Radio Shack?

[Michael A. Terrell]

If I had two *identically qualified* candidates (how on earth would I
determine that?) and one of them called a DE-9 a DB-9 (and I noticed his
earth-shattering gaffe), I might have to give the nod to the competing
candidate.


I agree, *someone's* job involves knowing the right part number, but
*usually* not everyone's. Even the lead design engineer might tell the
draftsman "put a right-angle PCB mount male DB9 with screw locks right
there". The draftsman would discover the mistake when he tried to find the
part in his OrCad or AutoCad library.


You don't think they would test the product before placing it in service?
Acceptance testing should find the problem long before it leaves the plant,
and certainly before any rocket mistakenly crashes into a suburb. I think
you're having trouble distinguishing between two hugely different scenarios:

I have no trouble telling them apart. I made it from a hobbyist at 8
years old, to doing design work on electronics for the aerospace
industry, fully self taught. I was awarded the MOS of broadcast Engineer
at 20 years old by the US Army as a "Civilian Acquired Skill", and
bypassing a three year military electronics school. I would not have
passed that test by using common names. It kept me from going to Vietnam
with a M16, and probably coming home in a body bag.

1. Engineer specifying the wrong part in a life-critical system and then
everyone failing to catch it in myriad reviews and QA.
2. Hobbyist walking into Radio Shack and casually using the common name for
a part.

If they are so common, why doesn't Radio Shack's drones know them?
They have more reason not to know the right names that the "Common"
names. Its like "Common sense" If it really was common, it wouldn't
have a name.

I have no problem with that.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Karl Uppiano]

I have no trouble telling them apart. I made it from a hobbyist at 8
years old, to doing design work on electronics for the aerospace
industry, fully self taught. I was awarded the MOS of broadcast Engineer
at 20 years old by the US Army as a "Civilian Acquired Skill", and
bypassing a three year military electronics school. I would not have
passed that test by using common names. It kept me from going to Vietnam
with a M16, and probably coming home in a body bag.

I'm glad things worked out well for you, but not everyone thinks the same
way. IIRC, we informally called them DB-9s when I was designing electronics
for the broadcast industry, and so did our customers. We knew better, but it
wasn't a critical point. We managed to get the right parts installed, and we
didn't embarrass our customers by constantly correcting them.

If they are so common, why doesn't Radio Shack's drones know them?
They have more reason not to know the right names that the "Common"
names. Its like "Common sense" If it really was common, it wouldn't
have a name.

The reason the Radio Shack drones don't know them by their proper name *or*
by their common name is because they don't work with them or with people who
use them. They look up what amounts to a verbal typo, and not finding
anything, they draw a blank. Radio Shack will sell more parts if they were
clued in to the fact that some people call them by the "common" name, and
cross reference them, just like Wikipedia does. It's so simple, and it's
just good business.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

You don't think they would test the product before placing it in service?
Acceptance testing should find the problem long before it leaves the plant,
and certainly before any rocket mistakenly crashes into a suburb. I think
you're having trouble distinguishing between two hugely different scenarios:

Of course they were tested. At the board level, the module level,
unit level, with full documentation, test and QC stamps. Then they were
shipped to NASA where it was tested before going into their inventory,
periodic testing while in long term storage, and again before a launch.


Still, if any unit failed and people died, every piece of paper back
to the first purchase order would have to be provided, and anyone who
worked on the equipment may be investigated. Our reputation was good
enough that they told us what they needed. We quoted, and built to
spec. One unit was in service over 30 years with NO service. The only
downtime was a few hours when NASA had to shut power down to do repairs
to that facility.

Few companies do that level of work, and it was damn hard to find
qualified techs, because most have the same attitude seen in these
newsgroups of "Good Enough" "Who Gives a shit" or "Big Deal". its no
wonder that the electronics industry is dying in first world countries.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

The reason the Radio Shack drones don't know them by their proper name *or*
by their common name is because they don't work with them or with people who
use them. They look up what amounts to a verbal typo, and not finding
anything, they draw a blank. Radio Shack will sell more parts if they were
clued in to the fact that some people call them by the "common" name, and
cross reference them, just like Wikipedia does. It's so simple, and it's
just good business.

That is just it. Radio Shack now considers anything other than cell
phones or consumer toys a nuisance, and are phasing out the components.
It is probably the lowest ROI of anything they sell. It takes more time
to find and sell a 99 cent part than a cell phone contract. that
business is going away, and has been for the last 30 years. I watched
store after store close, distributors close branches, and convert their
main branch to industrial/OEM sales only. For instance, Pioneer used to
be Pioneer/Standard, AKA SREPCO, (Standard Radio and Electronics Parts
CO.) with quite a few branches that supported both repair shops and
hobbyists. Over a few years they closed all but their main locations and
went industrial/OEM only. No more walking in and buying a couple
resistors, or a few parts for a buck or two. Some locations had been
there for forty years. I had an open account for 15 years when it
happened, and they wouldn't even talk to me after the changes were
made. About forty different companies either died, changed focus or
went industrial/OEM only in SW Ohio, alone.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Karl Uppiano]

Of course they were tested. At the board level, the module level,
unit level, with full documentation, test and QC stamps. Then they were
shipped to NASA where it was tested before going into their inventory,
periodic testing while in long term storage, and again before a launch.


Still, if any unit failed and people died, every piece of paper back
to the first purchase order would have to be provided, and anyone who
worked on the equipment may be investigated. Our reputation was good
enough that they told us what they needed. We quoted, and built to
spec. One unit was in service over 30 years with NO service. The only
downtime was a few hours when NASA had to shut power down to do repairs
to that facility.

Few companies do that level of work, and it was damn hard to find
qualified techs, because most have the same attitude seen in these
newsgroups of "Good Enough" "Who Gives a shit" or "Big Deal". its no
wonder that the electronics industry is dying in first world countries.

I guess it depends on what you want the techs to do. The stockroom manager
better know exactly how to read a part number, and correctly build a kit
that conforms to the BOM, but I don't think it is grounds for dismissal if
he happens to casually refer to a DE-9 as a DB-9, especially if he knows
that the person he's talking to would be more familiar with the term.
There's a difference between getting something right when it really matters,
and rubbing their nose in it just for the sake of academic correctness.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I guess it depends on what you want the techs to do. The stockroom manager
better know exactly how to read a part number, and correctly build a kit
that conforms to the BOM, but I don't think it is grounds for dismissal if
he happens to casually refer to a DE-9 as a DB-9, especially if he knows
that the person he's talking to would be more familiar with the term.
There's a difference between getting something right when it really matters,
and rubbing their nose in it just for the sake of academic correctness.

The people in the stock room didn't know what the parts were called,
other than the printed label on the end of the tray, or on the reel or
spool. They were not expected to. Incoming inspection verified that we
received the exact quantity and type of part ordered, then applied the
stockroom labels.

The people in the stock room were there to pull parts for each job
and have it kited for the certified production worker to build. The
same for the production workers, part numbers, only. they had each type
of component in a labeled container or antistatic bag. It was the test
and engineering techs, and the engineers who were required to know what
they were using.

Nothing left the stock room without it being pre approved, and billed
to either a job number, "Select in test", "repair", or for fixturing
use. Defective parts had to be charged to a different account, to track
defects and waste. Engineering had their own list of codes for parts, as
well. I built and repaired test fixtures, and had an account number for
that. In warranty and out of warranty failures were billed under
different numbers. The only way to track all of this was by company
designated stock numbers. Some "Identical" parts from different vendors
had different stock numbers because one would make a design change and
the part no longer worked like the original samples. I qualified and
disqualified parts and vendors. I banned some major component
manufacturers from being purchased, because they refused to accept our
failure analysis reports.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Jim Douglas]

And you complain when others don't know what you're asking for.
You're part of the problem if you don't care. Those were designated as
DE-9 connectors decades before IBM went on the cheap side for a RS-232
connector. Everyone else was using the DB-25, with a full implementation
of signals.

I believe more folks would know it as DB-9 than the "correct" name!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I believe more folks would know it as DB-9 than the "correct" name!

And that is the problem. The "Dumbing down" of the entire world.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Radiosrfun]

And that is the problem. The "Dumbing down" of the entire world.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael, I'll disagree with you to a small degree. IF it is a DE 9 - then
the FACTORY should label it as such. It is not any harder to learn a part as
DE 9 as it would be a DB 9. The "FACTORIES" are at fault for
misrepresentation. You can't expect the general public to know other than
what they're taught. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Lou

 

[Karl Uppiano]

Michael, I'll disagree with you to a small degree. IF it is a DE 9 - then
the FACTORY should label it as such. It is not any harder to learn a part
as DE 9 as it would be a DB 9. The "FACTORIES" are at fault for
misrepresentation. You can't expect the general public to know other than
what they're taught. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Lou

I guess in the general scheme of things, the distinction between DB9 and a
DE9 seems a little bit academic and arcane. I was in the electronics
manufacturing business back when they were still using a lot of those things
(before USB made them completely obsolete on computers anyway), and I can't
remember any of us ever calling them DE9s, even if we had the correct part
number in hand (our stockroom probably used a different number in any
event). The fact is, it really only matters to a few people who really need
to know, and to them it's crucial.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Michael, I'll disagree with you to a small degree. IF it is a DE 9 - then
the FACTORY should label it as such. It is not any harder to learn a part as
DE 9 as it would be a DB 9. The "FACTORIES" are at fault for
misrepresentation. You can't expect the general public to know other than
what they're taught. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

I have never seen one marked DB9 form a reputable manufacturer. From
tiny no name outfits in Japan, Taiwan and China? Yes.

OTOH, the factory ships in very large quantities, then "Joe Schmo's
computer supply and car wash" rips them out of the original packaging to
sell them as "Them their DB-9 cereal connector thingies" because that's
what his old drinking buddy called them.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Radiosrfun]

I have never seen one marked DB9 form a reputable manufacturer. From
tiny no name outfits in Japan, Taiwan and China? Yes.

OTOH, the factory ships in very large quantities, then "Joe Schmo's
computer supply and car wash" rips them out of the original packaging to
sell them as "Them their DB-9 cereal connector thingies" because that's
what his old drinking buddy called them.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Most places I've ever dealt with - call them DB 9s and so on - so there
again - they breed ignorance.
I guess you could say a Spade is a spade - even by any other name!

Lou

 

[Jimmy W. Hough Jr.]

Look u arrogant beacon of crap. I know many network enginneers who do this
all the time. Network architects refer to them as RJ 45s
..

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Look u arrogant beacon of crap. I know many network enginneers who do this
all the time. Network architects refer to them as RJ 45s

I'm sure you have been mistakenly referred to as "Human", but it
doesn't make it so. "Network Engineers" & "Network Architects"? Now,
that's almost funny. It would be, but I've had to clean up too many
messes created by those boozos. A true RJ-45 was a telephone connector
that used the same 8P8C non-keyed modular plug. I can't help that you
hang around with morons and drugged out hippies.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida