Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill. Jim S. N2ADV
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bravo Bill! I agree 100%. > > Bobby/N4AU > > From: Bill Somerville > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents > >> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: >> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe >> developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as >> Open Source. > Carey, > > that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the > complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by > third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free > equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own > would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components > give us an essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform > application of the highest quality with reasonable development timescales. > There are reasons why many closed source applications are Windows only and > these factors are high on the list. > > Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does > not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered > as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the > WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the > automation that has been provided already is only in response to large scale > user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary > for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the > next transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction > times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each > QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to > a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say > on whether a completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a > QSO but they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a > bad one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like > contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to > logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO > is always maintained. > > What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of > thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools > that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are > either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and > maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that effort. > > On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable > legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not > consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had > done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy > such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio > equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and > print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can > save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and > maintaining an Amateur Radio station. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
