>>> If they want to advertise, let them pay for it somewhere else.
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>

>>
>> For what it's worth, I agree with John.
>>
>> It's a real shame that we, now, have to go out of our way to filter
>> commercial and sexual posts. There are proper places for both of those.
>> Usenet is not one of them, in my opinion.

>
> Come on guys, get over it, really.
> The heading clearly had "ANNC:" and what it was about clearly stated, so
> the OP did the right thing.
> It only takes a split second to scan the header to see if you are
> interested. If you aren't interested then you shouldn't have even opened
> it.
> I'd consider this ON TOPIC and not spam as it was a one-off announcement
> to the correct groups with the correct formatting.
> Some people might very well be interested, this is a professional design
> group with many FPGA designers afer all.
>
> Dave.

The message was crossposted to five newsgroups, not just one. Are the
people who say accept it in the same newsgroup as the one who say don't?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Bradley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
In the newsgroups comp.arch.fpga, comp.lang.verilog,
comp.arch.embedded, sci.electronics.design and comp.lang.vhdl, I saw a
thread in which the following words were approximately attributed to
the following posters:

On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:19:31 -0700, "BobW"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT), John_H
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To Lattice:
>>>>
>>>> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
>>>> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the group:
>>>> Whenever anybody spams us, please
>>>>
>>>> 1. Blackball them as a vendor
>>>>
>>>> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
>>>> lots of google-searchable keywords.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>Was this really necessary?


Yes.

>>>If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
>>>to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.


Email them, and sign up for subscriptions to all their blurbs. A
confirmed opt-in email list is a good way to disseminate such info. If
they don't have such a list or don't announce events timely, tell them
you'll only consider sources from companies who do.

>>>If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
>>>any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
>>>that frequent.


"Well, there's spam egg Lattice and spam, that's not got much spam
in it."

In other words, "they're not breaking the rules THAT often." With
the thousands of suppliers that provide products and services relevant
to even one of the cross-posted newsgroups, there could be hundreds of
posts per day of "legitimate" commercial posts.

>>>I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
>>>trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
>>>almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?


It's always good to be vocal about inappropriate posts. As for the
poster airing his previous problems with Lattice, perhaps they would
be better put in a blog or in a post where someone asks about using
Lattice, but that's a minor thing compared to the original post.

>>>Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.


I have better things to do than manage kill lists. I've got "better
things to do" than write this, but but c.a.e and especially s.e.d have
been useful to me a while back, and between all the spam and splorge
in recent years, it's a pleasant surprise to see these groups are
still viable. So I'm doing my little part to help keep them alive.

>>>
>>>- John_H

>>
>>
>> If we don't discourage commercial posts, newsgroups will be flooded
>> with them. I can't kill-file the tens of thousands of companies who
>> would spam newsgroups if they thought it would pay off. So let's make
>> sure it *doesn't* pay off.
>>
>> If they want to advertise, let them pay for it somewhere else.
>>
>>
>> John
>>

>
>For what it's worth, I agree with John.
>
>It's a real shame that we, now, have to go out of our way to filter
>commercial and sexual posts. There are proper places for both of those.
>Usenet is not one of them, in my opinion.


Just to make a slight correction, THESE NEWSGROUPS (see crosspost
list at the top of my post) are not the proper place for commercial
posts. There are "marketplace" and "sex" newsgroups - if he's going to
spam, perhaps Bart Borosky of Lattice would do well to post to those
instead. There's no telling where a lonely engineer might go in his
spare time, and after all, "posting to Usenet is free" (as in both
beer AND speech).

Post, drink and speak responsibly.

>
>Bob


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On May 18, 1:29 pm, Ben Bradley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> In the newsgroups comp.arch.fpga, comp.lang.verilog,
> comp.arch.embedded, sci.electronics.design and comp.lang.vhdl, I saw a
> thread in which the following words were approximately attributed to
> the following posters:
>
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:19:31 -0700, "BobW"
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"John Larkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT), John_H
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>>John Larkin wrote:

>
> >>>> To Lattice:

>
> >>>> We dumped Lattice over buggy compilers and dinky performance. Now that
> >>>> you're spamming our group, I'll make the ban permanent.

