RE: [digitalradio] New question
Just picked this up from HamSpots: Due to increased abuse of the Cluster Network by spam auto-spots generated by the ROS software. HamSpots will no longer provide a Local Spot & Chat facility for the promotion of the ROS mode. HamSpots will no longer report a consolidated view of ROS Cluster spots. All ROS Cluster spots have been removed from other HamSpots pages. Effective: 16-July-2010, 2100utc Wonder what this software is really up to? From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Andy You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want to just whine to the FCC and ARRL. On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, "Andy obrien" wrote: 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 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
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Andy You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want to just whine to the FCC and ARRL. On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, "Andy obrien" wrote: > > > > > > 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 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dave & All, >> >> No, I was thinking the same thing. Let¹s take a look at some significant >> ³red flags² 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.) Won¹t 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 ³Authored >> by² signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose¹s 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 software¹s spotting to the >> internet >> >> 8.) Now, after ³going away² 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 child¹s temper tantrum to me) >> >> >> Well, I¹ve make it known that I¹ve been suspicious of Jose¹s intentions all >> along, but if this all seems ³Normal² to you and doesn¹t 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 >> > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
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 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 > > >
RE: [digitalradio] New question
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 PS - I know. I'm feeding Jose's need for attention From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Wright Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien <mailto:siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net <><>
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: > > Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions > that don't talk to each other! > > > - Original Message - > From: Siegfried Jackstien > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM > Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question > > All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close > after a while if adifdata can get no inet > > So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old > 1.0 > > > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Steinar, It is the vehicle of a world wide group with different time zones etc. There are reactions days later, and so on. I will stop. It is useless anyway. No bad feeling from this side. 73 Rein -Original Message- >From: Steinar Aanesland >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 1:05 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >Hi Rain > >I meant on this forum ;) > >la5vna Steinar > > > > >On 14.07.2010 18:20, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> Hello Steinar, >> >> It is gaining in usage and popularity. >> Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. >> I for one, thought it would, wrong again! >> >> Amateur Radio a la 2010 >> >> 73 Rein W6SZ >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >>> From: Steinar Aanesland >>> Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >>> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question >>> >>> Hello friends, >>> >>> I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >>> mode now. >>> He doesn't deserve that much attention. >>> >>> la5vna Steinar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: >>> >>>> Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his >>>> website? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >>>>> agent at FCC: >>>>> >>>>> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >>>>> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >>>>> techniques." >>>>> >>>>> I do not know who wrote it. >>>>> >>>>> What is the problem with it? >>>>> >>>>> 73 Rein W6SZ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Dave >>>> K3DCW >>>> www.k3dcw.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html >>> Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) >>> >>> Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > >http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html >Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) > >Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Jeff, I am monitoring it Few amateurs are, I believe. Few amateurs ever tried it. I used it before the illegal ruling came. ( My opinion ) You have to listen abroad to hear/see the activity. I would say in spite of the actions by rhe author. Users seem to like it. I like it. Nobody else here needs to like it though. And then how can I like something that I can't use? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Jeff Moore >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 1:09 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >What are you basing that statement on??The Hamspots page? You need to >take a look at the left column - see the red squares? That indicates that the >spot was auto-generated by the ROS software -- BOGUS spots! The real spots >are the ones w/o the red square - I didn't see more than a dozen of those when >I looked yesterday compared to 50 or 60 bogus spots. > >ROS is dead! The author is killing it! Quit poking it with a stick and let >it go away! > >Jeff -- KE7ACY > >- Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com >Hello Steinar, > >It is gaining in usage and popularity. >Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. >I for one, thought it would, wrong again! > >Amateur Radio a la 2010 > >73 Rein W6SZ > >-Original Message- >>From: Steinar Aanesland >>Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question >> >>Hello friends, >> >>I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >>mode now. >>He doesn't deserve that much attention. >> >>la5vna Steinar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: >>> Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his >>> website? >>> >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >>>> agent at FCC: >>>> >>>> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >>>> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >>>> techniques." >>>> >>>> I do not know who wrote it. >>>> >>>> What is the problem with it? >>>> >>>> 73 Rein W6SZ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Dave >>> K3DCW >>> www.k3dcw.net >>> >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
What are you basing that statement on??The Hamspots page? You need to take a look at the left column - see the red squares? That indicates that the spot was auto-generated by the ROS software -- BOGUS spots! The real spots are the ones w/o the red square - I didn't see more than a dozen of those when I looked yesterday compared to 50 or 60 bogus spots. ROS is dead! The author is killing it! Quit poking it with a stick and let it go away! Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Steinar Aanesland >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >Hello friends, > >I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >mode now. >He doesn't deserve that much attention. > >la5vna Steinar > > > > > > > >On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: >> Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his >> website? >> >> >> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: >> >> >>> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >>> agent at FCC: >>> >>> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >>> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >>> techniques." >>> >>> I do not know who wrote it. >>> >>> What is the problem with it? >>> >>> 73 Rein W6SZ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Dave >> K3DCW >> www.k3dcw.net >>
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hi Rain I meant on this forum ;) la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 18:20, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello Steinar, > > It is gaining in usage and popularity. > Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. > I for one, thought it would, wrong again! > > Amateur Radio a la 2010 > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > > > > -Original Message- > >> From: Steinar Aanesland >> Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question >> >> Hello friends, >> >> I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >> mode now. >> He doesn't deserve that much attention. >> >> la5vna Steinar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: >> >>> Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his >>> website? >>> >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >>>> agent at FCC: >>>> >>>> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >>>> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >>>> techniques." >>>> >>>> I do not know who wrote it. >>>> >>>> What is the problem with it? >>>> >>>> 73 Rein W6SZ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Dave >>> K3DCW >>> www.k3dcw.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html >> Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) >> >> Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Steinar Aanesland >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >Hello friends, > >I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >mode now. >He doesn't deserve that much attention. > >la5vna Steinar > > > > > > > >On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: >> Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his >> website? >> >> >> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: >> >> >>> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >>> agent at FCC: >>> >>> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >>> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >>> techniques." >>> >>> I do not know who wrote it. >>> >>> What is the problem with it? >>> >>> 73 Rein W6SZ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Dave >> K3DCW >> www.k3dcw.net >> >> >> > > > > > >http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html >Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) > >Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: > Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his > website? > > > On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: > > >> Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom >> agent at FCC: >> >> "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is >> maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar >> techniques." >> >> I do not know who wrote it. >> >> What is the problem with it? >> >> 73 Rein W6SZ >> >> >> >> > Dave > K3DCW > www.k3dcw.net > > >
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: > Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom > agent at FCC: > > "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is > maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar > techniques." > > I do not know who wrote it. > > What is the problem with it? > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
