NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/rec/autos/tech/17757

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: C3 ECM schmatics available somewhere?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:00:05 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 23
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

    "Could you mail me a few sources for whatever is that you're working on
at Xerox? I'll even accept xerox copies"

That's *Xerox* copies, not "xerox".  And the answer to your question is yes.
If you demonstrated faith in Xerox by buying one of their computers, I would be
happy to send you the schematics so you could repair it yourself.  That's the
way it works with every piece of electronics I've ever seen.  You can buy a
service manual for your TV, VCR, PC, computerized dishwasher, or whatever,
complete with schematics, parts layouts, and principles of operation.

Now compare this to your car: sure you can get a service manual, but it's got
this little 17 minute gap in it.  "Oh no, that's the *computer*, oh no, it's
workings are far beyond mere mortals like you - just go out and buy a whole new
one."  Well, that's fine for most people who are happy to treat the computer as
a black box.  (For that matter, most people treat the entire car that way).
But if I went out and spent big bucks to buy this GM car, and I assume the
computer within, then why *shouldn't* I be able to find out how to fix it
myself?  Why is the ECM considered a black box, but not, say, the CV joints?
Nobody's asking for source code or CIF files of any custom IC's here.

            - Michel

[e-mail]