"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45894895.22287F54@earthlink.net...
Alison wrote:

Paul Bunion <Roddy9@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0T_hh.9837$cx4.5034@trndny09...
I can't believe the looks I get lately when I want an electronic part
from Radio Shack.

You try going into PC-World and asking for a DB9 female to female gender
changer. I'm surprised the twat who I asked didn't call the police. Now
if
I'd asked for a big shiny laptop I'm sure they'd have been all over me
whilst drooling at their mouths and making snorting heavy breathing
noises.


There is no such thing. The proper name is DE-9:

"D" is the connector type.
"E" is the shell size.
"9" is the number of positions for pins, no matter how many are
installed.

People ASS U ME that if the 25 pin is a DB connector, so is the 9
pin.


The SVGA monitor most people use has a HDE-15 connector

"H" is "High Density Connector"
"D" is the connector type.
"E" is the shell size.
"15" is the number of positions for pins, no matter how many are
installed.

Yes, there are idiots selling both of these under the wrong name, but
if you contact any manufacture or OEM distributor it will show that you
don't know what you're doing.

Ok, but DB9 is the "common" name for a nine-pin D-shell type connector. I
used to be an engineer at an electronics manufacturer that used lots of DE-9
connectors. I suppose we all knew the proper name for it, but I don't recall
anyone ever calling someone on the carpet for calling it a DB9. Even our
warehouse manager knew what we were talking about. If I ask for "Kleenex",
most people know I need facial tissue.

The problem with sales people at most retailers is that they only know how
to look in a book. If they don't find "DB9", they (and you) are screwed.
Perhaps the books should list common names, or do what Google and Wikipedia
do when there isn't an exact match, and ask "did you mean... DE-9?"

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45894895.22287F54@earthlink.net...
Alison wrote:

Paul Bunion <Roddy9@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0T_hh.9837$cx4.5034@trndny09...
I can't believe the looks I get lately when I want an electronic
part
from Radio Shack.

You try going into PC-World and asking for a DB9 female to female
gender
changer. I'm surprised the twat who I asked didn't call the police.
Now
if
I'd asked for a big shiny laptop I'm sure they'd have been all over me
whilst drooling at their mouths and making snorting heavy breathing
noises.


There is no such thing. The proper name is DE-9:

"D" is the connector type.
"E" is the shell size.
"9" is the number of positions for pins, no matter how many are
installed.

People ASS U ME that if the 25 pin is a DB connector, so is the 9
pin.


The SVGA monitor most people use has a HDE-15 connector

"H" is "High Density Connector"
"D" is the connector type.
"E" is the shell size.
"15" is the number of positions for pins, no matter how many are
installed.

Yes, there are idiots selling both of these under the wrong name, but
if you contact any manufacture or OEM distributor it will show that you
don't know what you're doing.

Ok, but DB9 is the "common" name for a nine-pin D-shell type connector. I
used to be an engineer at an electronics manufacturer that used lots of
DE-9
connectors. I suppose we all knew the proper name for it, but I don't
recall
anyone ever calling someone on the carpet for calling it a DB9. Even our
warehouse manager knew what we were talking about. If I ask for
"Kleenex",
most people know I need facial tissue.

The problem with sales people at most retailers is that they only know
how
to look in a book. If they don't find "DB9", they (and you) are screwed.
Perhaps the books should list common names, or do what Google and
Wikipedia
do when there isn't an exact match, and ask "did you mean... DE-9?"


Our stock room only knew the part by the company stock number. The
computer system listed it under the OEM part number and description,
which could be found on the BOM for any component, from any build
level. All subassemblies were in the XXX-XXX format, so anyone that had
been there a week or more could pull a BOM on a terminal and look up the
stock number.

As far as Wickis, they should try to teach the proper names and
descriptions. I have had Google suggest an alternate name or spelling,
with a lot more hits, even though I had the right name and spelling.
Just for fun, do a search for SCSI as "Small computer SERIAL interface"
and see just how many bad web pages describe a high speed parallel data
buss as a serial interface. Some are on university servers.

Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job. One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"

Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.

Wikipedia is very good about disambiguation. When I did a Wikipedia search
on "DB9 connector", I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB9

DB9 or DB-9 may refer to:

Aston Martin DB9 British sports car.
DE-9 connector, a common type of D-subminiature electrical connector
(often mistakenly called DB-9).

I think that is *exactly* the correct response. That is how salespeople at
high tech outlets should be trained to respond.

Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job. One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"

I'm not a terminology nazi. I would not disqualify a candidate if they
called a DE-9 a DB9, if on balance, they knew their stuff. They get extra
points if they say "It's a DE-9, often mistakenly called DB-9".

Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.

I have no problem with that.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

Wikipedia is very good about disambiguation. When I did a Wikipedia
search
on "DB9 connector", I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB9

DB9 or DB-9 may refer to:

Aston Martin DB9 British sports car.
DE-9 connector, a common type of D-subminiature electrical connector
(often mistakenly called DB-9).

I think that is *exactly* the correct response. That is how salespeople
at
high tech outlets should be trained to respond.


They are trained to smile and run the register. Nothing more. Its
nothing new. I started seeing these problems at electronic distributors
about 30 years ago. A clerk yelling at me that I didn't know what the
hell I was talking about, that the part had never been made. When he
finally shut up I asked him to turn around and "Give me that thing with
the red label that's on the wall right behind you".


Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job. One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that
they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"

I'm not a terminology nazi. I would not disqualify a candidate if they
called a DE-9 a DB9, if on balance, they knew their stuff. They get extra
points if they say "It's a DE-9, often mistakenly called DB-9".


So you would give preference, if all other things are equal?

Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.

I have no problem with that.


We had 14 differed DE-9 connectors in stock for different products,
and to service older generations of equipment. We used metal and
plastic, machine screw, jack screw, and snap lock types. Different body
depths for different PC boards,

It was an engineer to order telemetry company with base product
models that were built to the customer's demanding requirements. We had
no choice but to teach the employees and purchasing about components.
We had to watch purchasing, because distributors would try to sub a
similar part "At a better price", but the part was on the list as a
qualified component.

Do you have any idea of the damage to your company's reputation if
NASA has to return your product for service if it fails on the space
station, or aboard a shuttle. Even worse: If one of the command
destruct receivers failed, and a rocket can't be destroyed after it goes
off course?

As far as the newsgroups go, more people should say, "Oh, you're
looking for a ..." and continue to use the proper terminology.

--
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" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:458B0C9C.128CD52@earthlink.net...
Karl Uppiano wrote:

Wikipedia is very good about disambiguation. When I did a Wikipedia
search
on "DB9 connector", I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB9

DB9 or DB-9 may refer to:

Aston Martin DB9 British sports car.
DE-9 connector, a common type of D-subminiature electrical connector
(often mistakenly called DB-9).

I think that is *exactly* the correct response. That is how salespeople
at
high tech outlets should be trained to respond.


They are trained to smile and run the register. Nothing more. Its
nothing new. I started seeing these problems at electronic distributors
about 30 years ago. A clerk yelling at me that I didn't know what the
hell I was talking about, that the part had never been made. When he
finally shut up I asked him to turn around and "Give me that thing with
the red label that's on the wall right behind you".


Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job. One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that
they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"

I'm not a terminology nazi. I would not disqualify a candidate if they
called a DE-9 a DB9, if on balance, they knew their stuff. They get extra
points if they say "It's a DE-9, often mistakenly called DB-9".


So you would give preference, if all other things are equal?

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.

Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.

I have no problem with that.


We had 14 differed DE-9 connectors in stock for different products,
and to service older generations of equipment. We used metal and
plastic, machine screw, jack screw, and snap lock types. Different body
depths for different PC boards,

It was an engineer to order telemetry company with base product
models that were built to the customer's demanding requirements. We had
no choice but to teach the employees and purchasing about components.
We had to watch purchasing, because distributors would try to sub a
similar part "At a better price", but the part was on the list as a
qualified component.

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.

Do you have any idea of the damage to your company's reputation if
NASA has to return your product for service if it fails on the space
station, or aboard a shuttle. Even worse: If one of the command
destruct receivers failed, and a rocket can't be destroyed after it goes
off course?

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:

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.

As far as the newsgroups go, more people should say, "Oh, you're
looking for a ..." and continue to use the proper terminology.

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 wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:458B0C9C.128CD52@earthlink.net...
Karl Uppiano wrote:

Wikipedia is very good about disambiguation. When I did a Wikipedia
search
on "DB9 connector", I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB9

DB9 or DB-9 may refer to:

Aston Martin DB9 British sports car.
DE-9 connector, a common type of D-subminiature electrical
connector
(often mistakenly called DB-9).

I think that is *exactly* the correct response. That is how
salespeople
at
high tech outlets should be trained to respond.


They are trained to smile and run the register. Nothing more. Its
nothing new. I started seeing these problems at electronic
distributors
about 30 years ago. A clerk yelling at me that I didn't know what the
hell I was talking about, that the part had never been made. When he
finally shut up I asked him to turn around and "Give me that thing with
the red label that's on the wall right behind you".


Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job.
One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the
table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that
they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its
a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"

I'm not a terminology nazi. I would not disqualify a candidate if they
called a DE-9 a DB9, if on balance, they knew their stuff. They get
extra
points if they say "It's a DE-9, often mistakenly called DB-9".


So you would give preference, if all other things are equal?

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.

Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.

I have no problem with that.


We had 14 differed DE-9 connectors in stock for different products,
and to service older generations of equipment. We used metal and
plastic, machine screw, jack screw, and snap lock types. Different
body
depths for different PC boards,

It was an engineer to order telemetry company with base product
models that were built to the customer's demanding requirements. We had
no choice but to teach the employees and purchasing about components.
We had to watch purchasing, because distributors would try to sub a
similar part "At a better price", but the part was on the list as a
qualified component.

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.

Do you have any idea of the damage to your company's reputation if
NASA has to return your product for service if it fails on the space
station, or aboard a shuttle. Even worse: If one of the command
destruct receivers failed, and a rocket can't be destroyed after it
goes
off course?

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.

As far as the newsgroups go, more people should say, "Oh, you're
looking for a ..." and continue to use the proper terminology.

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


--
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

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:

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.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

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.

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.

Alison wrote:
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45894895.22287F54@earthlink.net...
Alison wrote:
Paul Bunion <Roddy9@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0T_hh.9837$cx4.5034@trndny09...
I can't believe the looks I get lately when I want an electronic part
from Radio Shack.
You try going into PC-World and asking for a DB9 female to female gender
changer. I'm surprised the twat who I asked didn't call the police.
Now if
I'd asked for a big shiny laptop I'm sure they'd have been all over me
whilst drooling at their mouths and making snorting heavy breathing
noises.

There is no such thing. The proper name is DE-9:

"D" is the connector type.
"E" is the shell size.
"9" is the number of positions for pins, no matter how many are
installed.

People ASS U ME that if the 25 pin is a DB connector, so is the 9
pin.

I stand corrected. I'll start asking for DE9's with the person I'm having a
conversation with not having the slightest clue what I'm on about.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&q=DB9+male&meta=

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&q=DE9+male&meta=

600k thousand hits for DB9. 22k thousand hits for DE9.

Truly I couldn't give a shit. Sorry.


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!

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

Jim Douglas wrote:

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

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4592A8E1.3E4FA222@earthlink.net...
Jim Douglas wrote:

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

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

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.