Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Bill Aycock]

It is apparent that you understand that ownership of a copyright 
allows you to control its use, even if that control is to allow free 
use, but your statement has a major semantic flaw--

The words "precise" and "legal" are incompatible and should never be 
used in the same sentence.

That's why we have so many lawyers, to debate (for fees) the 
differences among "shall be", "will be" ,"to be" and "is".

Bill-W4BSG

At 01:36 AM 1/14/2007, you wrote:
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> > I am *not* making it open source, only the decoding DLL's. The UI
>will never
> > be open source as it uses copyrighted code.
>
>Copyright and Open Source are not opposites. Copyright ownership is
>the precise legal foundation of, for example, the General Public
>License (GPL).
>
>There is a simple, concise discussion of the issues involved at
>.
>
>73
>Frank
>AB2KT
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
>telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Our other groups:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Robert McGwier]

Exactly.  My personal experience, which I believe is nearly identical to 
Frank's,  is found in our doing the software defined radio code (which 
is used now by thousands of radio amateurs and others) finds Simon's 
fear is misplaced.   However,  it is a personal (if incorrect ;-) )  
decision and his to make.

That does not keep us from voting with out fingers and feet and going 
elsewhere.  If Simon's game is the only one in town,  then we are left 
with no choice.   DttSP, Flex Radio, GnuRadio,  HPSDR, uwSDR, AEA 
DSP1232/2232  all run code that Frank and/or  I have written (along with 
many others).  My experience with open source in these projects is that 
it has been utterly glorious and the few Neaderthal's that come dragging 
their knuckles out of their caves are a minor annoyance.  We have been 
aided greatly and have learned a tremendous amount from doing business 
this way.

Soapbox shoved firmly back in to the closet,
Bob
N4HY




Frank Brickle wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Spot on. I use a commercial library from Codejock - www.codejock.com
>> 
> - this 
>   
>> cannot be distributed. I also use other commercial libraries with
>> 
> similar 
>   
>> restrictions. I can only ship the runtime libraries or link the code
>> 
> into my 
>   
>> executable.
>> 
>
> You don't have to distribute their libraries to open your source,
> unless their API is covered by an NDA.
>
> As far as questions about myriad versions go, "Let us all know when
> you find out!" is as good an answer as any.
>
> 73
> Frank
> AB2KT
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the
corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Alex Flinsch]

On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:

> - Separating the UI from the modems and rig control and using a  
> protocol
> between them would make it easier to write platform-specific
> best-of-breed UIs.  PSKCore.DLL is OK for this approach for  
> Windows, but
> as it uses the Microsoft component implementation framework, it  
> doesn't
> help cross-platform, just cross-application.


If developers used hamlib for the rig control part of the  
application, that part of the would be solved.

--
Alex / AB2RC
Running a Linux/Mac installation, where the only windows  are in the  
walls where they belong

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Frank Brickle]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> No matter, the terms under which I use this code specifically disallow 
> redistribution.

In other words, the *suppliers* of your support libraries have control
over the distribution rights of *your own* code?

Man, I'd never give up that kind of control over my own code. The kind
of damage users can do is trivial by comparison.

;-)

73
Frank
AB2KT

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Simon Brown]

- Original Message - 
From: "Frank Brickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Copyright and Open Source are not opposites. Copyright ownership is
> the precise legal foundation of, for example, the General Public
> License (GPL).
>

No matter, the terms under which I use this code specifically disallow 
redistribution.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV 

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Frank Brickle]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Spot on. I use a commercial library from Codejock - www.codejock.com
- this 
> cannot be distributed. I also use other commercial libraries with
similar 
> restrictions. I can only ship the runtime libraries or link the code
into my 
> executable.

You don't have to distribute their libraries to open your source,
unless their API is covered by an NDA.

As far as questions about myriad versions go, "Let us all know when
you find out!" is as good an answer as any.

73
Frank
AB2KT

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Simon Brown]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>I suspect what Simon means is that the UI portion of his application
> contains code whose copyright is held by individuals other than him,
> thereby precluding release to open source without the holder's
> approval.

Spot on. I use a commercial library from Codejock - www.codejock.com - this 
cannot be distributed. I also use other commercial libraries with similar 
restrictions. I can only ship the runtime libraries or link the code into my 
executable.

Another reason for not making the UI code OpenSource is that we end up with 
a myriad of product variants, also I then get bombarded with questions about 
porting to Linux / MacOS, how do I compile etc.

Simon Brown
---
www.sysgem.com

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

I suspect what Simon means is that the UI portion of his application 
contains code whose copyright is held by individuals other than him, 
thereby precluding release to open source without the holder's 
approval.

Releasing an application to open source is easiest if one only 
include components or snippets whose licenses are compatible with the 
license one has chosen for the application. Otherwise, its necessary 
to track down the license holders and obtain their approval.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Brickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" 
> wrote:
> 
> > I am *not* making it open source, only the decoding DLL's. The UI
> will never 
> > be open source as it uses copyrighted code.
> 
> Copyright and Open Source are not opposites. Copyright ownership is
> the precise legal foundation of, for example, the General Public
> License (GPL).
> 
> There is a simple, concise discussion of the issues involved at
> .
> 
> 73
> Frank
> AB2KT
>

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Frank Brickle]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I am *not* making it open source, only the decoding DLL's. The UI
will never 
> be open source as it uses copyrighted code.

Copyright and Open Source are not opposites. Copyright ownership is
the precise legal foundation of, for example, the General Public
License (GPL).

There is a simple, concise discussion of the issues involved at
.

73
Frank
AB2KT

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> You are poorly informed, Doc. Condemning others 
> based on what you've been told is risky business. 

The attitude of condemnation has been somewhat
one-sided, and not from my side.  I made a simple
*observation* based on 30 years of experience with
computers without the intention of it turning into
a big deal.  I am sorry it has been made such.

