Building a state-of-the-art implementation to the SCAMP requirements
(or beyond) would be an interesting project, but many developers
would consider it a dead end. Suppose we had such an implementation
in hand now. How would you convince the Winlink organization and its
user community to abandon their current hardware base and switch to
the new implementation?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > SCAMP used the RDFT engine for data transfer. Perhaps the SCAMP
> > developers will replace this engine with a more effective
> > implementation, but if such work is ongoing, its being conducted
> > quietly.
> > 73, Dave, AA6YQ
>
> Given that the developers have little or no motivation
> nor spare resources to bring SCAMP into the light the
> task must fall to an proprietary-app independent team.
>
> Are there elements of SCAMP that are controlled by the
> proprietary Winlink2000 licensing that make independent
> work impossible or improbable?
>
> Linux developers wrestle past the efforts of MS and Adobe
> and others to prevent interoperability of Linux with their
> apps and have succeeded magnificently.
>
> Perhaps the solution to the SCAMP/Winlink2000 protocol
> bottleneck will be found in the Linux world?
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73,
> doc, KD4E
> ... somewhere in FL
> URL: bibleseven (dot) com
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
