ShaunR

I was watching "The Gadget Show" earlier where they were they were trying to get a football to break the sound barrier...yeah right Anyhoo. One of their attempts was using a high-g-gun that is usually used for crash testing to shoot cars along a rail (this is at MIRA) . They attached a football boot to it and shot the sled at a ball.They didn't say, but it looks to me like LV. Only Labview programmers are able to come up with these sorts of colour schemes for UIs The Gadget Show Video It appears about 3/4 of the way through.

Yeah I know. you can't build it.....but couldn't resist

Those industries/companies that demand support, do so as a separate contract from the product. Some (for example) require 24 hr call-out and dedicated telephone numbers and contact names. As such accountability (legal or social) has nothing to do with the original product; II is a separate contract drawn up by the two involved parties and, accountable in it's own right. As was pointed out before with the Linux example, There is nothing to stop a 3rd party entering into a contract to supplying support for an open source product and, indeed, there is nothing prohibitive about purchasing a product without support. It is a company policy restriction (like acceptable licenses - some companies don't allow open source at all) and that will change from one company to the next. So the possibility is already there - It is possible to draw up a support contract regardless if you are the provider or not.

Does it have a CAR?

This is good point. But ..... if I pay monies for a product then there are certain responsibilities that the provider must adhere to by law. This is true of not only tangible product but things like services too. If support is offered as a product or, if it is an inclusive part of a product (as stated in their literature), then the provider is bound to provide that service and is legally accountable to the terms of that service. However, if it is not offered in this way, then the provider is only "socially" accountable and is under no obligation to provide that service and, if it is supplied, it is as a "value-added" service rather than a "rightful" one, with much less stringent responsibilities. From this definition, open source products are a socially accountable products and are no different than equivalent commercial offerings and the metric can be considered by customer satisfaction and review.

Nope. It works fine, but for 1 edge case. The function doesn't detect whites-paces, rather it detects non-white-spaces. It will stop at the first and last non white-space. So it will return the string at offset 0 of length = length and never gets to see any within the string. If there are no white-spaces at all then it will halt at offset=0 and length will equal length (length - 0 - 0) so it will return the entire string Are we bored yet

Indeed. If it s maximisable then it is resizeable. But if it is maximised. it might not be resizable. The behaviour you are describing in Windows 7 is a feature of Aero that can be turned off or may not be available on some systems (and doesn't doesn't exist in XP, Vista and probably not in linux either) I think what the OP is seeing is this....... Create a new VI and put something in it so that it will run continuously. Uncheck the VI properties "Allow User To Minimise Window" and Allow "User To Resize Window" Turn off the Aero Snap Maximise the VI. Run the VI. You should now have a full screen window that you cannot resize or move. and there are no minimise and no restore/maximise buttons. So far so good. Double click on the title-bar. It restores and now you are stuck with a non-resizeable, non-maximized (able) window. Well in 2009 at least.

BUG !!!! Anyone spotted it yet?

Hmm. Whaaaat? The point I was making (don't know id you were answering it or not...lol) Was that when maximized, there are no grab-handles so you cannot grab a border and resize a window You must first "restore" it then you get your handles back and can resize it..

To guarantee a response time requires resources, budgets and funding to be specifically allocated to that goal. For most companies, the resource is already in place as it is considered as an integral part of a company as an accounts or purchasing department s are. Free software (not trial or shareware, but truly.free of charge and royalties) in this environment is really a loss-leader - a gateway to sales for paid products and it is the companies interest to use existing support structures to capitalise on this and a proportion of the cost of a paid product is calculated to provide this support.. I think that is reflected in that (as far as I'm aware) all "Gold Compatible" are paid-for products with only 1 exception. However. Open source software (like the OpenG) is a non-commercial environment. As such, there are no allocated resources, budgets or funds. There is no existing support infrastructure. There is only community/personal pride, commitment to self improvement and a willingness to share; often at personal cost in both time and monies. Of course. There may not be a team of 30 engineers on the end of a telephone and the software might only be created and supported by a lone individual, but in my experience the support response is far superior as you are actually interfacing with a technical specialist rather than a telephone jocky and they have a vested interest in the product - not your wallet . But the biggest advantage is it has source code, and that empowers the user to be able to support themselves in a way that they cannot with proprietary, closed-source products so reliance on a fast support response is greatly diminished.. What does it actually mean "2-day turn around time on technical support". Is that to resolve an issue (I don't think anyone can guarantee that given time-zone differences). Is it to get an automated response to an email enquiry (It doesn't mean my problem will be solved). How does a 2 day support turn-around make some software more "compatible"? I think the Standard and Silver have the right idea - Peer tested and reviewed. If you view the "Compatible" award system as a measure of excellence then I think the issue of support is a bit moot since it is catered for within reviews. If another measure (or alternative) is required to distinguish Gold from Silver, then perhaps it should be relevant to the quality, number of commendations, platform dependence or whether it comes with source? I think if it was a quality metric, then the OpenG tools would be (and should be) Gold. Oh. And is "Compatible With LabVIEW" the right name? Surely all software written in LabVIEw is "Compatible" (versioning aside)

