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 k3uka...@gmail.com 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 n...@japierson.com 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
AW: [digitalradio] New question
Okay now for all users to read and notice First of all @jose : no I am not crazy, but all users should know what your soft does EXACTLY For the rest of the world: There are 2 exe in the ros folder Ros(versxyz).exe is doing the on air things and the emailreport Adifdata.exe is connecting to different clusters and sends the (wrong) spots Jose decided to spread the users over the qrgs as he is doing it with his tones in the channel If the spots were correct there would be a pileup every day and no user could do a qso he thinks So what he did is Ros sends the data to adifdata via ros ini So far so good But the qrg is randomly calculated . so almost never correct . in the autogenerated spots you only see who is working but not where (qrg) The only way to get rid of the wrong spots is to denie the adifdata to connect to the cluster As vk3ama has closed the spotpage there is no need to send those false spots anymore So we users (I am a fan of that mode) can only get jose to change if we do not sent those false spots Many syops around the world put ROS on the bad word list cause of the massive spotflooding and that the spots are false Only Solution is: Take a firewall and block the adifdata Spot only real qso by hand typing (avoid the bad word to get a better chance of forwarding) Emailfunction can be used or not . has been safe so far . but who knows what comes next If jose change the randomizing of qrg and let the user decide whether to send a spot or not I will use the spotfunction again Then after change you know who is on air and where to find (that is all needed info) Till he changed his mind we ALL should block the autospotfunction cause it is making more trouble as it helps So please give that info to all other ros user Maybe we can get rid of that bad behaviour (of the soft and his builder) JOSE IT IS TIME TO CHANGE ! ! Best would be no autospotting at all I decide to use ros without it and hope all others do the same If no spots get in the cluster the function is useless Greetings to all Sigi Delta golf nine beat frequency counter
AW: [digitalradio] New question
All ros spots are bogus . or almost all ... most of them wrong Sad as I know jose could make it better @rein you should keep the old 1.0 cause that is the last one with a blockable adifdata exe 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
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
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
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 image001.jpgimage002.jpg
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 n...@japierson.com 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: AW: [digitalradio] New question
OK Sigi. I am not going to repeat my suggestion how to get Jose Ros to fix it. Was told I became globally hated for doing so. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Sent: Jul 15, 2010 2:34 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All ros spots are bogus . or almost all ... most of them wrong Sad as I know jose could make it better @rein you should keep the old 1.0 cause that is the last one with a blockable adifdata exe 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
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 k3uka...@gmail.com 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 n...@japierson.com 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
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
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
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 saa...@broadpark.no 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
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 saa...@broadpark.no 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
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 saa...@broadpark.no 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
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 tnetcen...@gmail.com 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 saa...@broadpark.no 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
[digitalradio] New question
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
