Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
Locked
12
12
 
|
RICHARD BURRY |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
There is a big difference between a discussion about an instrument and an advertisement. This listserve is a great way to keep up to date, but I do not want to see it become a way for anyone to advertise services or products. As I see it the key element is if the posting is to inform it is great, if it is to sell then it is bad. Announcements of commercial events or products come very close to the edge and I would rather error on the side of getting less email. Therefore, I suggest no commercial announcements.
Dick Richard W. Burry, Ph.D. > While a blatant advertisement is not appropriate for this > listserv, I > remember a very interesting and pointed discourse between > vendors about > digital cameras occuring here. As long as it is > informative, I see no > reason to disallow commercial interests from discussing issues, > comparing > their products with others or announcing something new. > Indeed, there have > been many instances where someone sent out a plea to the > community, and the > vendor specifically mentioned was notably quiet. > > We are are all (those with profit motive and those that consume) > capable of > discriminating between crass commercialism and a note that would > interest > the imaging community. Clearly any business that hopes to > retain a higher > level of credibility within this community should be able to > distinguish > between these concepts. If they can not, then this current > discussion would > suggest that they will certainly learn in short order. > > > Regards, > Carl > > Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D. > Molecular and Cellular Biology > University of Arizona > 520-954-7053 > FAX 520-621-3709 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Carroll" <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:09 PM > Subject: Re: advertising a booth at a meeting > > > > > If you have to pay for it, it is commercial and such posts > should be > > discouraged. > > > > I agree 100%. If I want to buy a product or service, I know > where to look. > > Similarly, if I want to find expert confocal > information, I know where to > > look. > > > > Why mix the two? > > > > P > > > > > > > > Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > >> If you have to pay for it, it is commercial and such posts > should be > >> discouraged. > >> > >>> To All, > >>> > >>> I think I'd like to get some feedback on "what is > appropriate for > >>> posting" on this listserv and "what is not > appropriate." To my way of > >>> thinking, it is appropriate to list seminars and workshops > when these > >>> are free of charge from both commercial entities and non- > profit (e.g., > >>> web seminars). It is also appropriate to list seminars > and workshops > >>> from commercial and non-profit agencies when these are for a > fee, but I > >>> would think that many(?) of those on this listserv may > disagree with the > >>> inclusion of commercial agencies. As far as vendors > who are showing at > >>> a conference, this is a far stickier subject. To my > way of thinking, > >>> whether the enterprise is for profit or not for profit, > neither should > >>> be able to advertise on this listserv (as much as I, too, am > a votary of > >>> the micro-manager software). > >>> I think there is a clear separation between "products" and > "education.">>> It would be useful to all to clarify what can be > posted and what is > >>> inappropriate. > >>> > >>> If interested, please send email to me at [hidden email] > in regard to > >>> this subject if you want to weigh in on it. I > know there will not be > >>> universal agreement, but maybe this can be a means to get to > >>> clarification. Or maybe it will just be a way to get > myself into > >>> trouble. > >>> > >>> Jerry Sedgewick > >>> listserv manager > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [hidden email] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Seems like commericial ad to me- my compamy, BD, is too > ethical to > >>>> allowthis, > >>>> Sally D. Dowling, PhD > >>>> BD Biosciences, Bioimaging Technical Sales > >>>> Ph: 301-351-0524 > >>>> http://www.bdbiosciences.com/bioimaging > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> * From: *Nico Stuurman [[hidden email]] > >>>> * Sent: *12/07/2008 04:10 PM PST > >>>> * To: *[hidden email] > >>>> * Subject: *Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San > Francisco, > >>>> December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come > see us in > >>>> booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. > >>>> > >>>> Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org <http://micro- > manager.org/>) is > >>>> Open Source software for microscope image > acquisition. It controls a > >>>> large number of scientific grade cameras, microscopes and > peripherals > >>>> and lets you take snapshots, do time-lapses, z-stacks, and > >>>> multi-channel images. It runs as an ImageJ plugin and > works under the > >>>> Windows, Mac and Linux OSs. Micro-Manager is being > developed at the > >>>> Vale lab at UCSF supported by a grant from the NIH. > >>>> > >>>> We are planning on having a microscope setup consisting of > a Yokogawa > >>>> spinning disk confocal, Hamamatsu EM camera, Solamere laser > launch, > >>>> Zeiss AxioObserver and ASI XY and piezo Z-stage all run > from a Mac Pro > >>>> using Micro-Manager! We will be demonstrating a way > to do very fast > >>>> multi-channel imaging and acquiring Z-stacks using a > hardware solution > >>>> based on the Arduino micro-controller > (http://www.arduino.cc/). This is > >>>> also your chance to meet the new members of the Micro- > Manager team: > >>>> Oleksiy Danikhno (who joined us last week) and Arthur > Edelstein (who > >>>> will start in January). Of course, our main goal is to meet > you, hear > >>>> about your experiences with Micro-Manager, your wishes for > future > >>>> development and everything else you would like to tell > us. It is also > >>>> a great opportunity to get personal hands-on training in > the use of > >>>> Micro-Manager. If you are running a microscope with > Micro-Manager, > >>>> tell us at the meeting and we might have a Micro-Manager T- > shirt left > >>>> for you! > >>>> > >>>> Hope to see you there! > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Nico > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ******************************************************************** > >>>> IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR RECIPIENTS IN THE U.S.A.: This > message may > >>>> constitute an advertisement of a BD group's products or > services or a > >>>> solicitation of interest in them. If this is such a message > and you > >>>> would like to opt out of receiving future advertisements or > >>>> solicitations from this BD group, please forward this e- > mail to > >>>> [hidden email]. > >>>> > ******************************************************************* > >>>> This message (which includes any attachments) is intended > only for the > >>>> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or > proprietary > >>>> information and may be subject to the attorney-client > privilege or > >>>> other confidentiality protections. If you are not a > designated > >>>> recipient, you may not review, use, copy or distribute this > message. If > >>>> you received this in error, please notify the sender by > reply e-mail > >>>> and delete this message. Thank you. > >>>> > ******************************************************************* > >>>> Corporate Headquarters Mailing Address: BD (Becton, > Dickinson and > >>>> Company) 1 Becton Drive Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 U.S.A. > >>>> > ******************************************************************* * > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick > >>> Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) > >>> Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota > >>> 312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall > >>> Minneapolis, MN 55455 > >>> (612) 624-6607 > >>> [hidden email] > >>> http://www.bipl.umn.edu > >>> Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, > Measurement and > >>> Output." > >>> > >>> Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives) > >>> 965 Cromwell Avenue > >>> Saint Paul, MN 55114 > >>> [hidden email] > >>> (651) 308-1466 > >>> http://www.quickphotoshop.com > >>> http://www.heartFROMstone.com > >>> http://www.rawlight.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- > >>> http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- > >> > >> > > > > > -- > BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 758147720) is spam: > Spam: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=758147720&m=96ec228a625bNot > spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=n&i=758147720&m=96ec228a625b > Forget vote: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=758147720&m=96ec228a625b---- > -------------------------------------------------- > END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > |
|
|
Peter Carroll |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Anda Cornea
> Why not?
Thats what the rest of the internet is for... otherwise, why limit the topics to anything? Let's talk about baseball, art, politics, religion or anything else... Anda Cornea wrote: > As it seems that we are to reach a collective decision, my opinion is: > Why not? > > Anda Cornea, Ph.D. > Director Imaging and Morphology Support Core > Oregon National Primate Research Center > Oregon Heath & Science University > 503-690-5293 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Peter Carroll > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:10 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: advertising a booth at a meeting > > > > If you have to pay for it, it is commercial and such posts should be > discouraged. > > I agree 100%. If I want to buy a product or service, I know where to > look. Similarly, if I want to find expert confocal information, I know > where to look. > > Why mix the two? > > P > > > > Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > >> If you have to pay for it, it is commercial and such posts should be >> discouraged. >> >> >>> To All, >>> >>> I think I'd like to get some feedback on "what is appropriate for >>> posting" on this listserv and "what is not appropriate." To my way >>> of thinking, it is appropriate to list seminars and workshops when >>> these are free of charge from both commercial entities and non-profit >>> (e.g., web seminars). It is also appropriate to list seminars and >>> workshops from commercial and non-profit agencies when these are for >>> a fee, but I would think that many(?) of those on this listserv may >>> disagree with the inclusion of commercial agencies. As far as >>> vendors who are showing at a conference, this is a far stickier >>> subject. To my way of thinking, whether the enterprise is for profit >>> or not for profit, neither should be able to advertise on this >>> listserv (as much as I, too, am a votary of the micro-manager software). >>> I think there is a clear separation between "products" and "education." >>> It would be useful to all to clarify what can be posted and what is >>> inappropriate. >>> >>> If interested, please send email to me at [hidden email] in regard >>> to this subject if you want to weigh in on it. I know there will >>> not be universal agreement, but maybe this can be a means to get to >>> clarification. Or maybe it will just be a way to get myself into >>> trouble. >>> >>> Jerry Sedgewick >>> listserv manager >>> >>> >>> >>> [hidden email] wrote: >>> >>>> Seems like commericial ad to me- my compamy, BD, is too ethical to >>>> allowthis, >>>> Sally D. Dowling, PhD >>>> BD Biosciences, Bioimaging Technical Sales >>>> Ph: 301-351-0524 >>>> http://www.bdbiosciences.com/bioimaging >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> * From: *Nico Stuurman [[hidden email]] >>>> * Sent: *12/07/2008 04:10 PM PST >>>> * To: *[hidden email] >>>> * Subject: *Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting >>>> >>>> >>>> If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, >>>> December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us >>>> in booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. >>>> >>>> Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org <http://micro-manager.org/>) >>>> is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. It >>>> controls a large number of scientific grade cameras, microscopes and >>>> peripherals and lets you take snapshots, do time-lapses, z-stacks, >>>> and multi-channel images. It runs as an ImageJ plugin and works >>>> under the Windows, Mac and Linux