Michael Aivaliotis

13 hours ago, ShaunR said:

Are you really suggesting that every project should be in it's own VM? That would mean I would have  523 VMs (and counting) just for Windows without even considering Linux, Mac, RT, VXWorks or test machines .

It's the workflow I use and it works for me. If I'm juggling 523 projects then perhaps my workflow would be different. I currently have about 10 active projects but maybe 3-4 hot ones. Lots of hard drive space and most of it SSDs. So it's fine. As far as test VMs, you just need one for each OS. It's a judgement call. Perhaps you have one VM that you use for several projects that use the same LV version and reuse libraries - who knows. How do you handle different NI hardware driver versions that come out every 6 months?

We can agree that LabVIEW sucks in this regard. No news there. Using VMs is "Putting the cart before the horse". Sure, but I'm done with creating large scale infrastructure tools to fix some other company's inactivity. Some folks younger than me with more energy to spare can do that - I'm good. I'd rather spend the development effort on my customers, which gives me greater reward and returns. Both emotionally and financially.

Don't get me wrong. I still build tools and reuse libraries. But most likely not a VIPM-type of tool or add-on.

The logo got wiped during the upgrade. I still have it. I just need to put it back. Just waiting for things to settle down a bit.

I'm really liking the new layout and feel of it. It seems more user friendly and mobile responsive.

All the OpenG stuff is now handled by this forum.

Does anyone have a solution to detecting where a drop occurred on a target tree control?

I'm already familiar with the 'Point to Row Column' method. However, that only returns the row of the item you mouse is hovering over during the drop.

See, when a user moves his mouse around, a line is shown exactly where the insert will occur. However this line location, between rows, is not available from what i can see. Regardless of where the line is drawn, the 'Point to Row Column' method returns the mouse hover location instead.

Perhaps there's an error generated somewhere that i can probe?

This is is LabVIEW 2015. Haven't tried in other versions but I assume it also fails as badly since it's not really a LV2015 feature.

Here's my dialog configuration:

Basically what happens most of the time is it just creates the property folder and 2 read\write VIs that are incompletely scripted:

I have to remove the property folder and the VIs from the class and redo the dialog. Sometimes 3-4 times before it finally works. There doesn't seem to be a pattern to this. Has anyone else experienced this? if so, I guess I should report it to NI. If this is already mentioned on another thread, then sorry for the noise.

Still looking for more door prizes. Please post here if your company will offer a door prize.

Early-Bird pricing ends this Friday. Buy Now!

I think we need to make this our theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzZezqJ9VgI

You can find the labview installed versions in the Windows registry.

You can find the VI Server ports in the ini files for those labview versions.

It's all there.

As an aside. What happened to the VI shots podcasts?

They'll be back soon. Not forgotten. Just on a break until I can reorganize my life so I can fit it in again. A major change happened where I'm now an independant consultant. So now any free time I had before is diverted to billable time. I need to change that. I'm a work in progress.

Local user groups don't have any barrier to entry, as far as I'm aware and some are talking about videoing them because of Marks sterling work. Is there a point in there somewhere or were you replying to someone else? I was pointing out that the issue is elitism, not financing or dissemination and you seemed to be arguing for entrenching that elitism..

So I understand your view. Anything paid for is elitism?

All good points!  I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate the generosity of the LV and LAVA community.  I think the issue here is that there is an unrepresented group of LV folks who might call themselves NCLA's (Non-Certified LabVIEW Architect's).  The CLA has little business or personal value for me so I have not pursued it,  I maintain my CLD only because it is a condition for my Alliance membership.   I am however interested in all advance topics in LV software engineering and I might think about going to a CLA summit if they become open to CLD's.  I guess what irks me is the notion that I would not be allowed to even view the CLA material, no matter what, even if I paid for the access.  Perhaps in the future NIWEEK will offer more CLA level sessions (which is the only reason I would want to go).

Good points. NI came up with the CLA certification program so they can do with it what they want right? It just so happens that in order to become a CLA, it implies a certain level of effort and commitment to the language. Also a certain level of experience. So naturally the CLA summit draws presenters at a higher level. So the presentations are of higher quality. - usually. But that's no guarantee.

Hey Mike, why don't you and I organize our own summit?

He fits into it by disseminating talks from elitist, closed, shop conferences for as long as he can.

 

The CLA orgies should be considered more like TED Talks than old boys' networking dinners. From what I have seen, the speakers seem to feel that way and the sessions certainly don't fit the sales pitch format so I am left wondering wonder why your arguing for Christmas.

I don't have a problem paying for stuff that adds value to my personal growth and also conveniently allows me to avoid traveling to Austin in August.

Content doesn't only come from NI BTW. We all have it in us to present our knowledge and experience to the masses. Not having a venue isn't an excuse anymore. Now that the platforms are free and open to all. Go for it. NI of course has incentive to do it. But I'm sure there are many local LabVIEW user groups across the world with presentations that never see the light of day outside of the 4 walls of those meeting rooms. - right?

There is also one other aspect to the CLA content not mentioned. I think Aristos Queue touched on this. The fact that content is not made widely accessible allows NI staff to be more candid and open about ideas and have discussions that could not happen in a public forum. I'd hate to lose that.

Michael, this is a slippery slope. I would have loved to attend the summit this year, but other commitments kept me away. The extra two days of content were restricted by an NDA, which I signed, so should I be allowed to see the videos even though I was not able to attend in person?

