Database issues was Re: 2000 members, 15 cnc related programs?????

Fred,List, (long post, important throughout, IMO)

I feel you have missed the point of this database. It is designed to
be a STARTING POINT, NOT A SALES TOOL.

Adding all the categories and evaluations would make it unwieldy for
ITS INTENDED USE.

As it is, one can very quickly determine whether a pkg is CAD,
toolpath, motor control, or a combination. And whether it costs
little, or much. And where TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION...

And speeds/feeds calculator-(toolpath, possibly CAD), geargen-
(toolpath), and editors-(toolpath); all are EASY to fit into the
categories given. If it doesn't fit the GIVEN categories, it doesn't
BELONG on THIS database.

I resent your attempt to force your views on us. Share them, discuss
them, but to say "remove my program" is like saying "I'm taking my
ball home with me now..." And one more time, I'm sure you don't have
the right to do this in the USA.

Again, you are free to add your own complicated, large, unwieldy, all-
inclusive, entry only by APPROVED members (who happen to represent
the companies, in your statement- seems like you want the fox to
guard the henhouse) database. But please do not IMPOSE your views
upon what THIS database was/is intended to be.

Clearly we disagree. There's room for everybody.

Ballendo

P.S. This list is far from necessary to my book(s). Decades of
experience and thousands of hours of research put me in a pretty good
position, already. The reason I posted the 2k,only 15 was so I didn't
have to fill the database myself. I could add at least a few hundred
entries ON MY OWN! (but with 2000 members, it shouldn't all fall on
my shoulders)

(more snips,inserts below)

> My categories were carefully thought out, keeping that particular
> program and its capabilities in mind. I did not say that a program
> could not be in more than one catagory, just that the functional
> categories should be clearly demarked.

Exactly what my database does; ALSO carefully thought out. But maybe
not with the same goals in mind as you...

> I think in fact that it would better clarify the tools available in
> the software end of things.

Clarification is great. But I AGREE that the DETAILS OF CLARIFICATION
SHOULD COME FROM THE COMPANY REPS! Not from a "listing" database.

I have a book, of a few hundred pages, from 15 years ago, which lists
ONLY CAD programs... (Our group website would not support the
database you describe)

> Right now Discriminator is listed as tool path software, Deskam and
>Lcam as CAD, and up until I requested it be removed, VectorCam was
>on the list twice. Confused yet?

What is the problem here? editors ARE used to tweak toolpaths; you
certainly wouldn't call discriminator a CAD program. And it doesn't
control motors.

Deskam and Lcam ARE CAD programs. Computer Aided Drafting, both have
drawing tools... Again, huh?

As to Vector being on the list twice, "for this you are complaining?"
I decided I would check in about once a week (more if necessary)
to "clean up" the entries. And I have done so; removong subjective
evals, tightening text descriptions to keep the dbase as short as
possible; remember, I didn't even want the text at all. It was
requested by others! Anyway, one or the other Vector reference would
have been deleted, in this cleanup, as were the duplicate proDesktop
entries I recently found.

By the way, VectorCAD is 1. VectorCAM is 1,2. So there SHOULD BE TWO
ENTRIES. To prevent confusion about this distinction, which was
expressed onlist recently.

> I would probably add a 5th category, but for other software that
>did not fit into any of the Cad-Cam categories, like editors(2),
>calculators(not here), gear programs(2, maybe 1), translators(2), R2V

(2, unless containing drawing tools, then 1 also), utilities
(depends), spreadsheets(dpends),etc, etc, etc.

Some of these fit; some do not. I've added my interpretations to your
list above. There can be other databases!

>Also by making 4 separate breaks between the controllers cads &
>cams, the appropriate capabilities between the different packages
>could be related. Such as which controllers have cutter comp, which
>ones have continuous contouring, Dos, Linux, Mac, support G-code,
>allow programmed changes in Feed rates, etc, same for CAD, CAM.
>This is the only sensible way to present the information and any
>other way becomes a meaningless hodgepodge of data without any

knowledge or wisdom imparted.

I have seen MANY attempts to do this. Including many online. Most,if
not all, fail miserably! This is what I wanted to AVOID with the
design of this database...
KISS, and provide a way to get more info FROM THE SOURCE...

>That's because you have already done your homework and know the
>differences. They DON'T make a difference to you. Your opinioins
>are already formed and you don't need the table to help you get
>started. For a new person to this hobby, it may make all the
>difference in the world, between success and failure.

Vector is 1,2. In the future (based on recent posts) it may be 1,2,3.
If I am looking for solutions to my cnc software problem, these
distinctions are plenty sufficient, as long as I do my own research!
Which this database is designed to promote, by NOT being an "all the
info you'll EVER need is here" thing. (Those types fail, and go out
of date daily, anyway.)

<snip>

>>either definitive or a complete selling document - more a handy
>>reference point & source of URLs so that people could get to the
>>full selling info.

>That was/is already contained in the group links. Why bother if the
>database doesn't provide anything more than a place to store garbage.

Information is processed by different people differently. What you
call garbage, others call a treasure. (I had lots of offlist msgs
from newbies, many who HAD already seen the links and faqs stuff. Are
you saying they're WRONG? There's room for differing views.

> I think he is trying to collect data for his book.

Laughable. And covered above. I have given FAR more than I have taken
from this group.

>My company is glad to participate in meaningful and useful sources
>of info. This database is not and apparently will not be in that
>category.

Meaningful and useful in WHOSE EYES??? I don't think you
can "censor" this database in this way. But you could "pull" your
pricing for members, which would of course show your true intentions,
here. Sales are "tolerated", but that is NOT "supposed" to be the
focus of this group. Spreading information IS the reason for the
group. Which this database clearly does.

>It was previously suggested (not by me) that a finer pricing
>distinction be applied. This was summarily ignored and arbitrarily
>dismissed and that only contributed more to the worthlessness of the
>data.

Fred, I didn't want keeping this accurate and up to date to be a full
time job. I ALSO didn't want those who were ACTIVE on list placed in
an unfair position. (by their "more likely" tendency to keep the
pricing of THEIR products current, while others have not.

Finally, this database is intended to be a STARTING POINT. Like a
dining guide, I don't see the menus or prices, just a general
indication of TYPE of food served, whether it is cheap or expensive,
and WHERE it is. I STILL have to GO THERE to find out what I think
about it.

Are dining guides useless, or garbage?

B.