Yair

That seems to indicate a lot more clearly that AddQ did directly copy (manually or using an automated tool) at least parts of the API. Is this a static subVI or is it generated from a template? Also, does this sort of thing appear a lot in the code (i.e. are there other places where you use the modified cluster and they use the normal one or vice-versa)?

I just ordered a new laptop, but no SSD, which is unfortunate, because I really would like the speed improvement. I'm still too afraid of the wear issues. With doing LV work all day long I'm afraid the drive would wear out too fast.

I would agree with that sentiment if you would say something like "Mikael is an active member, he's a friend, he came before, etc., so I'm going to keep using GDS regardless because he deserves it". That's a legitimate stance. I would also agree if you say "they took advantage of their work at Endevo and that's not something I want to support". That's also legitimate. I don't agree with that sentiment if it means accusing them of stealing code without having pretty concrete proof. Maybe they did (they say they didn't, and I'm personally inclined to believe that), but I would want some damning proof of it. Also, just to clarify, since some people seem to have gotten the wrong idea from my bolded text - I'm not upset or angry. I just wanted to clearly get my general point of not rushing to judge people without having enough info. This applies in many places in life. Here endeth the lesson, children.

I doubt anyone can protect the public interface of an API as proprietary, but those are legal questions and way out of my experience or comfort zone. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. There is presumably some degree to which you can say "hey, they can't copy our API. People might think it's our product" or something along those lines, but I don't know where that line is. I can say that there are valid technical reasons for using similar connector panes and I doubt this even has any serious ethical issues. Unless you explicitly sign a contract preventing you from working in the same field, there is nothing preventing you from building a similar product (although personally I probably would have an ethical problem with that and I doubt I would do it), and there's no logic in starting completely from scratch. You as a developer already have some knowledge and habits, the users already come to expect certain things, etc. So far I haven't seen any clear indication that AddQ has done some something wrong (except for deleting the posts and pulling out, which is a PR suicide), yet people seem to decide that they have, despite explicit denials. I REALLY dislike such judgement. I have no idea what the technical merits of AddQ's framework are either. I asked for a demo video, but the thread kind of exploded after that, so I never got my wish.

Michael, besides my previous email issue, I also have another one. Have a look at reply 25 here. When I got the notification email, the first part of the post was missing. Basically everything until the word "IF" in bold, which causes me to assume that it was the formatting which caused the message to be cut. I've also seen this before (after the last upgrade), but I wasn't able to pinpoint the issue at the time. With this one I assume I found the culprit.

I understood what it means. My point was what I said next - nothing is completely new. Exactly. That was my point. Plagiarism is a serious allegation and one which should not be made lightly. That was my point. Unless there is concrete evidence such action has taken place, throwing the accusation around is problematic, at best, especially if it's presented as fact.

I'm not sure what "completely out of your gut" means. Any OO framework people release today will have some similarity to the others. Nothing is completely new and unless you have a contract preventing your employees from working in the same field after they leave you, you can't prevent them from doing something similar. So far, I haven't seen any proof that the AddQ code is not original. Mikael suggested it was and gave a couple of examples (which can be explained) and Mattias explicitly said the code was written from scratch. I would avoid inflammatory comments such as these, unless you have concrete reasons to believe the code is a copy. I would agree that pulling out of the discussion is a bad move, though. Jon, I believe the release itself isn't illegal regardless of its origins. At most, it would be violating some ethical rules and possibly business agreements IF it was partially copied. It's possible that there are some laws about this, but it's not up to us to make a call about those. The decision whether or not to use it is, of course, yours.

What is it about the Swedes and Finns that makes you LVOOP gods? This looks really nice. Can you upload a video demonstrating the use of the tool and of the underlying architecture? Screencast seems to a popular choice for such recordings.

I have reason to believe NI has a test in their suite to ensure this works in an executable, so hopefully they shouldn't break this even unintentionally.

And to clarify it even more - the value of the control will be 6 when the code finishes executing, because the second property executes last, even though it got the value first:

Maybe it's just me, but I never really understood the point of these hashes - if someone has the permission to replace the file, wouldn't they also have the permission to replace the hash with one which matches the new file?

Ben, tickling in the back of the brain can be a symptoms of brain-infesting aliens. I would suggest a visit to the doctor. Either that, or this is what tickled you: http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Wait-icon-showing-in-boolean-array-to-number/m-p/1112021?jump=true

I'm already apologizing for this:

You need wait no longer. Animated Icon.llb

I wouldn't bother with individual controls, even if you're going to do this fairly often. It should probably not take long to execute if you defer updates. Based on your description, I would say you should get the references to all the controls on the FP once (using the Controls[] property or, if you have nested controls, using <vi.lib>\utility\traverseref.llb\TRef Get All FP References.vi) and then build the controls you don't want to reset into an array and remove them from the first array using a for loop. You now have an array of all the controls you want to reset which you can go over in a for loop. You can call the reinit method for each one.

So, is it faster than a potato?

IPB folks, if you read this, you probably already know this, but I can now say that this suspicion has been confirmed. Posts from the same user in the same thread are collected into a Gmail conversation, which is bad.

It might have Adblock available as an add-on, but I never checked. I could probably check in FF, where I do have it installed. I rarely know that I don't want to change the read status in advance. The NI forums have an option of explictly marking a thread or a reply as unread, which I do use on occasion and wouldn't mind seeing here. What I do today in those cases is usually mail myself a link to the conversation. It would definitely be less annoying. But wouldn't that make me crash into walls?

IE 8, in this case, and for me it's not subtle enough. It's not a huge impossible roadblock, but it is a constant annoyance.

The latest upgrade added a post preview feature, but this feature is not something I intend to use and the repeated flashing on and off of the icon as I hover over the topics in the Unread Content page is annoying. Is it possible to add an option to the control panel to disable this feature?

Before the upgrade, the email notifications of new posts would come out with the subject line "[TOPIC NAME] New Reply Notification". This would cause Gmail to usually collect them into a single conversation, which was pretty convenient. Since the upgrade, the format was changed to "X replied to Y" and each of them appears separately (and I suspect that if one person will reply twice, their posts will be grouped, thus losing the chronological order). Is it possible to switch back to the old format?

Sounds like Battle Chess (and this bit include the Python reference): <object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

I agree that it's very cool, although when you look at the numbers shown under the videos the picture is not quite as bright (and I can't help but feeling that it would have been cooler if the pieces controlled their movement on their own by coordinating with each other rather than being controlled from a central location).

Or simply use the OpenG 1D Array to String VI, which I believe works around this issue.

The basic problem with both methods is that they're inherently manual. Mine has some advantage in that once you have the parsing code, adding a bunch of new classes is probably easier, but it's limited to what appears in the help. Jon's method is limited to the classes placed there by the user, but isn't limited to what NI placed in the help. I don't know of any way of getting all the class references automatically, but maybe someone else does.