 

Regarding the other content, I feel it is down to the presenters on an individual basis to opt-in to allow their videos to be shown on youtube. I am pretty sure NI has no claim the the IP in those videos, and would be foolish to prevent non-restricted content from being made public. Although only CLAs were invited to the summit, but I do not really think it is fair to restrict that content from non CLAs who want to take the time (probably their own personal time) to watch it and perhaps learn something. The world needs more people skilled in LabVIEW in my opinion. The CLA summit is not quite as closed as you think to non-CLAs, there is actually a precedent already set in that the first CLA summit in Europe, held at NI UK HQ in Newbury was open to CLD as well.

I hope my personal record stands clear that I am a huge fan of giving away content away freely and am very community focussed. So don't take this the wrong way. Of course the content creators are free to do so as they please with their content. I'm not arguing against that at all. I wish more content creators would push their stuff online, but that's another discussion. NI has chosen to make the summit a special event, that is compelling enough that non-CLAs put extra effort into becoming certified just to attend the event. If you could get the content freely, then the certification has less value. This year, there was a lot of effort made to restructure the organization of it, so it's better managed. But I think this value statement remains. Again, NI could re-think their approach to this in the future. Perhaps if all the CLAs signed a petition and voted for it, then NI would do so? We all have a voice. How do other CLAs feel about this?

Now for those that are CLAs and could not attend in person. Then an argument could be made for providing access to the content in a private way. However, one reason this hasn't happened is because it requires an investment in backend systems and people to make it work. We tried this last year and it was a fail. The best solution is still to have a camera and a tripod in the room. However, the private video distribution is problematic. These are solvable problems but require resource commitments. NI should just pay Mark and buy extra equipment to support him. Then have their internal web team add a special page on the CLA community to host the videos. It can be done. BTW, privately listed Youtube videos work as advertized. I've used this feature many times. So this videos can be embedded in the CLA community page perhaps.

This year we had record attendance 170 people. At some point, the summit will outgrow the free NI campus and require an external paid venue. Questions are being raised about whether to charge for attending the summit. No decisions have been made but, I can see the request about giving away the content freely, to be questioned even further in that context. However the fact that you need to pay to get certified is also kind of the same. However as stated above. It's not so much about the money as it is the exclusivity.

The niweek videos is a different issue. I have quite a bit of experience attending non-ni conferences and trade shows. NIWeek is a hybrid of trade-show and conference. Little known fact. You could attend niweek for free if you just want to visit the show floor and view the keynotes (which now stream online). If you want to see the sessions you have to pay. I've been to many conferences that provide the video recordings of the sessions online for a price. There are many models to this. There is usually a separate ticket price for those that just want the videos. Or the videos could be an add-on price to the main conference ticket. Others just add the cost of the videos to the ticket price. However in all cases, the videos were private to those that paid. Of course to support this, you have to outsource video recording and management. It's a huge task requiring a camera in every room with a camera-person for each, etc.

Now NI already outsources the NIWeek audio\video already. The session room audio and keynote video is by an external company. NI could probably pay a fee to have them record the sessions as well. I think if people ask for it, NI will do it. But I'm sure they will have to consider the funding for it. I would.

• Is this a marketing investment, give them away for free? What about those that paid to get in? Won't they feel cheated?
• is this a separate price you charge?
• What if they added it to the niweek sessions ticket price?
• What will any of the above do to attendance? Does it matter?

So now in this possible future world. Where does Mark fit into it?

So, thank you Mark for doing what you do and staying under the radar so-to-speak and doing it all on donated time. I know I couldn't do it, even though I considered it seriously for a while.

If you are a content creator, then consider online distribution of your presentations as part of your strategy. It's not just about the powerpoint slide deck anymore.

You can attend the the CLA summit as a benefit of making it to the CLA certification level. If you are not a CLA then you shouldn't have access to the videos. The CLA summit is all about in person attendance and talking with your peers. And especially this year, there was an extra 2 days of awesome content that was a "must see". Even watching the videos doesn't do it justice, since I got the most value from one on one conversations. Perhaps in the future, this event will be open to all, but now it isn't.

Mark is not paid to record videos and has not been instructed to do so by NI or anyone else (maybe some presenters have asked - no idea). He does it out of his own passion. It's quite possible that NI might prevent him from recording videos in the future at all events. This is entirely in their legal right to do so. After all, this is paid content distributed for free (CLA summit and NIWeek sessions). So please be thankful and please don't stir the pot. If you know how to find the links and are lucky then great. The YouTube solution brings a lot of attention which I think Mark's recordings should not get, in my opinion.

As far as the presenters. There is technology today that you can use to record your audio and your computer screen. You can even attach a webcam if you want to be fancy. If presenters don't have their content online, it's not because it couldn't be done.

This new feature to SP1 is a first for NI. Also, this tool was demoed at the Austin CLA summit last week by NI. It's really nice.

Take a look at this. It should help you with your problem:

http://vishots.com/005-visv-labview-class-factory-pattern/

Native LVOOP is Goop4? I haven't heard that term. Just checking.

I'm sure the new software passed all regression tests they have (I can't believe they wouldn't do that for such a system  ) but somewhere somehow something fell through the cracks that when it was stress tested on Monday morning in the commuter traffic, simply failed.

There are strategies for this. You can release small and gradual until full capacity. People get cocky, and they ignore obvious signs.

I'm a fan of releasing early and often. Yearly monolithic release cycles are big, scary and should be avoided. But hey, that's how most are used to working.

Microsoft is going to release Windows 10 with frequent updates for free. But if you're a corporate user and want no updates, you have to pay.