I apologize to anyone who has chosen to be offended.
It was not my intention to insult -- I was echoing
what programmers have told me.  Other programmers
may disagree, but then their argument is with their
peers, especially with the Linux folks who plead
for scraps of information from which they can write
the drivers that others say cannot be written --
then they write them.

It was a *combination* of observation and testimony.

Meanwhile I celebrate and support Mozilla/Firefox/
Thunderbird/Seamonkey, AbiWord, Hamlibs, hundreds
if not thousands of Java-based apps, and hundreds
if not thousands of other cross-platform apps.

We all make choices at various moments of the
software conceptualization, development, promotion,
and selection cycle.

I have joined with those who make cross-platform
compatibility an important preference.  I am sorry
if that makes some people, especially at Microsoft,
uncomfortable.

'nuff said, let's move on.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[KV9U]

It is difficult to work in a particular field and then come home and do 
the same thing. As an electronics enthusiastic from a very early age, 
due to a series of life events, I eventually wound up building a small 
audiovisual/electronics/computer repair shop for an educational agency. 
We even did some of the early computer networking with Corvus networks 
(what fun keeping them going).

The problem was that as much as I enjoyed my work, and sometimes I could 
hardly believe I was getting paid to do something that was challenging 
and yet enjoyable, it just was not something you wanted to do when you 
came home at the end of the day.

Now that I am retired and have a modest workshop, I find that I only 
rarely do much with electronic building because it is so difficult with 
poor eyesight accomodation, such as being able to solder without special 
binoculars. SMT would be really hard now.

I tried learning programming a few decades ago and realized that it just 
was not something I was smart enough or capable enough to do. Especially 
not machine language level stuff. But at least I have a crude 
understanding how it works.

I think I speak for many, of not most of us, that we are amazed and in 
awe really, of those who can do good coding. If I had the ability I 
would be doing it now, but only a tiny handful of people can do this 
kind of work well.

Ham software has done very well over the years for many categories. Far 
better than I ever expected was possible. It only takes one gifted 
person to do some excellent coding and have a great program. I expect 
even more amateur radio software in the future as more people have 
access to computers and computing, even in developing countries.

Thanks to all who are so successful and are willing to share this with 
the rest of us.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Simon Brown wrote:

>I bang my head against a large lump of concrete while supporting / 
>developing for all of 'Windows / VMS / OS400 / Linux / UNIX (6 flavours)' 
>for my company, I am *not* going to do it for a hobby! (I sometimes doubt my 
>sanity in programming as I do in my spare time.)
>
>Easy it is not, soul-destroying - yes! And my customers are professionals, 
>just imagine supports thousands of enthusiasts - show me the way to the 
>padded cell please.
>
>IMO Ham software is not financially viable, without sponsorship and use of 
>my company's assets I couldn't do what I do at the moment.
>-
>Simon Brown, HB9DRV 
>
>
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

Unless you have a monolithic approach in mind, you'll need a fast 
platform-independent IPC mechanism. 

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> A couple of random observations
> - UI is the hardest part
> - next is device interface (sound cards, RS232) though the effort 
to 
> abstract that out pales in comparison to the problem of providing a 
> best-of-breed UI for different platforms
> - Adobe has many hundreds of programmers working on Photoshop
> - A Java digimode program sure would be nice.  I have a few pieces 
done 
> and would be pleased to work with others, but there are still 
people 
> (Win/Lin/Mac/BSD who won't use Java)
> - Separating the UI from the modems and rig control and using a 
protocol 
> between them would make it easier to write platform-specific 
> best-of-breed UIs.  PSKCore.DLL is OK for this approach for 
Windows, but 
> as it uses the Microsoft component implementation framework, it 
doesn't 
> help cross-platform, just cross-application.
> 
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> - A Java digimode program sure would be nice.  I have a few pieces done 
> and would be pleased to work with others, but there are still people 
> (Win/Lin/Mac/BSD who won't use Java)
> Leigh/WA5ZNU

Are you familiar with tcl/tk?  I am not.

Many apps being used successfully with Puppy Linux
use that.  Sure makes things tiny!

Puppy also uses a smaller version of Java and about
everything runs fine under it.

What's the beef with Java?

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

A couple of random observations
- UI is the hardest part
- next is device interface (sound cards, RS232) though the effort to 
abstract that out pales in comparison to the problem of providing a 
best-of-breed UI for different platforms
- Adobe has many hundreds of programmers working on Photoshop
- A Java digimode program sure would be nice.  I have a few pieces done 
and would be pleased to work with others, but there are still people 
(Win/Lin/Mac/BSD who won't use Java)
- Separating the UI from the modems and rig control and using a protocol 
between them would make it easier to write platform-specific 
best-of-breed UIs.  PSKCore.DLL is OK for this approach for Windows, but 
as it uses the Microsoft component implementation framework, it doesn't 
help cross-platform, just cross-application.

Leigh/WA5ZNU

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

Yes, cross-platform development requires an "extra effort" -- just as 
putting a man on the moon requires an "extra effort" compared with 
climbing a tree.

You are poorly informed, Doc. Condemning others based on what you've 
been told is risky business. Some developers are used to this sort of 
ignorance and let it roll off; others will put you on 
their "clueless" list and treat you accordingly.

Until recently, cross-platform development forced a cruel tradeoff: 
either limit the application to a least common denominator of 
capabilities provided by the target platforms, or create an 
architecture that encapsulates platform dependencies in modules with 
multiple platform-specific implementations. As an example, the former 
approach produces applications with command-line user interfaces -- 
easy to develop, test, and maintain, but of interest to few users in 
this day and age. The latter approach requires a serious investment 
in configuration management and version control, and produces 
applications that must be independently documented and tested for 
each family of target platforms. Adobe, for example, provides 
entirely separate documentation for the Apple and PC versions of 
PhotoShop, and tests them independently.

