Dear Mario

Linking is the same in assembler as any other language. I can guarantee that it
was not written in assembler!

My point is that I could fix it if they let me have the source code. I am almost
sure they used the Matrox library as they load the image kernel (which would not
be used if you were at hardware level and why would anyone not use the supplied
library?) despite the reply from Zeiss to the contrary. If so did Zeiss just
commit FRAUD?


Mark





>  Second, is it possible that the coding was done in assembler?
> If so, the simple recompiling-linking option may not be possible.
> (Perhaps you know already know where this stands)
>
> There are other possible pitfalls including introducing errors that
> affect the operation of the entire system. That's why software
> companies have elaborate protocols for product development including
> generating a set of requirements, coding, and, very importantly,
> testing. It is possible that with the source code you could do what
> you say, but I would not make that assumption and the risk of
> creating errors is real and compiler-linker dependent.
>
> Given the above, I would still expect that a respectable company that
> stands by its products, which sell for 200k and up, should be able to
> provide a simple upgrade path as software and computer hardware
> become obsolete. In this day and age, I would never buy a system that
> does not have this type of architecture. Zeiss should be able to come
> in and replace your boards/processors/software without a lot of
> trouble and in a reasonable period of time. Or, better yet, just mail
> you the stuff and you do it yourself. I would consider Zeiss to be
> pathetic, if they are unable to do so.
>
> In your case, I would lobby against anyone buying a Zeiss confocal
> until your problem is fixed such as by providing you with an upgrade
> path that doesn't require more than a software patch and a new board?
> But source code? That may just not be realistic unless you cut a deal
> with them. You write (if necessary) and test the code, and Zeiss gets
> to sell it. Just a suggestion.
>
> Anyway, I am very interested in how this plays out. Please, keep the
> List informed.
>
> Mario M. Moronne, Ph.D.
> NanoMed Technologies, Inc.
> 1561 Posen Ave
> Berkeley, CA
> 94706
>
> >Mark,
> >
> >>current board offerings). When I asked Zeiss about source code they
> >>refused
> >>release it (due to the proprietary nature of the code -HaHa). I view
> >>this as
> >>unacceptable as it means that the future for the LSM410 is now very
> >>limited. I
> >>
> >While trying to understand your problem I don't think that your posted
> >comments are fair. Service and support surely is one thing, but the release
> >of source code is yet another. I don't think that any commercial company
> >would ever release source code unless it is for the sole purpose of the
> >product and can be supported as well. Sometimes there are rather convoluted
> >patent or 3rd party developer issues involved that prohibit such disclosures
> >anyway. I agree though that the service people should offer you a reasonable
> >repair solution so you can continue to use the instrument.
> >
> >>the money for a new confocal in the near future). If Zeiss are not
> >>prepared to
> >>allow us to continue using our machine by not releasing the source code
> >>or
> >>supplying a new version then I for one would not recommend Zeiss to any
> >>groups.
> >>
> >Again, I don't think you can base the quality of service and support on the
> >willingness of the manufacturer to disclose company trade secrets. I am
> >sorry but improvements, upgrades or future limits to your existing system
> >does not have anything to do with a support issue.
> >
> >
> >Cheers
> >Lutz
> >
> >______________________________________
> >Lutz Schaefer
> >Advanced Imaging Methodology Consultation
> >16-715 Doon Village Rd.
> >Kitchener, Ontario
> >N2P 2A2, Canada
> >Email: [log in to unmask]
> >Phone, FAX: (519)-894-8870
> >______________________________________