OSs. Micro-Manager is being >>>> developed at the Vale lab at UCSF supported by a grant from the NIH. >>>> >>>> We are planning on having a microscope setup consisting of a >>>> Yokogawa spinning disk confocal, Hamamatsu EM camera, Solamere laser >>>> launch, Zeiss AxioObserver and ASI XY and piezo Z-stage all run from >>>> a Mac Pro using Micro-Manager! We will be demonstrating a way to do >>>> very fast multi-channel imaging and acquiring Z-stacks using a >>>> hardware solution based on the Arduino micro-controller >>>> (http://www.arduino.cc/). This is also your chance to meet the new >>>> members of the Micro-Manager team: Oleksiy Danikhno (who joined us >>>> last week) and Arthur Edelstein (who will start in January). Of >>>> course, our main goal is to meet you, hear about your experiences >>>> with Micro-Manager, your wishes for future development and >>>> everything else you would like to tell us. It is also a great >>>> opportunity to get personal hands-on training in the use of >>>> Micro-Manager. If you are running a microscope with Micro-Manager, >>>> tell us at the meeting and we might have a Micro-Manager T-shirt >>>> left for you! >>>> >>>> Hope to see you there! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Nico >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR RECIPIENTS IN THE U.S.A.: This message may >>>> constitute an advertisement of a BD group's products or services or >>>> a solicitation of interest in them. If this is such a message and >>>> you would like to opt out of receiving future advertisements or >>>> solicitations from this BD group, please forward this e-mail to >>>> [hidden email]. >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for >>>> the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or >>>> proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client >>>> privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a >>>> designated recipient, you may not review, use, copy or distribute >>>> this message. If you received this in error, please notify the >>>> sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> Corporate Headquarters Mailing Address: BD (Becton, Dickinson and >>>> Company) 1 Becton Drive Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 U.S.A. >>>> ******************************************************************* * >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick >>> Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) >>> Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota >>> 312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall >>> Minneapolis, MN 55455 >>> (612) 624-6607 >>> [hidden email] >>> http://www.bipl.umn.edu >>> Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and >>> Output." >>> >>> Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives) >>> 965 Cromwell Avenue >>> Saint Paul, MN 55114 >>> [hidden email] >>> (651) 308-1466 >>> http://www.quickphotoshop.com >>> http://www.heartFROMstone.com >>> http://www.rawlight.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- >>> http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- >>> >> > > > |
|
|
PattyJansma |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by cromey
I would second Doug's thoughts.
Patty Patty Jansma ARLDN University of AZ Tucson, AZ 85721 At 02:05 PM 12/8/2008, [hidden email] wrote: >Jerry (and the List), > >I don't have a problem with commercial announcements. If vendors would >like to announce something, the announcement should be relevant to the >list (e.g., confocal or LM in nature), brief, and include a link to a >website for more detail. No bad mouthing of competitors would be >allowed. If a vendor seems to have an excessive number of announcements, >that might be a time for the list owner to quietly tell the vendor to >"tone it down". > >Doug > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Douglas W. Cromey, M.S. - Assistant Scientific Investigator >Dept. of Cell Biology & Anatomy, University of Arizona >1501 N. Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724-5044 USA > >office: AHSC 4212 email: [hidden email] >voice: 520-626-2824 fax: 520-626-2097 > >http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/ >Home of: "Microscopy and Imaging Resources on the WWW" > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] >On Behalf Of Jerry Sedgewick >Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:01 PM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: advertising a booth at a meeting > >To All, > >I think I'd like to get some feedback on "what is appropriate for >posting" on this listserv and "what is not appropriate." To my way of >thinking, it is appropriate to list seminars and workshops when these >are free of charge from both commercial entities and non-profit (e.g., >web seminars). It is also appropriate to list seminars and workshops >from commercial and non-profit agencies when these are for a fee, but I >would think that many(?) of those on this listserv may disagree with the >inclusion of commercial agencies. As far as vendors who are showing at >a conference, this is a far stickier subject. To my way of thinking, >whether the enterprise is for profit or not for profit, neither should >be able to advertise on this listserv (as much as I, too, am a votary of >the micro-manager software). > >I think there is a clear separation between "products" and "education." > >It would be useful to all to clarify what can be posted and what is >inappropriate. > >If interested, please send email to me at [hidden email] in regard to >this subject if you want to weigh in on it. I know there will not be >universal agreement, but maybe this can be a means to get to >clarification. Or maybe it will just be a way to get myself into trouble. > >Jerry Sedgewick >listserv manager > > > >[hidden email] wrote: > > > > Seems like commericial ad to me- my compamy, BD, is too ethical to > > allowthis, > > Sally D. Dowling, PhD > > BD Biosciences, Bioimaging Technical Sales > > Ph: 301-351-0524 > > http://www.bdbiosciences.com/bioimaging > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > * From: *Nico Stuurman [[hidden email]] > > * Sent: *12/07/2008 04:10 PM PST > > * To: *[hidden email] > > * Subject: *Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting > > > > > > If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, > > December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us in > > booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. > > > > Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org <http://micro-manager.org/>) > > is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. It controls > > a large number of scientific grade cameras, microscopes and > > peripherals and lets you take snapshots, do time-lapses, z-stacks, and > > multi-channel images. It runs as an ImageJ plugin and works under the > > Windows, Mac and Linux OSs. Micro-Manager is being developed at the > > Vale lab at UCSF supported by a grant from the NIH. > > > > We are planning on having a microscope setup consisting of a Yokogawa > > spinning disk confocal, Hamamatsu EM camera, Solamere laser launch, > > Zeiss AxioObserver and ASI XY and piezo Z-stage all run from a Mac Pro > > using Micro-Manager! We will be demonstrating a way to do very fast > > multi-channel imaging and acquiring Z-stacks using a hardware solution > > based on the Arduino micro-controller (http://www.arduino.cc/). > > > > This is also your chance to meet the new members of the Micro-Manager > > team: Oleksiy Danikhno (who joined us last week) and Arthur Edelstein > > (who will start in January). > > > > Of course, our main goal is to meet you, hear about your experiences > > with Micro-Manager, your wishes for future development and everything > > else you would like to tell us. It is also a great opportunity to get > > personal hands-on training in the use of Micro-Manager. If you are > > running a microscope with Micro-Manager, tell us at the meeting and we > > might have a Micro-Manager T-shirt left for you! > > > > Hope to see you there! > > > > Best, > > > > Nico > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ******************************************************************** > > IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR RECIPIENTS IN THE U.S.A.: This message may > > constitute an advertisement of a BD group's products or services or a > > solicitation of interest in them. If this is such a message and you > > would like to opt out of receiving future advertisements or > > solicitations from this BD group, please forward this e-mail to > > [hidden email]. > > ******************************************************************* > > This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the > > designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary > > information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or > > other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated > > recipient, you may not review, use, copy or distribute this message. > > If you received this in error, please notify the sender by reply > > e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. > > ******************************************************************* > > Corporate Headquarters Mailing Address: BD (Becton, Dickinson and > > Company) 1 Becton Drive Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 U.S.A. > > ******************************************************************* * > > > > >-- >Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick >Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) >Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota >312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall >Minneapolis, MN 55455 >(612) 624-6607 >[hidden email] >http://www.bipl.umn.edu >Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and Output." > >Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives) >965 Cromwell Avenue >Saint Paul, MN 55114 >[hidden email] >(651) 308-1466 >http://www.quickphotoshop.com >http://www.heartFROMstone.com >http://www.rawlight.com > > > > >--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- >http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- |
|
|
Kevin Ryan-2 |
A commercial response - RE: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Nico Stuurman
A perceived conflict between Open Source/free software and
commercial products has been around for quite a long time. Twenty years ago when I started developing imaging software I had
an NIH customer ask “Why can’t you _give_ your software away like NIH
Image?!?” (I told him I would gladly do so when the Federal government started
paying my salary.) Certain people in the commercial side of things at the time were
quite upset that the government was supporting someone to compete with us. As it turned out, however, some of our best customers were
previous users of these freeware packages. Best, as they had the experience
with imaging software to recognize what it could and couldn’t do, and the
knowledge to move up to a commercial package with wider/faster/more
capabilities once they hit the freeware limits. They had the education to know
what they wanted. Open Source software/hardware has the advantage of being ‘free’,
but that freedom may cost a considerable investment in people; the grad student
who maintains it, the technician who knows what wire does what, the involvement
in keeping up with a wide group of contributors who are fixing bugs and adding
capabilities. It’s a real tradeoff between dollars spent and the time invested to
use/maintain it. I have yet to see a free software product whose documentation
matches the average level of commercial software. And if the support community doesn’t
pass a certain critical level, like Linux or the Apache web server, having a
principal developer move on may mean the end of that package. Open Source/free
software also tends to have a more limited feature set, as it tends to be
driven by the developers interests rather than market pressure and dollars. Commercial software may not do exactly what you want; it’s a
truism in commercial development that 10% of the customers require 90% of the
development time, and open software may represent the clearest way to get some
experiment specific item functioning. But for the other 90% of the features and
customers, you get code developed over many years, QA tested before release,
and used by a _lot_ of other people. There are often more/broader
features in the commercial products, due to the larger number of customers
requesting them and more man-years in development. We have something on the
order of 50,000+ customers over the years between the various packages for our
company alone, and if a issue or new technique pops up we hear about it and
have a great deal of motivation to work on it. Many of the commercial products
themselves have interfaces for users to add new capabilities, just as with the
open software. So both free and commercial software have their niche – open/free
software for people with more time than money, or needs simply not addressed by
current commercial products, or who enjoy developing their own tools;
commercial software for a wider range of people using more established
techniques, or who don’t want to invest or even have the human resources for a
less supported product. I do have my concerns about sponsored ‘free’ software – Micro-Manager
(and NIH Image/ImageJ before it) are supported by NIH grants instead of
customers or donated developer time. They aren’t developed with users donated
time like Linux/Apache. What happens to sponsored software users if the grants
run out? Will the support be there over the long haul? On the other hand, what
effect on the commercial market and its products does government sponsored
software have, other than reducing commercial opportunity and investment? But
that’s really a discussion between commercial interests and sponsoring
agencies, rather than individual products and projects. Kevin Ryan From: Confocal Microscopy
List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nico
Stuurman If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San
Francisco, December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/),
please come see us in booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org)
is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. …. |
|
|
stu_the_flat |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Carroll
As somebody how is new to this forum and confocal microscopy in general I have to say I have been greatly interested in the posts that have been put up here. this freeware for confocal was very interesting to me.
However I feel with this forum there is a particular risk of mass e-mails disinteresting participants. exspecily with new people such as my self coming here! For instance today I spent most of my time trying to figure out an effective way to import a file from a Zeiss 510 (5th generation .lsm) into matlab. I feel that some of you must be able to do that in your sleep however I didn't want to e-mail everybody a really basic question. Would it be stupid to suggest a check box named something like "small talk" that aim being it would post the message on the forum but would not e-mail everybody? Cheers Stuart McIntyre
|
|
|
Sally_Dowling |
Re: A commercial response - RE: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Ryan-2
Dear List, When I responded to the original announcement I was unaware this was free academic software. I was probably reacting to the numerous Compucyte "ads" couched as technical workshops, and overspoke. Please accept my deepest apologies and know that I was speaking as an individual, albeit I use my BD mail. Thanks to Craig Rappaport, my coworker, for bringing this to my attention since I did not see a response to me personally. Thank you for you patience and forgiveness, Sally Sally D. Dowling, Ph..D. Technical Sales BD Biosciences - Bioimaging Systems 15010 Broschart Road Rockville, MD 20850 USA t. 301.340.7320 x155 (direct to cell phone) f. 301.340.9775 e-mail address: [hidden email] www.bdbiosciences.com/bioimaging
A perceived conflict between Open Source/free software and commercial products has been around for quite a long time. Twenty years ago when I started developing imaging software I had an NIH customer ask “Why can’t you _give_ your software away like NIH Image?!?” (I told him I would gladly do so when the Federal government started paying my salary.) Certain people in the commercial side of things at the time were quite upset that the government was supporting someone to compete with us. As it turned out, however, some of our best customers were previous users of these freeware packages. Best, as they had the experience with imaging software to recognize what it could and couldn’t do, and the knowledge to move up to a commercial package with wider/faster/more capabilities once they hit the freeware limits. They had the education to know what they wanted. Open Source software/hardware has the advantage of being ‘free’, but that freedom may cost a considerable investment in people; the grad student who maintains it, the technician who knows what wire does what, the involvement in keeping up with a wide group of contributors who are fixing bugs and adding capabilities. It’s a real tradeoff between dollars spent and the time invested to use/maintain it. I have yet to see a free software product whose documentation matches the average level of commercial software. And if the support community doesn’t pass a certain critical level, like Linux or the Apache web server, having a principal developer move on may mean the end of that package. Open Source/free software also tends to have a more limited feature set, as it tends to be driven by the developers interests rather than market pressure and dollars. Commercial software may not do exactly what you want; it’s a truism in commercial development that 10% of the customers require 90% of the development time, and open software may represent the clearest way to get some experiment specific item functioning. But for the other 90% of the features and customers, you get code developed over many years, QA tested before release, and used by a _lot_ of other people. There are often more/broader features in the commercial products, due to the larger number of customers requesting them and more man-years in development. We have something on the order of 50,000+ customers over the years between the various packages for our company alone, and if a issue or new technique pops up we hear about it and have a great deal of motivation to work on it. Many of the commercial products themselves have interfaces for users to add new capabilities, just as with the open software. So both free and commercial software have their niche – open/free software for people with more time than money, or needs simply not addressed by current commercial products, or who enjoy developing their own tools; commercial software for a wider range of people using more established techniques, or who don’t want to invest or even have the human resources for a less supported product. I do have my concerns about sponsored ‘free’ software – Micro-Manager (and NIH Image/ImageJ before it) are supported by NIH grants instead of