Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

Podcast:

It's not Dave's job to protect Rigol.

Whether he hurt them or not is a question that isn't clear, nor answered yet. If Rigol is forced to make further modifications because of Dave, and only because of Dave, then you may have a point on that narrow ledge. But it still doesn't mean Dave has any responsibility to protect them from such actions they may later choose to take.

Besides the issue that Dave is acting as an independent, free agent and may choose what is in his own better interests, he cannot possibly be expected to consult some personal Ouija board about the mind of Rigol about their own business interests. Rigol can fend for themselves. And they are perfectly able to do so.

In any case, I generally prefer a world where knowledge is freely shared, education valued, and the consequences lived with more than one where knowledge ie metered out. Dave gave information, which is fine. You did too when you commented about the "clean transient response" and the fact that you don't think it is wise to hack it for your own needs. Which is good information, as well. Then just let the end user decide for themselves what is better for them. As it should be.

Jon

I sincerely doubt that. I doubt even you could. Besides, I think you've made an excellent point that the unit works well as designed and doesn't work for your needs nearly so well, hacked. Other people like you will choose units that meet needs well and Rigol will be just fine.

But let me make an argument to the other side, just for grins. Professionals like you will do what is in your own interests and, if you are correct, hacking it doesn't make it much better so they won't bother. Besides, it works great as a 50MHz unit as it should. The niche of people who will modify the unit _rather_ than buy something that really does do 100MHz well will be those who simply cannot afford the higher priced spread, anyway. So they aren't really in the

besides, it's not Dave's job to pimp their interests, anyway. Rigol can take care of themselves, just fine.

Jon

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gosh, maybe you do have a sense of humor.

John

For hardware, I agree entirely. You bought it, you can hack it up any way you want. For software, you don't own it, you only license it, and that restricts what you can do.

So far, so well understood.

These hardware/software gizmos we're surrounded with are in a bit of a grey area. If you bought an Apple computer, for instance, you'd own the hardware but only license the pre-installed software. You don't get a right to hack/rip off/disassemble their software just because you bought their hardware.

I don't like the DMCA in general, and I think it was silly of Rigol to make hacking it this easy--all they needed was a SSH stack, a hardware key, or even an obfuscated command--but that doesn't change the moral position. The hardware is hardware, so you can hack it any way you like. Cutting traces on the PCB to get the extra vertical bandwidth would be perfectly fine.

Disassembling the firmware and ripping it off would not be fine.

Hacking the firmware as Dave did is a grey area, one that will become more and more important as we go along.

As I said, it's a good lesson in product design, and an interesting moral question that is more complicated than most folks here are willing to see.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Podcast:

He sure didn't protect them. He apparently organized an effort to hack their scopes and cost them money, and went public with it.

Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves.

Jones still hasn't said why he did it.

John

No, the firmware is identical in both models. They simply enter in whatever model number at final assembly via serial or USB and the firmware detects that and switches the I/O line that turns on/off the 50MHz filter. It also limits the displayed timebase to 5ns instead of 2ns. All other specs are idential.

Dave.

Judging the way the world works it doesn't seem to matter.

Anyway I don't give out copies of software to others. Although I always use cracked versions because I don't want to be mess around with dongles and license servers. If there is no cracked copy available I don't buy the software package. The availability of a cracked copy is also a measure whether its worth the money or not. Furthermore I try to use open-source software as much as possible (and contribute as a payment).

They made it too easy to hack. Now they're going to have to rework the firmware to make it harder, which will cost them something.

I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law. Personally, I class it with vandalism.

They always have the option of making it more

IP is different under law. You can't buy music or videos or software and do whatever you like with it... for instance make and sell copies, or open your own theatre and show movies that aren't licensed. IP is different from physical things.

You can buy a brick and make and sell all the copies you like.

Including shooting

Obviously. But I'm curious as to why he did it, and especially why he went to the touble to make a video and post it on youtube.

Why, Dave?

John

"Nial Stewart" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

Interesting you mention Microsoft.

If I recall correctly, I think the only difference between the Workstation and Server forms of NT was a pair of registry entries.

These could only be set correctly upon install, once running in whichever guise, the operating sytem made it impossible to change either one as the opposing pair enabled some algortihm to prevent change.

Perhaps this was an urban legend, but it would not surprise me.

From

Microsoft recently introduced version 4.0 of NT Workstation (NTW) and NT Server (NTS), and claims that there are substantial technical differences between the Workstation and Server products. Microsoft uses this claim to justify an $800 price difference between NTW and NTS, as well as legal limits on web server usage in NTW, both of which have enormous impact on existing NTW users. But what if the supposed technical differences at the heart of NTW and NTS are mythical?

We have found that NTS and NTW have identical kernels; in fact, NT is a single operating system with two modes. Only two registry settings are needed to switch between these two modes in NT 4.0, and only one setting in NT 3.51. This is extremely significant, and calls into question the related legal limitations and costly upgrades that currently face NTW users.

Podcast:

Probably because it is possible. The reason why there have been so many great inventions :-)

-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I think (in the USA) you do have rights to do a certain amount of hacking and disassembling regardless of what the shrinkwrap license might suggest, but I agree it's largely a grey area.

I'm willing to bet you that plenty of the big guys like Agilent, Tek, and LeCroy have completely taken apart, analyzed, and disassembled as much hardware and software as they could manage of their competitors' gear -- and then incorporated any hardware AND SOFTWARE improvements they found into their own kit. (All with one of the company lawyers around to make sure it was done legally, though.)

HP/Agilent and Tek have were using simple-minded-but-effective encryption already 20+ years ago to control access to software years in their gear...

Agreed.

---Joel

OK, but there's still an extra resistor needed to set it to 50MHz vs. 20MHz. :-)

You never did tell us if you'd pursue legal action against someone taking one of your widgets, completely replacing the firmware, and thereby providing functionality that you currently charge for?

Good point.

---Joel

You can't know what their manufacturing procedures are. They may select the better scopes to be the 100 MHz versions.

John

So are all the overclockers in the USA in jail for depriving Intel of revenue by not buying a higher grade CPU for more $?

I know for a fact that my (positive) review and pushing of the Rigol scope on my blog and other places has directly resulted in at least several hundred sales (people email me and thank me for it almost daily). My review of the Rigol has been viewed over 15,000 times, so I'd be surprised if I'm not responsible for sales in the thousands, directly or indirectly. I'm probably Rigol's biggest independent public supporter.

BTW, I did not come up with the solution and expose it, it's been public info on various forums for weeks before I did my video, and was even featured on Hackaday. And I have just heard that Rigol have already fixed the firmware before I did the video.

John seems obseesed with "why I did it". Err, in case he missed it, I run an electronics engineering video blog, and have had several episodes on the Rigol, so I and many of my viewers are curious about how Rigol (and others) design and market their products. I originally suggested the possibilty of a mod out of curiosity, so it's a update on what my viewers have discovered and have already shared with the world. There is actually nothing new in my video. I'm not depriving Rigol of anything, my blog is educational, and once again I believe I'm helping promote their products. To think my blog would hinder sales is ridiculous.

But given that Rigol are (or were) the 2nd biggest oscilloscope manufacturer in the world (they might be #1 now), my little blog is hardly going to amount to a hill of beans in terms of (I believe positive) sales for them anyway.

John needs to get off his ridiculous US DCMA hobby horse.

Dave.

Kinda sucks ? Did you watch the eevblog ??? I don't think you have the slightest clue about what fast signals really look like. The higher the bandwidth the messier they look as various resonance effects in the measurement circuit are revealed - use a 1Ghz 'scope and they REALLY suck. The modded Rigol compared very well with a 100Mhz Tektronix TDS 1012.

I doubt that would be illegal. It would be illegal if they violated my copyrights. I think it would be legal if they disassembled the code to understand how it works, and then wrote their own, as long as they don't copy my code.

If someone bought a baseline unit from me and modified the firmware to enable a feature and then sold it for a profit, I think I would have legal recourse to stop them. I'm not sure. If they used a computer in the process, as they almost certainly would, it may be a DCMA violation. I trust that none of my customers would do that, or purchase a unit from a hacker.

I did once design a cryogenic temperature sensor module and sold a bunch to Jefferson Labs. Someone else designed a register-compatible clone, which was probably legal, but Jlabs refused to buy any. I did once do a clone of a LeCroy module for Los Alamos, and LeCroy cut their price in half on the next bid, to kill me, and Los Alamos bought mine anyhow.

John

This last situation is one that _developed_ in the US due to a law suit (or several) that took place around the time when VisiCalc was a "big deal" in and around 1980. Prior to this time, software was bought and sold and the older US laws regarding rights followed that legal lagacy. If you BUY the software, you can loan it to others, etc. What happened is that some software manufacturers (using the term, loosely) decided that they didn't want that legal legacy and tried hard to pony up some "new idea." That new idea was selling licenses to use, not direct ownership. This really didn't have a lot of legal history to it and there was a debate as to whether or not one could "sell" a product over the counter, on a wide spread basis.

(By this, I mean, sold just like a hammer is and NOT like the usual 'licence to use' was before, which was strictly done between two eyes-open parties who represented themselves on a professional and fully informed basis and wrote a contract which was duly signed by appropriate authorities. Up to that time, there were licenses... yes. But they were strictly done on a written contract basis and done 1-on-1. This was new in the sense that merely "opening" a package was to be taken as a fully-informed legal contract. Which is a very different thing.)

A court (in my opinion, wrongly) decided this issue and opened the door that we now find ourselves completely on the other side of.

Hardware is as it always was, though. Software went through a dimensional door and we are now in another universe.

Yes.

I think this is a really interesting topic and I'm glad there are different opinions on it. It makes for some fun. I will read the arguments, but I'm sure like most of us over the age of 40 we aren't likely to make profound changes in our hard-won opinions. But it will be intriguing to see if someone does come up with a solid argument that changes an opinion here or there.

Jon