There are now development tools that begin to fulfill the "write 
once, run everywhere" hype we heard from the Sun marketeers: Eclipse 
and Mono are two good examples. Yes, I'm aware of Delphi/Kylix, but 
Borland is roadkill and no competent developer would start a new 
project with these products. A developer starting a new project would 
be well-served to consider these new tools, though both involve 
runtime environments not typically used in amateur radio desktop apps 
(Eclipse primarily supports Java development, and Mono builds .net 
applications). 

Those amateur radio software developers with existing platform-
specific applications thus face a different tradeoff: continue 
efficient development for a single platform, or suspend the release 
of new functionality for months or years while re-implementing 
current functionality with Eclipse or Mono. Each will make that 
decision based on his or her own personal interests, and the 
interests of their user communities. Cluelessness or sloth won't be a 
factor.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am referring to your assertion that the impediment is 
programmers 
> > who are inadequately competent to make their apps cross-platform 
> > compatible. Please explain the rationale behind this claim.
> > 73,  Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> Oh, that is easy.
> 
> Three sources:
> 
> 1.  Programmers who have told me directly that
> they only know one OS, are not interested in
> learning any others, and refuse any requests
> to make their apps cross-platform compatible.
> 
> 2.  Programmers who have written cross-platform
> compatible apps who have told me of fellow
> programmers who fit category #1.
> 
> 3.  I know from my own very limited experiences
> in programming in the past -- I have forgotten
> more than I ever knew from disuse -- that it
> was an extra effort to provide for use outside
> of the most familiar context.  Even my HTML is
> very primitive and I make little or no effort
> to provide for automated flexibility.  I use
> raw hand-coded HTML and expect Web browsers to
> handle it correctly.  I don't have enough knowledge,
> nor do I have the time to acquire it, to do more
> than that.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> ~~
> Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
> Personal: http://bibleseven.com
> Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
> ~~
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Brad Gillis]

Hello Simon,

I want to thank you for the great software and as somebody who has actually 
attempted a little programming (with mixed results) I know the amount of time 
and effort you have put into the software.  
 
I usually run a beta version of your software and find your beta version runs 
better than most final versions.

It always amazes me that people who don't have a particular talent think those 
that can do it just have some magic wand that makes it happen with no concept 
of the time and effort it took to learn that talent let alone the time and 
effort into the actual project.

Thanks again.

73
Brad
N1NPK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Simon Brown]

- Original Message - 
From: "kd4e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>> I have never met anyone who has developed multi-platform software who 
>> claims
>> it is as easy as those who haven't :-)
>> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> Who said anything about "easy"?

I bang my head against a large lump of concrete while supporting / 
developing for all of 'Windows / VMS / OS400 / Linux / UNIX (6 flavours)' 
for my company, I am *not* going to do it for a hobby! (I sometimes doubt my 
sanity in programming as I do in my spare time.)

Easy it is not, soul-destroying - yes! And my customers are professionals, 
just imagine supports thousands of enthusiasts - show me the way to the 
padded cell please.

IMO Ham software is not financially viable, without sponsorship and use of 
my company's assets I couldn't do what I do at the moment.
-
Simon Brown, HB9DRV 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> I have never met anyone who has developed multi-platform software who claims 
> it is as easy as those who haven't :-)
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV 

Who said anything about "easy"?

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> Peter is mostly correct about this. Microsoft is not involved in this 
> issue at all. If a vendor does not see a market for their product with a 
> given OS, they just are not going to spend the money needed to develop 
> that driver.

I am not into conspiracies even the public attacks
against Linux by leading MS spokesmen make it clear how
much they fear Linux.  They have gone to great lengths
to falsely bad-mouth Linux and their business partners
can read between the lines.

Microsoft is not involved in anti-competitive practices
just as special interests are not involved in decisionmaking
in Congress.  Uh huh.

Microsoft has a raft of anti-competitive practices charges
pending against it in Europe and spent millions barely
escaping well-due consequences here in the USA.

> However, my understanding is that in some cases it is not the vendors 
> who write the drivers as the Linux developers sometimes have reverse 
> engineered them if they really want a particular device to work with 
> their OS. Probably true with other OS's.
> 73, Rick, KV9U

Many, if not most, of the commonly used drivers
for thousands of pieces of hardware have been
written by individuals in the Linux world because
hardware manufacturers fail to provide them.  There
is no good business reason for their failure given
the millions of Linux users.  It is hardly a tiny
market.

Anyhow, what matters is the original issue -- cross-
platform apps make the best sense.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[jgorman01]

It's not that the distro's are not compatible.  Distributions by the
different vendors, i.e. redhat, mandrake, suse, puppy, etc. pretty
much use the same linux kernels, libraries, and software.  They are
generally just different conglomerations of software based upon what
the distro is aimed at.  Where they do differ is the installation
package.  Some are more thorough and require less input from the user.
 The other major difference is the support software for installing
additional packages.

What we're talking about are programs that during the compile process
look for a specific library file of say 'needthislibrary.so.1'.  Newer
distro's may only include 'needthislibrary.so.2' that includes some
additional features.  If it is backwards compatible you just need to
either change the compile/make script or make a logical link from the
'so.1' to the 'so.2' file.  If it isn't compatible then you need to
start searching.  Another thing that occurs is that mandrake may
include the library in its distro while suse may not have deemed it
worthwhile, so you start searching for the library if you are running
suse.

It really isn't much different than .dll's used in MS.  

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I rest my case: walt talks about all these different varieties of
linux, RedHat,Mandrake,SuSe, puppy linux and Debian, 
> all in one sentence. I take it these OS are not compatible with each
other. How the heck can u figure out what runws best with which?
> 
> John
> VE5MU
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[KV9U]

Peter is mostly correct about this. Microsoft is not involved in this 
issue at all. If a vendor does not see a market for their product with a 
given OS, they just are not going to spend the money needed to develop 
that driver.

