On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tom Clark, K3IO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong. Are not these innards tied up with the FCC's > edicts that preclude the transmitter from transmitting on "illegal" > frequencies? This wasn't a problem with the 1000 because it was a kit, but > the 5K needs to be an FCC certified black box. > I believe that's the case. There's no FCC edict against reading the code which implements the lockout, however. And since no documentation is exhaustive, there are often details that can only be gleaned from examining the source. It's an important goal to minimize how much of that is necessary, however. In short, to cut back the necessary code-reading to stepping on bugs or resolving ambiguities in the spec. There is no substitute for having the source when you need it. As a system develops, the hope is that you need it less and less. There seems to be a little residual confusion still, though. The idea is *never* to keep details secret. The idea is to set up the rules whereby an application developer can draw a circle around what he or she needs to be concerned with in developing the application. There is much necessary ugliness in any low-level implementation that developers have every right not to need to concern themselves with, once you promise them something better. 73 Frank AB2KT -- Travelling by airplane in the US is nothing more than mass training of Americans to the requirements of the coming police state. The whole point is to make you learn to acquiesce without question, en masse, to completely absurd directives by dull functionaries wearing uniforms. -- Digby _______________________________________________ FlexRadio Systems Mailing List FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
