MET/CAL License

[measure]

On the topic of licenses, I agree with RFCAL: Buy them from Fluke, if possible, though I'm not sure the older versions are supported.

Regarding RFCAL's opinion of MET/CAL® 8 ("Metcal 8 sucks!!"): Though I agree with the fact that the user interface of v8 is a significant departure from all previous Windows® versions (v4.2 - v7.3), railing about the change(s) without providing useful feedback, documented bugs, or other verifiable content serves no purpose beyond perhaps continuing to torture what must be a 'battle-hardened' support team at Fluke. If you're not happy with the product, contact Fluke with specific, helpful feedback and they may act on it. Without such input, however, no one can rectify even the simplest of difficulties.

That is the thing.. Most people think software is easy.  But there is a lot of work that goes into writing good quality automation.. (And it is never perfect.)

Most companies when they deal with the government have dollar signs in their eyes.  So they want to license the software just like the do in the commercial world.   I believe, that is the biggest reason the government writes their own software.

What the metrology industry needs is a partnership with a software company, the military and industry.  We all test equipment the same way.  There maybe different test points and test that are skipped.  But DC Volts is DC Volts.

Mike.

Reviewing Mike's quote (above), there are several things I find noteworthy:

• Most people think software is easy.  But there is a lot of work that goes into writing good quality automation.. (And it is never perfect.)
  


• Most companies when they deal with the government have dollar signs in their eyes.  So they want to license the software just like the do in the commercial world.   I believe, that is the biggest reason the government writes their own software.


• What the metrology industry needs is a partnership with a software company, the military and industry.  We all test equipment the same way.  There maybe different test points and test that are skipped.  But DC Volts [sic] is DC Volts.

I would like to amplify Mike's first point by saying that not only is software not easy, in the general case, but when coupled with a metrological output, i.e., calibration, it IS NEVER PERFECT. Translation: Continued resources are required to install, update, and maintain software. Unlike hardware installation, it is never simply over and done with.

On Mike's second point, I would like to offer that the military has collectively spent upwards of $20 million in the not so distant past to develop in-house software packages, if I remember correctly, enough that any company would be willing to talk for that kind of money. Perhaps industry and government/military are singing different tunes?

On Mike's last point, perhaps the most efficient way for military and industry to work together, for the interests of both, is to agree on a common definition, approach, and implementation of the calibration process. Such agreement could also be the catalyst for better products and increased competition - everybody wins.

The only problem with the above (last) point is that the relationship between the US military and industry is a singular one, and it is somewhat at the exclusion of the rest of the metrology world!

[Squidley]

Another problem is that even within DOD there are differing ways of doing things... That's the main reason you usually have at least 3 different procedures for common items...
AF K Pro, NavAir Pro, and Army TB...

[scottbp]

I never thought you could sell a MET/CAL license, I thought once it was applied to a database, it could never be removed and used again on another database.