customers or donated developer time. They aren’t developed with users donated time like Linux/Apache. What happens to sponsored software users if the grants run out? Will the support be there over the long haul? On the other hand, what effect on the commercial market and its products does government sponsored software have, other than reducing commercial opportunity and investment? But that’s really a discussion between commercial interests and sponsoring agencies, rather than individual products and projects. Kevin Ryan Senior Project Manager Media Cybernetics, Inc. From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@...] On Behalf Of Nico Stuurman Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:11 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us in booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org) is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. …. ******************************************************************* IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR RECIPIENTS IN THE U.S.A.: This message may constitute an advertisement of a BD group's products or services or a solicitation of interest in them. If this is such a message and you would like to opt out of receiving future advertisements or solicitations from this BD group, please forward this e-mail to [hidden email]. ******************************************************************* This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, use, copy or distribute this message. If you received this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ******************************************************************* Corporate Headquarters Mailing Address: BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company) 1 Becton Drive Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 U.S.A. ******************************************************************* |
|
|
Jerry Sedgewick-2 |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Jerry Sedgewick-2
I think this thread is going to go for a long time, so I will respond as
follows since I'm the guy who started it... 1. I wanted the feedback because I was a bit unsure of the unwritten and unstated "policy" of this group. Since I agreed to be the listserv manager and took over from Steve Paddock at UWisc, I needed to hear from you. Thank you to all who responded and who will respond. 2. I'm the last person who wants to interfere with a listserv that has run so smoothly in the past, and one that never required a dictator to moderate discussions or edit messages. 3. So it seems that the "best" unwritten guidelines are those already followed: if it's a vendor, make that clear in the subject line, and allow/tolerate postings about workshops, seminars and products. We can, after all, delete or ignore these postings if we wish. Carpe Monday, Jerry -- Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota 312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624-6607 [hidden email] http://www.bipl.umn.edu Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and Output." Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives) 965 Cromwell Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55114 [hidden email] (651) 308-1466 http://www.quickphotoshop.com http://www.heartFROMstone.com http://www.rawlight.com --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- |
|
|
Gabriel Lapointe |
Re: advertising a booth at a meeting
|
|
To add my grain of salt in the already long discussion on advertising I
must first congratulate most of the representative of the industry following the list for their self discipline. I personally think that advertising new technology, workshop, conference and the like in an informative manner is a plus to this list. Not everyone is regularly approached by those “annoying” sales representative with their new product, some company can develop a new technology but don't have the money to publicize it world wide. That new technology can be of interest to someone who searched for it six month ago but is just now available. However there are limits. Obviously I wouldn't want all small local workshop that happen to University X OR Y to be announced as it would just render the list unreadable. Neither would it be acceptable for a company to advertise their Christmas sales here. I also have a strong bias toward open source software/hardware and thus I personnaly think that they should have more latitude in informing others in their evolution. The other important thing is that events advertised should be punctual (i.e. annual or less frequent). I know how hard it is to organize international events and how hard it is to sometime get new (i.e. were not there the previous year) participants. In this, I think I agree with miss Dowling that the bi-weekly Compucytes "workshop" are indeed spam. And I can understand the frustration, of those who are playing by the unwritten rules and don't spam the list with all their recurring events, when they see those advertisement. Her reaction was of course a bit harsh and hit the wrong target. I bet if she had put a more detailed reply after the right message she would have gotten more support then criticism. Since we are mostly professional on the list, those spam are fortunately very rare. But a question arise: when will we have to draw a line between auto-regulation and strict control? I think as long as thread like this one happens once in a while to reminds people to be careful, else the unwritten rules will be written and enforced and everyone will loose, we will have a statu-quo. Now, it is impossible to please everyone and I can also understand those who want the list to be completely commercial free. Maybe a way to improve things a bit is to put tag in front of titles. The “commercial/vendor response” is a good start, but it could be extended by adding something like: [events] [ads] [workshop] [job offer] If you don't want to see those it is easy to filter them out. Again I encourage those with commercial interest to continue their good work in a self discipline manner. Gabriel Lapointe |
|
|
nenad@amodaj.com |
Re: A commercial response - RE: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Ryan-2
I don't think that it makes any difference how a software package is