However, my understanding is that in some cases it is not the vendors 
who write the drivers as the Linux developers sometimes have reverse 
engineered them if they really want a particular device to work with 
their OS. Probably true with other OS's.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Peter G. Viscarola wrote:

>It's not anti-competitive, and it's not sponsored or driven by
>Microsoft.  It's just good business sense when viewed form the
>perspective of the hardware vendors.
>
>Hardware vendors are *notoriously* guarded about the details of how
>their hardware works.  This includes the register-level details
>necessary to write a driver. And this is true for all types of devices
>that range from support chipsets (such as Southbus/ICH type devices) to
>commodity peripheral devices (like, say, SCSI adapters).  They view
>their hardware interface as confidential and proprietary -- Sometimes
>because they think the interface design provides a competitive
>advantage, sometimes because as soon as an interface design is "public"
>they're stuck supporting every detail of it, and sometimes because they
>don't want their competitors to create register-compatible knock-offs of
>their devices.
>
>The VENDORS are the ones who write the drivers.  They choose which O/Ses
>to write drivers for based on a cost/benefit analysis, taking into
>account one-time cost for writing the code and the on-going costs of
>supporting it.
>
>Vendors aren't any more forthcoming with Microsoft when it comes to
>details of how their hardware works.  In fact, most typically they're
>down-right paranoid about it.
>
>So, if there aren't a plethora of drivers some flavor of Linux, it's
>just that the hardware vendor doesn't think writing and supporting a
>driver for that platform is worth the cost.
>
>There's really nothing more to it than that.
>
>Microsoft has been involved in a lot of conspiracies and
>anti-competitive practices, but this isn't one of them.
>
>de Peter K1PGV
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> I am referring to your assertion that the impediment is programmers 
> who are inadequately competent to make their apps cross-platform 
> compatible. Please explain the rationale behind this claim.
> 73,  Dave, AA6YQ

Oh, that is easy.

Three sources:

1.  Programmers who have told me directly that
they only know one OS, are not interested in
learning any others, and refuse any requests
to make their apps cross-platform compatible.

2.  Programmers who have written cross-platform
compatible apps who have told me of fellow
programmers who fit category #1.

3.  I know from my own very limited experiences
in programming in the past -- I have forgotten
more than I ever knew from disuse -- that it
was an extra effort to provide for use outside
of the most familiar context.  Even my HTML is
very primitive and I make little or no effort
to provide for automated flexibility.  I use
raw hand-coded HTML and expect Web browsers to
handle it correctly.  I don't have enough knowledge,
nor do I have the time to acquire it, to do more
than that.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Simon Brown]

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> Some amateurs actually get software written and others who just complain.
>

Sorry, typo in the message, should have said: ".. and others who are 
destined for management".

Now back to monitoring 15m PSK.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Simon Brown]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And you say this based on your experience developing and deploying
> which cross-platform applications?
>


Well said.

I have never met anyone who has developed multi-platform software who claims 
it is as easy as those who haven't :-)

Some amateurs actually get software written and others who just complain.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Peter G. Viscarola]

>
>I am also very aware of the profit-motive for
>excluding open-source versions of drivers and apps.
>
>Even as a private user I have wasted hundreds of
>hours trying to get hardware products to work only
>to be told by the manufacturer that they *chose*
>to refuse Linux access to minimal info. necessary
>to write their own drivers.  This anti-competitive
>(on the software side) conduct is well-documented.
>

It's not anti-competitive, and it's not sponsored or driven by
Microsoft.  It's just good business sense when viewed form the
perspective of the hardware vendors.

Hardware vendors are *notoriously* guarded about the details of how
their hardware works.  This includes the register-level details
necessary to write a driver. And this is true for all types of devices
that range from support chipsets (such as Southbus/ICH type devices) to
commodity peripheral devices (like, say, SCSI adapters).  They view
their hardware interface as confidential and proprietary -- Sometimes
because they think the interface design provides a competitive
advantage, sometimes because as soon as an interface design is "public"
they're stuck supporting every detail of it, and sometimes because they
don't want their competitors to create register-compatible knock-offs of
their devices.

The VENDORS are the ones who write the drivers.  They choose which O/Ses
to write drivers for based on a cost/benefit analysis, taking into
account one-time cost for writing the code and the on-going costs of
supporting it.

Vendors aren't any more forthcoming with Microsoft when it comes to
details of how their hardware works.  In fact, most typically they're
down-right paranoid about it.

So, if there aren't a plethora of drivers some flavor of Linux, it's
just that the hardware vendor doesn't think writing and supporting a
driver for that platform is worth the cost.

There's really nothing more to it than that.

Microsoft has been involved in a lot of conspiracies and
anti-competitive practices, but this isn't one of them.

de Peter K1PGV

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

I am referring to your assertion that the impediment is programmers 
who are inadequately competent to make their apps cross-platform 
compatible. Please explain the rationale behind this claim.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The only thing that stands between Linux and the
> >> common user today is friends-of-MS who refuse to
> >> make drivers (or driver info) available for Linux
> >> and programmers who are inadequately competent
> >> to make their apps cross-platform compatible.
> > 
> > And you say this based on your experience developing 
> > and deploying which cross-platform applications?
> > 
> > 73, Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> I am not sure I understand the purpose of this
> challenge to facts that are common knowledge.
> 
> One *has* to be a software developer to observe
> anti-competitive or incomplete development practices?
> 
> The models for cross-platform apps are all over the
> place, they are not hard to find.  This is not a
> secret.
> 
> I have been on the procurement side in business,
> government, and non-profits.
> 
> I am also very aware of the profit-motive for
> excluding open-source versions of drivers and apps.
> 
> Even as a private user I have wasted hundreds of
> hours trying to get hardware products to work only
> to be told by the manufacturer that they *chose*
> to refuse Linux access to minimal info. necessary
> to write their own drivers.  This anti-competitive
> (on the software side) conduct is well-documented.
> 
> It is a really dumb practice because the growing
> numbers of Linux users are communicating via the
> Internet and are refusing to buy from uncooperative
> hardware manufacturers -- this too is no secret.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> ~~
> Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
> Personal: http://bibleseven.com
> Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
> ~~
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

>> The only thing that stands between Linux and the
>> common user today is friends-of-MS who refuse to
>> make drivers (or driver info) available for Linux
>> and programmers who are inadequately competent
>> to make their apps cross-platform compatible.
> 
> And you say this based on your experience developing 
> and deploying which cross-platform applications?
> 
> 73, Dave, AA6YQ

I am not sure I understand the purpose of this
challenge to facts that are common knowledge.

