[Company] Weekly Operations Update 3 and 4/2010
Ron K. Jeffries
rjeffries at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 01:58:32 EST 2010
I have remained quite on this issue, but
will add a comment from real world experience
in customer support at a mid-size telecom
1. Serial numbers and hardware revision
information is vital when providing support.
Identifying product flaws sometimes traces
back to when a piece of hardware was made.
There are cases where a routine change
from one batch of a component to another
batch results in subtle problems.
TRACEABILITY of hardware is not an option,
it is required in order to provide a good
2. I am puzzled about the concern (some might
use the word ("paranoia") about having serial
Serial numbers normally encode
-- identity of the outfit that manufactured the unit
-- year and month of production
-- unique number for the unit
Yes that can be on a label, but it should not be
easy to remove unless one is determined to do so.
As a former support guy, yes, I'd rather have a SEEP
(they are dirt cheap) so there is an electronically
readable board version and serial number.
What slightly amuses me is the software for Nanonote
will be totally open. What are we afraid of? That the
RIAA loads virus code on the Nanonote that tells
them the serial number?
Thanks for listening. This is something that
reasonable people can reasonably disagree over.
Ron K. Jeffries
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 22:23, David Reyes Samblas Martinez
<david at tuxbrain.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/26 Bas Wijnen <wijnen at debian.org>:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:29:58PM -0500, Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
>>> ---2 unique IDs and serial numbers
>>> I have a question: How do we, as the Qi Hardware project, feel about unique
>>> numbers and IDs in and on our devices, in general?
>> I think it may be useful to have a globally unique number printed on
>> each unit, so it is possible to hold them apart. I am opposed to having
>> it in hardware, in a way that is readable by software (like the CPU ID
>> feature of Intel CPUs). I don't see any reasonable use for this (that
>> can't be easily achieved without it). It does make it hard to be
>> anonymous, possibly needing kernel hacks to avoid it to be read out.
>>> As a proposal, I would say we try to keep our products as anonymous as
>>> possible. Use unique IDs only when they provide real value, and
>>> _ALWAYS_ disclose what kind of numbers we have in which place.
>> Good idea. IMO it's fine to not have it printed on the side as well,
>> but having it there shouldn't be a problem: people know when it's read,
>> and can remove the sticker, should they want to.
> I believe a UID printed in sticker under the battery and with a
> code bar in one side of the box, can be useful for logistical
> porpoises, as you also know in Eu we must offer two years warranty on
> any device, having track the units you have sended that way simplify
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Qi Developer Mailing List
>> Mail to list (members only): developer at lists.qi-hardware.com
>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.qi-hardware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/developer
> David Reyes Samblas Martinez
> Open ultraportable & embedded solutions
> Ben NanoNote, Arduino, Openmoko
> Hey, watch out!!! There's a linux in your pocket!!!
> Qi Developer Mailing List
> Mail to list (members only): developer at lists.qi-hardware.com
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.qi-hardware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/developer
More information about the discussion