funded, whether it is free, or not, or whether is Open Source or not. The only thing that matters is whether it is useful and flexible enough. Regardless of whether something is given away for free, if it doesn't work well, no one will use it. The emergence of micro-manager as a free and Open Source application for microscopy was inevitable, because of the problematic situation with currently available commercial packages. Companies, quite understandably, can't admit that their software is overpriced, too fragmented (amazing variety of mutually incompatible applications) and in general pretty limited and inflexible. My own feeling is that the current, highly fragmented state of available commercial packages presents an obstacle to the imaging community - at least in the Life Sciences. Software application backed by a commercial company, in terms of long term sustainability, presents the same risk to the user as the Open Source software, backed by the informal community, NIH funds, or what have you. Companies get bought and sold, marketing plans change, and overnight any commercial application can easily become obsolete. I would argue that Open Source presents lower risk for users, both commercial and academic, because in case the original entity folds, some other one will pick it up. Again, the only criterion is whether the software is useful or not. If it is useful and works well for people it inherently has a value, even if it currently sells for $0. Valuable software applications have amazing staying power over the long run, one way or another, regardless of the business model. All of the above, of course, is my personal sentiment. I would also add that vendors and developers, from both Commercial and Open Source communities, should not underestimate the wisdom of the user community and lecture them on what is better for them. Time will show. The fact that the number of micro-manager users is constantly growing each month is convincing enough to me that something important is happening and that Open Source model of developing and distributing software is going to stay in the microscopy market. Nenad Original Message: ----------------- From: Kevin Ryan [hidden email] Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:50:35 -0500 To: [hidden email] Subject: A commercial response - RE: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting A perceived conflict between Open Source/free software and commercial products has been around for quite a long time. Twenty years ago when I started developing imaging software I had an NIH customer ask â Why canât you _give_ your software away like NIH Image?!?â (I told him I would gladly do so when the Federal government started paying my salary.) Certain people in the commercial side of things at the time were quite upset that the government was supporting someone to compete with us. As it turned out, however, some of our best customers were previous users of these freeware packages. Best, as they had the experience with imaging software to recognize what it could and couldnât do, and the knowledge to move up to a commercial package with wider/faster/more capabilities once they hit the freeware limits. They had the education to know what they wanted. Open Source software/hardware has the advantage of being âfreeâ, but that freedom may cost a considerable investment in people; the grad student who maintains it, the technician who knows what wire does what, the involvement in keeping up with a wide group of contributors who are fixing bugs and adding capabilities. Itâs a real tradeoff between dollars spent and the time invested to use/maintain it. I have yet to see a free software product whose documentation matches the average level of commercial software. And if the support community doesnât pass a certain critical level, like Linux or the Apache web server, having a principal developer move on may mean the end of that package. Open Source/free software also tends to have a more limited feature set, as it tends to be driven by the developers interests rather than market pressure and dollars. Commercial software may not do exactly what you want; itâs a truism in commercial development that 10% of the customers require 90% of the development time, and open software may represent the clearest way to get some experiment specific item functioning. But for the other 90% of the features and customers, you get code developed over many years, QA tested before release, and used by a _lot_ of other people. There are often more/broader features in the commercial products, due to the larger number of customers requesting them and more man-years in development. We have something on the order of 50,000+ customers over the years between the various packages for our company alone, and if a issue or new technique pops up we hear about it and have a great deal of motivation to work on it. Many of the commercial products themselves have interfaces for users to add new capabilities, just as with the open software. So both free and commercial software have their niche â open/free software for people with more time than money, or needs simply not addressed by current commercial products, or who enjoy developing their own tools; commercial software for a wider range of people using more established techniques, or who donât want to invest or even have the human resources for a less supported product. I do have my concerns about sponsored âfreeâ software â Micro-Manager (and NIH Image/ImageJ before it) are supported by NIH grants instead of customers or donated developer time. They arenât developed with users donated time like Linux/Apache. What happens to sponsored software users if the grants run out? Will the support be there over the long haul? On the other hand, what effect on the commercial market and its products does government sponsored software have, other than reducing commercial opportunity and investment? But thatâs really a discussion between commercial interests and sponsoring agencies, rather than individual products and projects. Kevin Ryan Senior Project Manager Media Cybernetics, Inc. From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nico Stuurman Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:11 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us in booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org <http://micro-manager.org/> ) is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. â¦. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Ryan-2
Nenad has given a good response but I can't help but responding too.