One *has* to be a software developer to observe
anti-competitive or incomplete development practices?

The models for cross-platform apps are all over the
place, they are not hard to find.  This is not a
secret.

I have been on the procurement side in business,
government, and non-profits.

I am also very aware of the profit-motive for
excluding open-source versions of drivers and apps.

Even as a private user I have wasted hundreds of
hours trying to get hardware products to work only
to be told by the manufacturer that they *chose*
to refuse Linux access to minimal info. necessary
to write their own drivers.  This anti-competitive
(on the software side) conduct is well-documented.

It is a really dumb practice because the growing
numbers of Linux users are communicating via the
Internet and are refusing to buy from uncooperative
hardware manufacturers -- this too is no secret.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>snip<

> The only thing that stands between Linux and the
> common user today is friends-of-MS who refuse to
> make drivers (or driver info) available for Linux
> and programmers who are inadequately competent
> to make their apps cross-platform compatible.

And you say this based on your experience developing and deploying 
which cross-platform applications?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[KV9U]

I have looked at and sometimes used a number of Linux distributions, 
some in the past few weeks in terms of Live CD and DVD:

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mint, Mandriva, openSUSE, MEPIS, Freespire.

None have the quality fonts of MS Windows products. This has bothered me 
for years (at least 5 years, if not more) so I did considerable research 
into this and found that they can not legally have the high quality MS 
fonts along with the Linux OS since they are copyrighted.

If you can not tell the difference between these fonts that are ultra 
tweaked for video display and mediocre fonts that are lower in 
readibility, then you would not have any problems using the lower 
quality fonts.

For detailed information, see:

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html

73,

Rick, KV9U


jhaynesatalumni wrote:

>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>My main criticism of Linux is that is has horrific fonts that are not 
>>comparable to Windows fonts and the Linux folks try and make believe 
>>that this is not a problem 
>>
>>
>
>I'm not going to dispute your assertion, but I don't understand it.  I
>have used Linux for a long long time and I have never had occasion to
>say "I just can't stand these awful fonts."  And on the rare occasons
>when I use Windows I have never had occasion to say, "Wow, what
>beautiful fonts!  This has Linux beat."
>
>Maybe I need an example so I can see where the Windows fonts are so much
>better.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

See my previous comment on drivers.  If MS would allow hardware manfacturers to 
freely write drivers for their equipment, then Linux programmers wouldn't have 
to write driver code from scratch and you wouldn't have to compile their 
libraries.

Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Salomao 
Fresco
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:26 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


Hi!

Jim has hited the proverbial nail:

I had to retrieve and compile several libraries. 
 
for most of us without the necessary knowledge of building and compiling 
libraries, things can be difficult and can cause loss of motivation. Been there 
done that!

regards
 
On 1/12/07, jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
The last distribution I bought, SUSE 9.3, was very easy to install and
most everything worked.  Adding some programs was easy, some were 
hard.  I wanted to use my PC with my IPOD Shuffle and getting "ITunes"
replacement software working was difficult because I had to retrieve
and compile several libraries.  One the other hand, installing the 
software to retrieve photos from my HP 215 camera was simple.  I got a
new flash drive, Sandisk Cruzer, for Christmas and it worked as soon
as I plugged it in.

I don't think the newer Linux distro's are hard to install and add on 
software isn't any more difficult than some Windows software.  Read
about the problems people are having with the new Microsoft Zuni software!

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is one of the reasons I dont get into Linux.  I watched others,
> stressed out at school, trying to get systems operational and 
smoothed out.
> We need things to work at college, not there to be fiddled with, because
> students have only a certain amount of time to use systems, and
expect them
> to work - especially in an educational atmosphere.  Yes - Windows 
has its
> problems too, but once we find a solution with one, the rest pretty much
> fall into place too.  The other thing has been mentioned - the
availability
> of user programs.  If it is written to do, it is written for 
windows, and
> once in a while they follow up with a Linux program - but not too often.
> Students expect us to always have the newest and bestest, since they are
> going onward to jobs, which will need those skills.  Thus, we do 
have Linux
> available, but (maybe) not suprisingly, the majority do not  take the
> classes.  Thus also went our Macs.  Just not enough of them wanted
to learn
> Apple.
>
>
>
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you 
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk





Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97


Yahoo! Groups Links 







-- 
Cumprimentos 

Salomão Fresco
CT2IRJ


If it works... dont fix it! 


Esta mensagem foi escrita com electrões 100% reciclados.  

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My main criticism of Linux is that is has horrific fonts that are not 
> comparable to Windows fonts and the Linux folks try and make believe 
> that this is not a problem 

I'm not going to dispute your assertion, but I don't understand it.  I
have used Linux for a long long time and I have never had occasion to
say "I just can't stand these awful fonts."  And on the rare occasons
when I use Windows I have never had occasion to say, "Wow, what
beautiful fonts!  This has Linux beat."

Maybe I need an example so I can see where the Windows fonts are so much
better.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Jose A. Amador]

That's fairly simple. It just takes to make a static build.

Inconveniences: It generates much larger code.

Nevertheless, may be an option. If the codesmith would care for
releasing both static and dynamic linked programs, there would be a
solution for all.

 That's what Mozilla does, as sake of example.  Firefox just needs to
be placed in a working folder, it comes with all the needed libraries 
self contained.

Then you pay the price: download a large program or many smaller libraries.

It might be about the same effort, and people wouldn't need to know how 
to compile.

Jose, CO2JA.

jgorman01 wrote:

>  That's my one pet peeve about Linux. You go looking for a program to
>  do what you want and find out it is two years old and requires
>  libraries that have been updated 4 times since then. Sometimes trying
>  to find the older libraries is a real challenge. I would love it if
>  everyone would store the libraries and programs necessary to install
>  a program right with the program.
>
>  Jim WA0LYK

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

If you want to learn how to program your talkie, you must you must crack open 
the operting manual andlearn the basic operating principles of your talkie and 
then roll up your sleeves and build and program is using what you have learned.

Didn't you just say that Dave?

Or, you can load software on you computer and program/load the channels that 
way.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:32 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


re "What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you 
are doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many 
hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?"

Using Linux will not teach you to program your 2M talkie, nor will it 
teach you how to create applications that run on Linux. If you want 
to learn to write software, you must crack open a book or three to 
learn the basic principles, and then roll up your sleeves and build 
something using what you've learned. 

MIT has made all of its courseware freely available online via

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

For a solid foundation, start with 6.001:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-
Science/6-001Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm

One of the authors of the textbook used in this course is WA1NSE:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html

 73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

   


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, hams have not said we want "this" distro to support ham radio 
so we adopt it.
> 
> SuSe, Mandrake, Debian and a couple of others cater to amateur 
radio.   My personal leaning is toward Debian and it WAS the first 
Linux distro. to try and devote itself to being ham radio friendly.
> 
> The real key to a ham radio applications for Linus is to include 
all the required libraries (dependencies) with the release of the 
installation and install the executable and  with all dependencies in 
a specific location.  So then you are back to MS...C:\Program 
Files\PSK31
> 
> But my Linux computer is shared by my family and I don't want them 
to have access to PSK31 so I want to put it in 
> my \USR2\k5yfw\digital\psk3 and You might want to put it in \URS3
\Sal\amateur-radio\digital\psk31.
> 
> What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you are 
doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many 
hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW





Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

I think that 10 seconds or longer is a poor use of on-the-air time unless its a 
very robust FEC mode.  Also, as many who have observed, the ionosphere can 
change much in 10-20 seconds.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of cesco12342000
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


> How do you determine your specific 20 second turnaround time?
> Couldn't it be any reasonable number from say 1 second up to maybe 
20 
> seconds?

The time from start of transmission until receiving the first data 
segment is 10s to 15s. That's the sync-zone, the lead-in.

20 sec is not to be taken pedantically, it may be 15.2135 sec, HI
but the magnitute is NOT in the 2 sec range.






Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Again we must be careful in comparing keyboard to keyboard modes with file 
transmission modes or E-Mail modes (which is a file transferring mode).  We are 
back to apples and oranges.

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:48 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


How do you determine your specific 20 second turnaround time?

Couldn't it be any reasonable number from say 1 second up to maybe 20 
seconds?

Seems as if the SCAMP protocol was around 12 seconds, but I am not 
certain of that. Then the listening period was for over a half second. 
That is the main thing, having enough turn around time so the computer 
can control the PTT in a timely manner.

When I observe how fast my computer can control my ICOM rig through the 
CI-V, I would have to say that it is quite fast but probably not able to 
key CW.

73,

Rick, KV9U



cesco12342000 wrote:

>>I often wonder if there is even one ham working on adapting
>>the existing 
>>ham DRM type protocol to a pipelined ARQ connected mode that has 
>>adaptability to conditions. 
>>
>>
>
>
>I think no.
>
>The main problem of arq-drm is the very long turnaround time. 
>It's in the 20sec range. This makes "normal" arq like in pskmail or 
>packet a very lame thing.
>
>The only work-around is the thing digital sstv does. keep the number 
>of arq cycles as low as possible.
>
>This is done by sending out all data at once (20kb or more), and then 
>getting the not-ack's (there are no ack's) for all the lost segments 
>(packets, 400ms data chunks) at once. 
>
>This does work very well for large amounts of data, but is not good 
>for small (less 5k) data transfers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
>telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Our other groups:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>




Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

And if there is a move toward Linux by a larger group of hams, then I'm sure 
that the ARRL or someone else would start storing the old libraries that make 
an applications run.

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:59 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


That's my one pet peeve about Linux.  You go looking for a program to
do what you want and find out it is two years old and requires
libraries that have been updated 4 times since then.  Sometimes trying
to find the older libraries is a real challenge.  I would love it if
everyone would store the libraries and programs necessary to install a
program right with the program.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, hams have not said we want "this" distro to support ham radio
so we adopt it.
> 
> SuSe, Mandrake, Debian and a couple of others cater to amateur
radio.   My personal leaning is toward Debian and it WAS the first
Linux distro. to try and devote itself to being ham radio friendly.
> 
> The real key to a ham radio applications for Linus is to include all
the required libraries (dependencies) with the release of the
installation and install the executable and  with all dependencies in
a specific location.  So then you are back to MS...C:\Program Files\PSK31
> 
> But my Linux computer is shared by my family and I don't want them
to have access to PSK31 so I want to put it in 
> my \USR2\k5yfw\digital\psk3 and You might want to put it in
\URS3\Sal\amateur-radio\digital\psk31.
> 
> What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you are
doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many hams
really know how to program their 2M talkie?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW





Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[jgorman01]

This really isn't hard.  There were only three commands to use:
'./configure', 'make', and 'make install' to compile and install the
libraries.  The hard part was doing the internet searches to find the
correct versions.  This isn't really any more difficult than searching
the internet to find the correct driver to use with an older piece of
hardware in Windows.  It just seems all the 'official' sites only
maintain the latest versions, not the ones from 2 years ago and it
doesn't matter whether it is a library or a driver.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Salomao Fresco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hi!
> 
> Jim has hited the proverbial nail:
> 
> *I had to retrieve and compile several libraries.*
> 
> for most of us without the necessary knowledge of building and compiling
> libraries, things can be difficult and can cause loss of motivation.
Been
> there done that!
> 
> regards
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Salomao Fresco]

Hi!

Jim has hited the proverbial nail:

*I had to retrieve and compile several libraries.*

for most of us without the necessary knowledge of building and compiling
libraries, things can be difficult and can cause loss of motivation. Been
there done that!

regards

On 1/12/07, jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The last distribution I bought, SUSE 9.3, was very easy to install and
most everything worked.  Adding some programs was easy, some were
hard.  I wanted to use my PC with my IPOD Shuffle and getting "ITunes"
replacement software working was difficult because I had to retrieve
and compile several libraries.  One the other hand, installing the
software to retrieve photos from my HP 215 camera was simple.  I got a
new flash drive, Sandisk Cruzer, for Christmas and it worked as soon
as I plugged it in.

I don't think the newer Linux distro's are hard to install and add on
software isn't any more difficult than some Windows software.  Read
about the problems people are having with the new Microsoft Zuni software!

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is one of the reasons I dont get into Linux.  I watched others,
> stressed out at school, trying to get systems operational and
smoothed out.
> We need things to work at college, not there to be fiddled with, because
> students have only a certain amount of time to use systems, and
expect them
> to work - especially in an educational atmosphere.  Yes - Windows
has its
> problems too, but once we find a solution with one, the rest pretty much
> fall into place too.  The other thing has been mentioned - the
availability
> of user programs.  If it is written to do, it is written for
windows, and
> once in a while they follow up with a Linux program - but not too often.
> Students expect us to always have the newest and bestest, since they are
> going onward to jobs, which will need those skills.  Thus, we do
have Linux
> available, but (maybe) not suprisingly, the majority do not  take the
> classes.  Thus also went our Macs.  Just not enough of them wanted
to learn
> Apple.
>
>
>
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk





Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97


Yahoo! Groups Links







--
Cumprimentos

Salomão Fresco
CT2IRJ


If it works... dont fix it!


Esta mensagem foi escrita com electrões 100% reciclados.

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[jgorman01]

The last distribution I bought, SUSE 9.3, was very easy to install and
most everything worked.  Adding some programs was easy, some were
hard.  I wanted to use my PC with my IPOD Shuffle and getting "ITunes"
replacement software working was difficult because I had to retrieve
and compile several libraries.  One the other hand, installing the
software to retrieve photos from my HP 215 camera was simple.  I got a
new flash drive, Sandisk Cruzer, for Christmas and it worked as soon
as I plugged it in.

I don't think the newer Linux distro's are hard to install and add on
software isn't any more difficult than some Windows software.  Read
about the problems people are having with the new Microsoft Zuni software!

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is one of the reasons I dont get into Linux.  I watched others,
> stressed out at school, trying to get systems operational and
smoothed out.
> We need things to work at college, not there to be fiddled with, because
> students have only a certain amount of time to use systems, and
expect them
> to work - especially in an educational atmosphere.  Yes - Windows
has its
> problems too, but once we find a solution with one, the rest pretty much
> fall into place too.  The other thing has been mentioned - the
availability
> of user programs.  If it is written to do, it is written for
windows, and
> once in a while they follow up with a Linux program - but not too often.
> Students expect us to always have the newest and bestest, since they are
> going onward to jobs, which will need those skills.  Thus, we do
have Linux
> available, but (maybe) not suprisingly, the majority do not  take the
> classes.  Thus also went our Macs.  Just not enough of them wanted
to learn
> Apple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
> 
> moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

And you will find my name in the acknowledgements in the preface as I 
helped with the course development in its first two years. Gerry was my 
advisor as well for a while.   I heard from him last month, when he 
finished his new K2.

Last year MIT started offering a mixed course for non-majors, of 3 units 
of Scheme (a mini version of this course) and the rest with high-level 
programming in Python.  They teach Signals and Systems using both Scheme 
and Python now (not just Scheme), and I recently suggested a lab 
involving the popular SoftRock kits as a practicum.  (In my day we had 
to build the FM demodulator...)

Leigh/WA5ZNU

> One of the authors of the textbook used in this course is WA1NSE:
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
>
>  73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Danny Douglas]

WOW  An MIT education for free (well money wise at least).  Interesting
site, and a place I should visit often- but maybe a bit beyond my
comprehension these days.  I missed the Navy Reserve Officers Training 4
year scholorship by one lousy point (should have taken the test in Oklahoma,
instead of Texas -- the cutoff there was 3 points lower), and that is where
I had intended to use it.  Oh Well !


Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?


> re "What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you
> are doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many
> hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?"
>
> Using Linux will not teach you to program your 2M talkie, nor will it
> teach you how to create applications that run on Linux. If you want
> to learn to write software, you must crack open a book or three to
> learn the basic principles, and then roll up your sleeves and build
> something using what you've learned.
>
> MIT has made all of its courseware freely available online via
>
> http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
>
> For a solid foundation, start with 6.001:
>
> http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-
> Science/6-001Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
>
> One of the authors of the textbook used in this course is WA1NSE:
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
>
>  73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, hams have not said we want "this" distro to support ham radio
> so we adopt it.
> >
> > SuSe, Mandrake, Debian and a couple of others cater to amateur
> radio.   My personal leaning is toward Debian and it WAS the first
> Linux distro. to try and devote itself to being ham radio friendly.
> >
> > The real key to a ham radio applications for Linus is to include
> all the required libraries (dependencies) with the release of the
> installation and install the executable and  with all dependencies in
> a specific location.  So then you are back to MS...C:\Program
> Files\PSK31
> >
> > But my Linux computer is shared by my family and I don't want them
> to have access to PSK31 so I want to put it in
> > my \USR2\k5yfw\digital\psk3 and You might want to put it in \URS3
> \Sal\amateur-radio\digital\psk31.
> >
> > What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you are
> doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many
> hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Walt/K5YFW
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007
2:52 PM
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[kd4e]

> That's my one pet peeve about Linux.  You go looking for a program to
> do what you want and find out it is two years old and requires
> libraries that have been updated 4 times since then.  Sometimes trying
> to find the older libraries is a real challenge.  I would love it if
> everyone would store the libraries and programs necessary to install a
> program right with the program.
> Jim WA0LYK

That was my pet peeve as well!

I went through over a dozen distros before I got
to Puppy Linux.  The folks responsible for it are
really good about making what they call "dotpups"
which are a complete application ready to install.

You just click on the downloaded dotpup and it
automatically sets everything up.

Occasionally your app will require something key
like Java or tcl/tk and that will have to be
loaded first -- but even then it is almost always
available as a dotpup either on the official site
or on a server one of the affiliated folks hosts.

They did go through a change of Linux kernels
a while back and that introduced some transition
of lots of apps but other than that things have
gone pretty smoothly -- the app is now much more
user friendly than the big ones.

I have tried Debian and the many variants and
spent hundreds of hours chasing dependencies,
it takes a better code-hound than I to get it
running and to add in apps.

RedHat and SuSE drove me nuts with code-bloat
and dependency nightmares.

Stormix and a couple others went out of business.

Puppy is designed as a not-for-profit enterprise
so there is not bloated staff and corporate
infrastructure to support.  Users not stockholders
drive the distro.

IMHO, YMMV ...

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
Note:  Both down temporarily due to server change.
~~

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Dave Bernstein]

re "What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you 
are doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many 
hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?"

Using Linux will not teach you to program your 2M talkie, nor will it 
teach you how to create applications that run on Linux. If you want 
to learn to write software, you must crack open a book or three to 
learn the basic principles, and then roll up your sleeves and build 
something using what you've learned. 

MIT has made all of its courseware freely available online via

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

For a solid foundation, start with 6.001:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-
Science/6-001Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm

One of the authors of the textbook used in this course is WA1NSE:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html

 73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

   


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, hams have not said we want "this" distro to support ham radio 
so we adopt it.
> 
> SuSe, Mandrake, Debian and a couple of others cater to amateur 
radio.   My personal leaning is toward Debian and it WAS the first 
Linux distro. to try and devote itself to being ham radio friendly.
> 
> The real key to a ham radio applications for Linus is to include 
all the required libraries (dependencies) with the release of the 
installation and install the executable and  with all dependencies in 
a specific location.  So then you are back to MS...C:\Program 
Files\PSK31
> 
> But my Linux computer is shared by my family and I don't want them 
to have access to PSK31 so I want to put it in 
> my \USR2\k5yfw\digital\psk3 and You might want to put it in \URS3
\Sal\amateur-radio\digital\psk31.
> 
> What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you are 
doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many 
hams really know how to program their 2M talkie?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[cesco12342000]

> How do you determine your specific 20 second turnaround time?
> Couldn't it be any reasonable number from say 1 second up to maybe 
20 
> seconds?

The time from start of transmission until receiving the first data 
segment is 10s to 15s. That's the sync-zone, the lead-in.

20 sec is not to be taken pedantically, it may be 15.2135 sec, HI
but the magnitute is NOT in the 2 sec range.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[KV9U]

How do you determine your specific 20 second turnaround time?

Couldn't it be any reasonable number from say 1 second up to maybe 20 
seconds?

Seems as if the SCAMP protocol was around 12 seconds, but I am not 
certain of that. Then the listening period was for over a half second. 
That is the main thing, having enough turn around time so the computer 
can control the PTT in a timely manner.

When I observe how fast my computer can control my ICOM rig through the 
CI-V, I would have to say that it is quite fast but probably not able to 
key CW.

73,

Rick, KV9U



cesco12342000 wrote:

>>I often wonder if there is even one ham working on adapting
>>the existing 
>>ham DRM type protocol to a pipelined ARQ connected mode that has 
>>adaptability to conditions. 
>>
>>
>
>
>I think no.
>
>The main problem of arq-drm is the very long turnaround time. 
>It's in the 20sec range. This makes "normal" arq like in pskmail or 
>packet a very lame thing.
>
>The only work-around is the thing digital sstv does. keep the number 
>of arq cycles as low as possible.
>
>This is done by sending out all data at once (20kb or more), and then 
>getting the not-ack's (there are no ack's) for all the lost segments 
>(packets, 400ms data chunks) at once. 
>
>This does work very well for large amounts of data, but is not good 
>for small (less 5k) data transfers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
>telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Our other groups:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[jgorman01]

That's my one pet peeve about Linux.  You go looking for a program to
do what you want and find out it is two years old and requires
libraries that have been updated 4 times since then.  Sometimes trying
to find the older libraries is a real challenge.  I would love it if
everyone would store the libraries and programs necessary to install a
program right with the program.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, hams have not said we want "this" distro to support ham radio
so we adopt it.
> 
> SuSe, Mandrake, Debian and a couple of others cater to amateur
radio.   My personal leaning is toward Debian and it WAS the first
Linux distro. to try and devote itself to being ham radio friendly.
> 
> The real key to a ham radio applications for Linus is to include all
the required libraries (dependencies) with the release of the
installation and install the executable and  with all dependencies in
a specific location.  So then you are back to MS...C:\Program Files\PSK31
> 
> But my Linux computer is shared by my family and I don't want them
to have access to PSK31 so I want to put it in 
> my \USR2\k5yfw\digital\psk3 and You might want to put it in
\URS3\Sal\amateur-radio\digital\psk31.
> 
> What Linux does for one think is make you think about what you are
doing and keep you from becoming an appliance operator?  How many hams
really know how to program their 2M talkie?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW

[digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[cesco12342000]

> I often wonder if there is even one ham working on adapting
> the existing 
> ham DRM type protocol to a pipelined ARQ connected mode that has 
> adaptability to conditions. 


I think no.

The main problem of arq-drm is the very long turnaround time. 
It's in the 20sec range. This makes "normal" arq like in pskmail or 
packet a very lame thing.

The only work-around is the thing digital sstv does. keep the number 
of arq cycles as low as possible.

This is done by sending out all data at once (20kb or more), and then 
getting the not-ack's (there are no ack's) for all the lost segments 
(packets, 400ms data chunks) at once. 

This does work very well for large amounts of data, but is not good 
for small (less 5k) data transfers.