Errrrm If you maximize internet explorer using the Maximize/restore button you can't resize it

The 6 sig part is fairly straight forward and pretty well documented with templates you can apply. The hard part is the defect metrics (as applied to the software code rather than the project) and defining what they are and methods of measuring them (GUIs especially). This is especially difficult for for LabVIEW as most knowledgeable sources talk about base code size where every 100 lines is about 1 function point and we already know that it's hard to equate text lines to G. I prefer numbers of VI's with weightings for collections every 200K (directory size) since it's easy to measure and validate. But I'm sure there is a more formal way of doing it. The Wikilibrary has a good article with some useful views on the subject. It's much easier when you can get a ruler out and measure something

Well. Theres a lengthy form for downloading the sdk and you didn't include the call-back vi (was that supplied by the sdk?) so my input is probably going to be limited......but. What are you expecting it to do? Your while loop is just going to go round until you press the button, thats all you have really asked it to do. Unless there is communication from the call-back event to your VI (via a queue, event or something similar), you aren't going to be able to get any info back from it when it is actioned. A callback is called asynchronously and is a separate process to your VI The first thing I would check is that the call-back is actually being called. You can do that easily just by putting a dialogue prompt in it so that if it is called a dialogue will appear. If that works, then you can uses an event or queue to send whatever information is received (in the callback) back to your main VI.

Artois ?

A macro state is just a single sate that represents other multiple states (an alias if you like). Commonly, this would be things like initialisation/finalisation where (for example) the Init state could be an alias for Load Settings, Clear Display and then Set Window Position etc. But the term isn't limited to SMs , Excel has "Macro recording", for example, which will assign a single command to a number of operations that you do and will"replay" them back when executed (either by hitting a hot-key or explicitly running the macro)

Or when the warrantee period has expired

Just to clarify this a bit which might make thing a bit clearer for you. Labview allocates a fixed number of threads when it starts the environment. As such, you (the programmer) neither create nor destroy threads and labview uses this "pool' to schedule tasks from your program. Again, which tasks are scheduled are up to Labview although you have a small amount of control with the "Execution Subsystem". If you are really worried about the mechanics of threading LV then I would suggest reading Multi-threading In LabVIEW. But for most Labview programmers, it's not a consideration any more than indexing past the end of an array is (you can't ).

I've never had any success with the search either. I use Google to find stuff in here

Try importing this to a diagram. Ooops. REalised you're using 8.x Here's the vi saved to previous

I didn't mean for you to defend the decision (apologies if it came across that way). I as just commenting on the fact that many people use an intermediary DLL which makes it difficult for me to just plop the latest version, pre-compiled library, when there's an update. But I think it's great that you are investigating the x64 since it's prevented me from using the library in the past. LV now comes shipped with zip file support, but it doesn't enable in memory compression which I believe yours does support

I did download and create the zlib from here a while ago (has x32 & x64 object assemblies). Not sure if it will do over 2GB (don't see why it shouldn't). But the issue here is that you use an intermediary DLL lvzip.dll so it's not a simple replace as I assumed originally.l Although I'm not sure why (maybe speed?); I have seen it a lot with labview interfaces to dll's.

Indeed they are different issues .But LV x64 cannot load x32 dll's so even if the 32 bit dll is compiled with u64 pointers; it won't work in LV64 (which I think is why the OP was asking for an x64 dll). Anything that relies on dll's needs to be supplied with both and detect the bitness to work on both platforms (either on install or on the fly). But I did play with the 32bit one when the OP asked, and by replacing all the I32 controls and coercions for u64 (in the write) actually got it to write a 4.3 GB file without complaining (quite surprised, although I can't see how the content would be valid.). The LV file functions are u64 so the coercions were causing it to throw the file error. But then it failed on the finalisation. The result was I could write a 4.3GB invalid file . Since finalisation was a direct call, there wasn't much further I could go without delving into the C source and thought I'd leave it to the expert . Which repository? It's great to hear your looking into x64

Correction of this bug will also have a knock-on effect on SQLite Delete Column.vi and SQLite_Rename Column.vi causing them to fail. In each of these VIs there is a boolean (True) wired to the SQLite_Query-Transaction.vi. This boolean needs to be deleted. The VIS will then work correctly.

Just to clarify the interim fix for this: Locate and open SQLite_Query-Transaction.VI (It is in the "Query" Virtual folder under "Core". Right-click on the case structure (there is only one) Select "Make This Case True" from the popup menu Save the VI It should now work as intended.