Reds

I'm curious to hear what tools you guys are using to write and track software requirements/specifications. I'm especially curious to know if any of you have a workflow that can not only track requirements, but also document pass/fail test results for a given requirement in a given software release. For myself, I'm using Microsoft Word and FogBugz....i.e. I write the requirement in Word and then if it doesn't work, log it as a defect in FogBugz. However, there is a really naïve underlying assumption to this workflow: namely, that I would never release software that doesn't meet a requirement or pass a test. That's obviously a bogus assumption. A defect logged in FogBugz also doesn't have any sort of link back to the original requirements document for future reference. Most importantly, this workflow doesn't allow me to run a report which says something like: "show me all unmet requirements in release 3.2" or "show me which requirements have never actually been tested in release 3.2". I think (know) that it's important to track which requirements are actually implemented and actually pass tests in a given software release. This type of tracking would require some sort of relational database, and my existing workflow just isn't up for it. So, how many of guys are more sophisticated than Microsoft Word?

It is true that you don't actually have to register your software in order to obtain copyright protection. Copyright protection exists "automatically" as soon as you create the work. However, if you DO register it (in the US at least), you are entitled to recover far more damages in the event of a willful infringement. This means that you can actually find a lawyer to accept your copyright infringement case on a contingency fee basis, and don't have to front a huge wad of money to fight a willful infringer. If you DON'T register your software, you are only "protected" to the extent that you have tens of thousands of dollars in the bank waiting to be spent on legal fees. Additionally, you want to make sure that you provide legally correct notification of the copyright on the software itself. If you don't do this, then an infringer can claim "innocent infringer" status, which is a lot different than "willful infringement". Again, it will be a lot easier to find a lawyer to take your case if it is willful infringement of a work that is officially registered with the copyright office. So you really want to formally register your software if you are trying to make a living off it. Registration only costs $35 out-of-pocket.

Thought I would update this thread to let everyone know that apparently NI has (recently?) updated their EULA to include the following useful loophole (emphasis mine): You include the following copyright notice "Copyright [insert year] National Instruments Corporation. All Rights Reserved." in the Authorized Application's About Box (if applicable) and in (i) any applicable written documentation or, (ii) if no such documentation exists, in a "read me" or other .txt file distributed with each copy of the Authorized Application; (you may instead, or in addition, include your own copyright notice with the notice(s) required above, but in no event may you remove or alter any copyright, patent, trademark, or other legal notices or disclaimers that exist in the SOFTWARE I have no idea what moved NI Legal to make this change to the EULA, but I think it's a good change! Perhaps NI finally figured out that it wasn't a good idea to have people indiscriminately slapping the NI copyright notice onto the About Box of shoddily-written end-user applications??

Have any of you obtained a US Copyright for software you developed in LabVIEW? If so, did you file your software copyright as "Literary Work" or "Work of the Visual Arts"? To provide context, here is some actual language from the US Copyright Office circular: Because computer programs are literary works, registration as a Literary Work is usually appropriate. However, if pictorial or graphic authorship predominates, registration as a "Work of the Visual Arts" may be made.

Hi FrankH - can you provide an update? Were you able to use ASIO drivers with LabVIEW? I am also working on an application that requires low latency sound output. Thanks.

I'm working on a project that requires sound output via the Windows audio subsystem, and so I've recently found myself using the LabVIEW "Sound" pallet vi's for the first time in.....well...ever! The sound output ("Play") vi's allow you to setup and configure an output "task". As part of that configuration, you define a buffer size. Once that sound output task is configured, you effectively write your sound samples into this buffer over time, periodically refreshing this buffer with new audio sample data. That's all fine and good, but unfortunately it seems like there is no mechanism to query the buffer status and find out if the buffer is about to overflow or underflow. While this might not seem to matter if you're playing a sound file for a few minutes on a machine with lots of RAM, it definitely does matter if you're streaming live audio continuously through the system for several days or weeks. If you refresh the buffer with new audio sample data at rate that is just slightly faster than the audio card's configured sample rate, then it seems like the buffer will eventually use up all available PC RAM. if you are refreshing that buffer just slightly slower than the audio card's configured sample rate, then it seems like the buffer will eventually underflow and create a glitch in the audio output. And since there is no way to monitor whether the buffer is trending toward overflow or underflow, there is no way to figure out how to adjust the rate at which you feed new audio sample data into the buffers. Am I missing something here? Is the audio subsystem doing some sample rate conversion that I don't know about? What is the proper way to ensure that the sound playback buffers do not overflow or underflow over an extended period of time?