>
> >>>> To the group:
> >>>> Whenever anybody spams us, please

>
> >>>> 1. Blackball them as a vendor

>
> >>>> 2. Say bad things about their companies and products, preferably with
> >>>> lots of google-searchable keywords.

>
> >>>> John

>
> >>>Was this really necessary?

>
> Yes.
>
> >>>If there were technical webcasts from any of the big vendors, I'd like
> >>>to know about them though preferably more than 8 minutes beforehand.

>
> Email them, and sign up for subscriptions to all their blurbs. A
> confirmed opt-in email list is a good way to disseminate such info. If
> they don't have such a list or don't announce events timely, tell them
> you'll only consider sources from companies who do.
>
> >>>If the posts of this nature got to be more than a couple a month from
> >>>any one source I'd agree with the spam catagorization but it isn't
> >>>that frequent.

>
> "Well, there's spam egg Lattice and spam, that's not got much spam
> in it."
>
> In other words, "they're not breaking the rules THAT often." With
> the thousands of suppliers that provide products and services relevant
> to even one of the cross-posted newsgroups, there could be hundreds of
> posts per day of "legitimate" commercial posts.
>
> >>>I'm disappointed that you had problems with them in the past and won't
> >>>trust them for future designs because of your history; competition is
> >>>almost always good. But is it reason to be publicly vocal?

>
> It's always good to be vocal about inappropriate posts. As for the
> poster airing his previous problems with Lattice, perhaps they would
> be better put in a blog or in a post where someone asks about using
> Lattice, but that's a minor thing compared to the original post.
>
> >>>Kill-lists are easy to manage if bart's messages offend you.

>
> I have better things to do than manage kill lists. I've got "better
> things to do" than write this, but but c.a.e and especially s.e.d have
> been useful to me a while back, and between all the spam and splorge
> in recent years, it's a pleasant surprise to see these groups are
> still viable. So I'm doing my little part to help keep them alive.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>- John_H

>
> >> If we don't discourage commercial posts, newsgroups will be flooded
> >> with them. I can't kill-file the tens of thousands of companies who
> >> would spam newsgroups if they thought it would pay off. So let's make
> >> sure it *doesn't* pay off.

>
> >> If they want to advertise, let them pay for it somewhere else.

>
> >> John

>
> >For what it's worth, I agree with John.

>
> >It's a real shame that we, now, have to go out of our way to filter
> >commercial and sexual posts. There are proper places for both of those.
> >Usenet is not one of them, in my opinion.

>
> Just to make a slight correction, THESE NEWSGROUPS (see crosspost
> list at the top of my post) are not the proper place for commercial
> posts. There are "marketplace" and "sex" newsgroups - if he's going to
> spam, perhaps Bart Borosky of Lattice would do well to post to those
> instead. There's no telling where a lonely engineer might go in his
> spare time, and after all, "posting to Usenet is free" (as in both
> beer AND speech).
>
> Post, drink and speak responsibly.
>
>
>
> >Bob


Guys,

I read this thread after it was created and just wanted to ask a
couple of questions (while completely agreeing with the generally
accepted conclusion):
Was all this 'hot air' necessary?
Was all this bad-mouthing coming from some of the authors proper for
the group?

With respect,
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ANNC: ADC to FPGA Interface Webcast bart VHDL 2 02-27-2008 11:46 PM
ANNC: FPGA Noise Fundamentals Webcast bart VHDL 0 08-27-2007 06:00 PM
ANNC: LatticeXP2 FPGA Introduction Webcast bart VHDL 0 06-20-2007 04:33 PM
ANNC: Tips for FPGA Timing Closure Webcast bart VHDL 0 03-27-2007 11:31 PM
ANNC: VHDL Coding for FPGA Webcast bart VHDL 1 06-13-2006 07:23 PM



Advertisments