Does the Linux / XP box need to be behind a firewall in order to prevent unauthorized access to the boxes? Or are these boxes completely separate from any internet access?
Im a computer expert, but not a radio expert......yet. :) John Hymes La Rue Communications 10 S. Aurora Street Stockton, CA 95202 ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Bade To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 8:26 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder]D-Star conversion of existing Repeaters I have built both sound device/software versions of the repeater and hardware modem/software versions and both are operational however Linux support is behind Windows support on the software side. Not for the lack of trying of the authors. There are internal Linux issues at hand.. that are in the middle of operational "issues". They are being fixed so I would call a lot of that still Alpha to Beta. but in XP is ready to work assuming you can do your part on the hardware side. Some of us would rather deploy site computers as Linux.. but that is currently admin level deployment level today and not really ready for the masses unless you are tolerant of "bugs". XP will do in the mean time albeit less than optimal solution in my book.. I will be glad to post my results as I can but I tend to post on the digital yahoo groups associated with the project as I assume here is not the appropriate place for such. While it is a "repeater" and I am a "builder" it is a focused technical subject most analog builders have little interest in. as seen in some negative comments whenever D-Star is brought up. Doug KD8B From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 10:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor Doug, you have my sympathy and admiration.......... for hanging in there to marry those two worlds. I follow one of the yahoo groups hoping the little module becomes more user friendly for installation into a motorola 5000 or micor. The reluctance is the module, I want it working and bullet proof before tackling the varables of installation. The hardware (and firmware) seems only now taking the quantum leaf out of betaville. I am watching with baited breath...... . Bill Atlanta w4oo . . --- In [email protected], "Doug Bade" <k...@...> wrote: > > I would be glad to elaborate about D-Star Repeater conversions as there are > multiple ways to do it now and Any EDACS capable or Smartnet Capable > repeater would do D-Star as both fundamentally have the parts to transmit > and receive GMSK type waveforms > > > > There are several Yahoogroups that are focused on alternate D-Star hardware > and software devices. > > > > Doug > > KD8B > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Zimmerman > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 8:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] D-Star Was: Molotora Gontor > > > > > > My biggest problem with the D-Star repeaters is that they didn't make > them analog compatible. Knowing as little as I do about the D-star > hardware, it would seem easy enough for Icom to have done so. All they > would have needed to do would have been to look at the incoming signal, > see if it was analog or digital, and process it correctly. > > While you'll pry my analog repeater pairs from my cold dead hands; if > D-Star machines were analog capable, I'd swap every pair I have to that > format tomorrow. As RB (the company) I have been asked about D-star more > times than I can count. I tell people it's nice to play with, but what > happens in an emergency? > > If Icom would have made the D-star machines analog capable, those that > wanted to (and had D-star radios) could play with it all they wanted to. > When an emergency arose and you had 10x as many people out there with > analog rigs, the machine would *still* be useful. As it is at present, > if an emergency arises, only those with D-star rigs can use a D-star > machine. That concept is fine, as long as ALL of your volunteers have > D-Star radios! (How many places is this the case?) > > Around here (Western PA) the governments bought Icom D-Star radios for > RACES. I had no objection to that since those radios can be used in > analog modes with analog repeaters. Now they are wanting to get D-Star > repeaters for RACES and emergency use. I *strongly* object to that since > they CANNOT be used in analog modes for emergencies. In my view, you'd > be alienating much of your volunteer base that doesn't have the correct > equipment right at the point where you need all the help you can get! Of > course with the government in the mentality that they have been in the > past few years, maybe that's their way of "thinning the heard." > > I *think* I remember someone saying that some other company had made an > analog capable D-Star controller? Do any of you list members know > anything about that? > > Scott > > Scott Zimmerman > Amateur Radio Call N3XCC > 474 Barnett Road > Boswell, PA 15531 > > Nate Duehr wrote: > > On 4/1/2010 9:57 PM, George Henry wrote: > >> I suppose I should clarify: I don't do D-STAR, either. Moral objection to > >> their use of a proprietary codec. > > > > You're going to be a while on that soap box. CODECs are almost > > literally the only way to make any money in the audio streaming, video > > streaming, and related technology worlds these days... mixed with > > Patents, you won't see any high-quality free CODECs that can properly > > encode voice at 4800 bps any time soon. > > > > DVSI has ALL of that market locked up until someone hires a pile of > > PhD's in math and goes after them. And even then, they'd have to make a > > significant impact on bandwidth utilized or voice quality over either > > AMBE/AMBE2, or IMBE... to have a chance of dislodging the first player > > to market... the only player to be written into multiple standards (P25, > > D-STAR, even the TDMA-based things from Kenwood/Icom... all using DVSI > > chipsets.) > > > > Brilliant of them really... heavily patent-encumbered CODEC, super-high > > price on using the CODEC in software, sell a $20 (in low-quantity, > > slightly cheaper in high-quanity) chipset, in a market as small as 2-way > > radio... they're making a bloody killing. I'd love to know what the > > development costs of the CODECs were... to see just how lucrative their > > lock on the market(s) is. > > > > But anyway... good luck finding a commercial product that doesn't use > > their chipset anytime soon. The next CODEC chipset maker is going to be > > an "also-ran" forever, unless their mathematicians and algorithms are > > uber-brilliant. > > > > Nate WY0X > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
