The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view of why this fine software and mode are not worth the hassle.
Andy K3UK On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jim, N1SZ <n...@japierson.com> wrote: > > > Dave & All, > > > > No, I was thinking the same thing. Let’s take a look at some significant > “red flags” with the ROS software: > > > > 1.) Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the > software (although reportedly removed in recent versions) > > 2.) Won’t make the source code open for public inspection (not that it > is 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software) > > 3.) Requires Gmail e-mail account and password – (giving such things > away would make any IT security professional lose their mind)… is this still > the case? > > 4.) PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and > “Authored by” signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose’s > own work….. I wonder how that happened? > > 5.) Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of servers… and > possibly other places? > > 6.) Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors > > 7.) Gives users little if any control over the software’s spotting to > the internet > > 8.) Now, after “going away” for a short time, has a new version that if > you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically > shuts down. (Sounds like a child’s temper tantrum to me…) > > > > Well, I’ve make it known that I’ve been suspicious of Jose’s intentions all > along, but if this all seems “Normal” to you and doesn’t bother you…. I say > good luck and press on with your use of ROS. But from my limited > interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms > and warning signs to me. > > > > Jim > > N1SZ > > >