as a developer of open source imaging software (www.endrov.net) my bias is clear. but I don't develop it out of monetary reasons, what existed before simply sucked. I hear that commercial software is tested but I am yet to use something that is even a nice try. For example, ImproVision has consistently ignored our bug reports(!) about OpenLab to the point that we ended the license and are now phasing it out. On the contrary, I claim open source is by far more tested. our community reuse a lot of existing code that is used in several major open source programs. how can commercial companies that all too commonly write things from scratch compare to this? Support - it is true that open source often does not come with a nice manual but that forces programs to be self-explaining, FAQS and Wikis grow, and you can commonly talk to the developers directly on IRC or by mail. if this still isn't enough you can always fix it yourself or hire *anyone* to do it. if you are willing to pay or have the competence you do not have to rely on anyone. if the software is commercial and the vendor disappears or loses interest, you are screwed. if the grants for the developers disappear you can take it over yourself, spread the load to multiple users or just pay up - but there is a way forward. I do not think public funding is a problem either way. software is write-once, use as many times as you want. the really important part of micro-manager is the drivers and those will not need to change (the hardware does not). this reduces the workload plentiful for us 10% of the users who now just have to do 90% of the development instead of 100%. development of new niche applications is all about activation energy and if the trivial work is done (acquiring 5D images, rendering, basic image processing, storage) you will be productive from the first line of code. this opens up for new research which is not commercially viable (yet). on a side-note, my plan for endrov is to bring it to main stream open source so that more volunteers can do work without funding. image processing is done everywhere, not just in the biology lab. See e.g. GIMP. my advice to anyone doing niche open source is to "outsource" as much as possible, make sure your implementation strategy takes this into account as soon as possible. use off-the-shelf code or if you produce nice code, try to make more people use it (release module as separate project). open source reduces commercial opportunity - this is a good sign! it means you cannot make money out of something because it has been made *trivial*. if you want commercial benefit, bring us the state of the art stuff or we don't need you. that is the bottom line of open source. commercial services are not excluded but you have to work for your pay. /Johan Kevin Ryan wrote: > > A perceived conflict between Open Source/free software and commercial > products has been around for quite a long time. > > > > > Twenty years ago when I started developing imaging software I had an > NIH customer ask “Why can’t you _/give/_ your software away like NIH > Image?!?” (I told him I would gladly do so when the Federal government > started paying my salary.) Certain people in the commercial side of > things at the time were quite upset that the government was supporting > someone to compete with us. > > > > As it turned out, however, some of our best customers were previous > users of these freeware packages. Best, as they had the experience > with imaging software to recognize what it could and couldn’t do, and > the knowledge to move up to a commercial package with > wider/faster/more capabilities once they hit the freeware limits. They > had the education to know what they wanted. > > > > Open Source software/hardware has the advantage of being ‘free’, but > that freedom may cost a considerable investment in people; the grad > student who maintains it, the technician who knows what wire does > what, the involvement in keeping up with a wide group of contributors > who are fixing bugs and adding capabilities. It’s a real tradeoff > between dollars spent and the time invested to use/maintain it. I have > yet to see a free software product whose documentation matches the > average level of commercial software. And if the support community > doesn’t pass a certain critical level, like Linux or the Apache web > server, having a principal developer move on may mean the end of that > package. Open Source/free software also tends to have a more limited > feature set, as it tends to be driven by the developers interests > rather than market pressure and dollars. > > > > Commercial software may not do exactly what you want; it’s a truism in > commercial development that 10% of the customers require 90% of the > development time, and open software may represent the clearest way to > get some experiment specific item functioning. But for the other 90% > of the features and customers, you get code developed over many years, > QA tested before release, and used by a _/lot/_ of other people. There > are often more/broader features in the commercial products, due to the > larger number of customers requesting them and more man-years in > development. We have something on the order of 50,000+ customers over > the years between the various packages for our company alone, and if a > issue or new technique pops up we hear about it and have a great deal > of motivation to work on it. Many of the commercial products > themselves have interfaces for users to add new capabilities, just as > with the open software. > > > > So both free and commercial software have their niche – open/free > software for people with more time than money, or needs simply not > addressed by current commercial products, or who enjoy developing > their own tools; commercial software for a wider range of people using > more established techniques, or who don’t want to invest or even have > the human resources for a less supported product. > > > > I do have my concerns about sponsored ‘free’ software – Micro-Manager > (and NIH Image/ImageJ before it) are supported by NIH grants instead > of customers or donated developer time. They aren’t developed with > users donated time like Linux/Apache. What happens to sponsored > software users if the grants run out? Will the support be there over > the long haul? On the other hand, what effect on the commercial market > and its products does government sponsored software have, other than > reducing commercial opportunity and investment? But that’s really a > discussion between commercial interests and sponsoring agencies, > rather than individual products and projects. > > > > Kevin Ryan > Senior Project Manager > Media Cybernetics, Inc. > > > > *From:* Confocal Microscopy List > [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Nico Stuurman > *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:11 PM > *To:* [hidden email] > *Subject:* Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting > > > > If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, > December 13-17 (http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us in > booth 2009 in the Exhibition space. > > > > Micro-Manager (http://micro-manager.org <http://micro-manager.org/>) > is Open Source software for microscope image acquisition. …. > > > -- -- ------------------------------------------------ Johan Henriksson MSc Engineering PhD student, Karolinska Institutet http://mahogny.areta.org http://www.endrov.net |
|
|
Unsubscribe:
Please delete my address from the list. |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |