Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
True, while the core of the system, not the device drivers and higher level applications are open. 73, Bill WE5P Comfortably Numb > On Nov 27, 2020, at 16:10, Don Wilhelm wrote: > > The phrase "run a DERIVATION of an open source operating system" is key. > > It is just a basis for their software. I would bet not a one of them would > open up the full source code used on their hardware. They might reveal which > open source operating system they based their software on, but not the > details of how it interacts with hardware and other software. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > >> On 11/27/2020 3:38 PM, weave...@usermail.com wrote: >> I understated my previous post a bit. All of the TOP 500 supercomputers run >> a derivaion of an open source operating system per the wikipedia page. > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to weave...@usermail.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
This whole thread has suffered from a confluence of two separate issues. One is whether or not open source software in general is quality stuff, and even "derivations" of open source software require that the underlying bits represent good design and good code. Some here have essentially claimed that all open source software is undependable ... which I think can be proven to be a false impression. The other issue is whether or not Elecraft or any other company would want to open their source code, whether based upon open source elements or not. Elecraft obviously would want to keep their software proprietary because we already expect that it has given them competitive advantages in some areas. At least as importantly in my mind is the likelihood that opening up their software would make Elecraft vulnerable to customers who trashed their system with buggy third party versions of the software and then expect Elecraft to help them recover it, or to otherwise address the problem. It's a no win situation for Elecraft, and ultimately for the rest of us. And by the way, some open source licenses require adapters to make any derivations they create to also be open source. I believe the underlying license for WSJT-X to be like that. 73, Dave AB7E On 11/27/2020 2:09 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: The phrase "run a DERIVATION of an open source operating system" is key. It is just a basis for their software. I would bet not a one of them would open up the full source code used on their hardware. They might reveal which open source operating system they based their software on, but not the details of how it interacts with hardware and other software. 73, Don W3FPR __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
On 2020-11-27 12:29:-0700, l...@ka7ftp.com wrote: >It seems that this thread has become the whipping boy for open source. I >would suggest that it is irrelevant whether something is open or closed >source. There have been many good comments pro and con open source here...I am not sure how my comments came across...I am in favor of open source, and have produced open source material myself. My comments...and still my point of view...are more in line with the idea that stuff is rushed out the door. There is a cultural behaviour associated with this that is generally accepted, and is more in line with Len's comment re off shore manufacturing and big box distro, but is not limited to those. Rather, they describe an attitude and a behaviour that I disagree with. I was at a meeting a year ago where I chanced to discuss a proprietary $20k product with someone who was also using it. We both held the opinion that it was (is) an excellent example of extremely high tech delivered to market before its time. Another example that comes to mind is the DeLorme GPSR line. I have used them for years. When the line was bought by Garmin, I figured that I'd buy into the new company. After struggling for months, I returned the units to Garmin, and posted a lengthy review of the product. Their public reply was brief...that the product was not intended to replace the PN-60. Unfortunately, it didn't succeed at all, IMO. If you wanted primitive functionality and had no intention of using it at any sort of real (again, IMO) way, then it was a fine toy. At the time, all of the critical reviews of it were in line w mine. Positive reviews focused on superficial aspects. This is not a Garmin diatribe, nor is it current (they may have fixed all the deficencies _...it is simply an example of a company with deep pockets, in a mature field, rushing a product to market well before it was ready (perhaps 2 years). I just did a quick scan of reviews, and not much improvement. So the discussion for me is not open source v. proprietary...it is about the culture that has developed around much of the open-source AND proprietary markets. I don't think that we have addressed the issue completely here...rather a few different spot views. That includes my replies. I also don't think that we need to discuss it in depth here, because Elecraft is not open source, and many have made relevant comments already. I just don't want to leave the impression that I am opposed to open source... __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
The phrase "run a DERIVATION of an open source operating system" is key. It is just a basis for their software. I would bet not a one of them would open up the full source code used on their hardware. They might reveal which open source operating system they based their software on, but not the details of how it interacts with hardware and other software. 73, Don W3FPR On 11/27/2020 3:38 PM, weave...@usermail.com wrote: I understated my previous post a bit. All of the TOP 500 supercomputers run a derivaion of an open source operating system per the wikipedia page. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
I understated my previous post a bit. All of the TOP 500 supercomputers run a derivaion of an open source operating system per the wikipedia page. 73, Bill WE5P Comfortably Numb > On Nov 27, 2020, at 15:26, weave...@usermail.com wrote: > > > You are exactly right Len. A majority of the worlds biggest super computers > are run on open source software (Not Windows :)). The June 2020 list here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500. Android devices, imbedded devices, most > web browsers etc. The list goes on and on. > > it’s about quality developers and a quality development process. Elecraft > surely has the market cornered in both aspects for both hardware and software. > > 73, > Bill WE5P > > Comfortably Numb > >>> On Nov 27, 2020, at 14:29, l...@ka7ftp.com wrote: >>> >> " OpenSSL pretty much runs the entire secure Internet. Linux, Python, etc. >> >> But those are exceptions." >> >> And an interesting statistic... >> >> "It's often said that more than half of new businesses fail during the first >> year. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), this isn't >> necessarily true. Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new >> businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the >> first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new >> businesses make it to 15 years or more. These statistics haven't changed >> much over time, and have been fairly consistent since the 1990s.1 Though >> the odds are better than the commonly held belief, there are still many >> businesses that are closing down every year in the United States." >> >> It seems that this thread has become the whipping boy for open source. I >> would suggest that it is irrelevant whether something is open or closed >> source. Much of the "stuff" we buy today is created and sold in a one off >> runs from China. Once produced it is sold at Walmart and few people care >> how long it works, as long as it's cheap. For the few who care most stores >> will do a "no questions asked" refund. And then the consumer is off to buy >> another piece of junk. >> >> Open source projects are often created by a single individual , or a few >> people, who care about creating a "thing". There is often no thought about >> money, profit, or even maintaining the project. There are a few that gain >> traction and in some cases change the world. I'm sure it's more than the >> few projects that we have all listed in this thread that thrive. It's no >> different than the stats above on business. Unless you can create something >> that is useful and compel people to buy and use, the product will eventually >> cease to evolve and the company will probably die. Many open source >> projects reach maturity when the goals of the project are meet. Those >> project are often abandoned... Not really that different from a business >> that no longer innovates. >> >> This seems like a silly debate to continue demonizing one method or another. >> Both methods are valid and are based of different motivations. And in >> reality they are indifferent to our opinions... >> >> I think the question originally raised was as to the possibility of open >> sourcing the older Elecraft code. My guess is that may not happen for a lot >> of reasons.As long as Elecraft is doing well in business why would they >> freely part with their intellectual property, I wouldn't. >> >> len >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> Message delivered to weave...@usermail.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
You are exactly right Len. A majority of the worlds biggest super computers are run on open source software (Not Windows :)). The June 2020 list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500. Android devices, imbedded devices, most web browsers etc. The list goes on and on. it’s about quality developers and a quality development process. Elecraft surely has the market cornered in both aspects for both hardware and software. 73, Bill WE5P Comfortably Numb > On Nov 27, 2020, at 14:29, l...@ka7ftp.com wrote: > " OpenSSL pretty much runs the entire secure Internet. Linux, Python, etc. > > But those are exceptions." > > And an interesting statistic... > > "It's often said that more than half of new businesses fail during the first > year. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), this isn't > necessarily true. Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new > businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the > first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new > businesses make it to 15 years or more. These statistics haven't changed much > over time, and have been fairly consistent since the 1990s.1 Though the odds > are better than the commonly held belief, there are still many businesses > that are closing down every year in the United States." > > It seems that this thread has become the whipping boy for open source. I > would suggest that it is irrelevant whether something is open or closed > source. Much of the "stuff" we buy today is created and sold in a one off > runs from China. Once produced it is sold at Walmart and few people care > how long it works, as long as it's cheap. For the few who care most stores > will do a "no questions asked" refund. And then the consumer is off to buy > another piece of junk. > > Open source projects are often created by a single individual , or a few > people, who care about creating a "thing". There is often no thought about > money, profit, or even maintaining the project. There are a few that gain > traction and in some cases change the world. I'm sure it's more than the few > projects that we have all listed in this thread that thrive. It's no > different than the stats above on business. Unless you can create something > that is useful and compel people to buy and use, the product will eventually > cease to evolve and the company will probably die. Many open source projects > reach maturity when the goals of the project are meet. Those project are > often abandoned... Not really that different from a business that no longer > innovates. > > This seems like a silly debate to continue demonizing one method or another. > Both methods are valid and are based of different motivations. And in > reality they are indifferent to our opinions... > > I think the question originally raised was as to the possibility of open > sourcing the older Elecraft code. My guess is that may not happen for a lot > of reasons.As long as Elecraft is doing well in business why would they > freely part with their intellectual property, I wouldn't. > > len > > > > > > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to weave...@usermail.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
" OpenSSL pretty much runs the entire secure Internet. Linux, Python, etc. But those are exceptions." And an interesting statistic... "It's often said that more than half of new businesses fail during the first year. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), this isn't necessarily true. Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more. These statistics haven't changed much over time, and have been fairly consistent since the 1990s.1 Though the odds are better than the commonly held belief, there are still many businesses that are closing down every year in the United States." It seems that this thread has become the whipping boy for open source. I would suggest that it is irrelevant whether something is open or closed source. Much of the "stuff" we buy today is created and sold in a one off runs from China. Once produced it is sold at Walmart and few people care how long it works, as long as it's cheap. For the few who care most stores will do a "no questions asked" refund. And then the consumer is off to buy another piece of junk. Open source projects are often created by a single individual , or a few people, who care about creating a "thing". There is often no thought about money, profit, or even maintaining the project. There are a few that gain traction and in some cases change the world. I'm sure it's more than the few projects that we have all listed in this thread that thrive. It's no different than the stats above on business. Unless you can create something that is useful and compel people to buy and use, the product will eventually cease to evolve and the company will probably die. Many open source projects reach maturity when the goals of the project are meet. Those project are often abandoned... Not really that different from a business that no longer innovates. This seems like a silly debate to continue demonizing one method or another. Both methods are valid and are based of different motivations. And in reality they are indifferent to our opinions... I think the question originally raised was as to the possibility of open sourcing the older Elecraft code. My guess is that may not happen for a lot of reasons.As long as Elecraft is doing well in business why would they freely part with their intellectual property, I wouldn't. len __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
> "I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to > hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the > professional depth in the general community.” OpenSSL pretty much runs the entire secure Internet. Linux, Python, etc. But those are exceptions. Many seemingly-useful open source projects just can’t be supported properly. There aren’t enough volunteer hours. They end up half-designed, half-implemented, orphaned when the developer moved on, or stranded without a needed redesign. This report is a good dive into that. https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/ wunder K6WRU Walter Underwood CM87wj http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
N1MM+ may not open source in the strict sense, but it IS collaborative by a pretty large base of contributors who do it merely as a side job. In terms of how it has been developed it is as close to being open source as you can get without being updated by random contributors, and it most certainly can't be called "wretched" in either function or quality. And as I plainly stated, I'm not suggesting in any way that Elecraft should make their source code openly available. I think they would be crazy to do so for several reasons. Dave AB7E On 11/27/2020 6:04 AM, Paul Evans W4/VP9KF wrote: "but even so how about N1MM+, " Not that 'we' are any longer talking about Elecraft firmware... N1MM Logger+, Logger32, etc., etc. are NOT Open Source! They are merely FREE. Get me a source code listing for these products. You can't. If Elecraft hadn't secured the firmware in their PIC controlled rigs and weren't keeping the software tight in the K4 they would be unable to sell on the open market world wide and attempt to conform to emission standards, etc. I don't have a single piece of non-open source software on my computer EXCEPT for the 'wretched' amateur radio ones they work well but they aren't open source. Producers of commercial products under the licence used by Linux are required by that licence to 'open' their software (including drivers, etc.) by sending a source code listing to the consumer, btw. Many are riding rough-shod through the licence that provides them the very operating system driving the product. 73, Paul. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
"I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community." Linux? Gcc? >From what I can tell Linux pretty much owns much of the market for servers and many consumer related markets. The server that carries this list is more than likely Linux based. Isn't the K4 linux based? Linux is open source last time I checked. I'm not seeing that closed source has a better track record, ie. Microsoft... How many commercial products are sold every year that become orphaned? Not being open source helped the consumer. 99% of consumers couldn't extend the life of a product five seconds either way. I too have run my own engineering business for decades, close to 30 years. During that time I've worked for both large and small companies doing R&D and production. If you are honest, open vs closed source has nothing to do with the quality of the product, either SW or HW. The quality is more of a commitment of the creators, experience helps build that, and commitment to good process. Elecraft didn't do this on their own, they depend on feedback from their users to keep a tight loop on quality. Sure, they could hire a massive Q&A team, but why when they have an experienced pool of users/testers who pay them to the QA. Wayne and Eric are clearly exceptional entrepreneurs who are in this for the long term. They care about their products and customers. Open vs closed is moot. It's simply a business call, and their call to make. My guess is that you may not even be aware of the open source influenced products you own. (Routers, tv's, etc..) That is a totally different argument whether Elecraft should open their source vs quality... I personally see quality and crap on both sides of the isle, and there is no monopoly involved... Len __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
On 2020-11-26 21:47:-0700, David Gilbert wrote: >"I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to >hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support.� � I just don't see >the professional depth in the general community." > >Presumably you're talking about the amature radio community because >nonprofessional collaborative open source software development in general is >alive and very well, but even so how about N1MM+, or even WSJT-X and >derivatives? It's a matter of perspective. I don't use N1MM or WSJT-X, so can't comment. I have heard the same criticisms levied against these products, yet they are widely used. A product can be poorly developed (code, which most users don't get to see), and poorly documented (users learn from fora and talking with others), and still be widely used, because they are the best we have, not because they could be better. I do use other popular ham-related software, and I regularly report bugs to the developers, many of whom are friendly and easy to work with. We all bring different life experiences to the table, and those experience shape our expectations. I think that many of these discussions are necessary, though perhaps more useful elsewhere. "More useful elsewhere" doesn't mean useless here. We have reached a point were we are not comfortable putting criticisms on the table, but polite critiquing is a vital element of growth. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
On 2020-11-26 23:26:-0500, SteveL wrote: >I own a popular open-source based 3D printer.really worse than the >version you hoped to repair, or dramatically changed in ways that demand >relearning from the beginning. > >... I wanted to print - not test and debug code! These are both situations I have experienced. I don't want to discourage independent dev. In fact, ham radio itself is a metaphor for this discussion, because have all sorts of user community dev, and some really creative ideas come out of that. But some of my thoughts apply to both areas. I do see in the ham community a rush to get products out the door, to get the next feature installed...at the sacrifice of explaining to the user body what those changes are, how well they were tested, and how to use them. Yep...the products themselves are a great help to the community. But most of the user community that I have directly interacted with has no idea how to dev a product, how to specify a requirement, how to specify a design, how to test the final product. Instead, users get to test and debug the results. I know from experience how much extra work is involved in doing the job correctly. I have heard community developers reply to criticism by saying how difficult it is to test every feature. I get it. Back in the 90s, I read an account in an engineering mag about upgrades to Cheyenne Mt. I'll gloss over the details. A company won the bid. The Feds agreed that it would take 4 years and 4$B to do the work. At the end of 4 years, the contractor came back and said that they were behind schedule, and it would take another 4 years and 4$B. The Feds said maybe, but not with you, and went out for bids again. They got a contractor who conducted business the way my company did. They came in ahead of budget and time. In the article, they specifically mentioned the processes that lead to their success. An engineer in one of our client companies showed me the article, noting that it was specifically about the business approach we insisted on. One of the engineers in that company asked me one day why we had so much paper, and did we /really/ need to discuss all that stuff. Couldn't we "just to it?'"? That same engineer changed his tune when we discovered a serious flaw in their design. (We were collab on a $10M project.) As a direct result of /our/ design and construction, that company became a market leader in a vertical market. So I encourage individual effort. I applaud it. I admire the creativity. But I'd like to have those creative individuals slow down, and perhaps collab with the right people to do a decent job, instead of foisting on the user base the responsibility of testing and debugging, and then "documenting", shotgun style, on fora and wikis. I'd like to think this comes across as a discussion point, not as whining. If engineers in large corporations don't follow this structure, it is not hard to imagine why community developers don't either. But this discussion is more about a social change over the past 40 years. I have a friend who works for a major car dealership. He said they have a constant stream of bugs that they fix, software and hardware. New car buyers are part of the "test and debug" community. ~R~ __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
"but even so how about N1MM+, " Not that 'we' are any longer talking about Elecraft firmware... N1MM Logger+, Logger32, etc., etc. are NOT Open Source! They are merely FREE. Get me a source code listing for these products. You can't. If Elecraft hadn't secured the firmware in their PIC controlled rigs and weren't keeping the software tight in the K4 they would be unable to sell on the open market world wide and attempt to conform to emission standards, etc. I don't have a single piece of non-open source software on my computer EXCEPT for the 'wretched' amateur radio ones they work well but they aren't open source. Producers of commercial products under the licence used by Linux are required by that licence to 'open' their software (including drivers, etc.) by sending a source code listing to the consumer, btw. Many are riding rough-shod through the licence that provides them the very operating system driving the product. 73, Paul. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
My impression is that all hobbyist fused filament printer use open source firmware. The difference is likely to be whether the vendor pre-configures and pre-installs it. That probably applies to all fused filament printers. I think the original movement behind these was that you could, largely, use the printer to make the printer, so they attracted people who wanted to flash their own firmware. -- David Woolley On 27/11/2020 04:26, SteveL wrote: I own a popular open-source based 3D printer. Finding the firmware to run the printer reliably is a challenge. Once found (or so I thought) then there’s the task of compiling and loading the firmware after customizing specifically for one of 4 different mother boards the vendor shipped with the same printer model, using vague and incomplete recommendations from the “community". Then there’s __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
On the other hand, Elecraft can't afford to expend resources on new features for products no longer in production. Professional development costs money, and there's no revenue stream from free firmware for products that are not for sale. It might even have a negative effect by influencing users of older gear to keep it instead of upgrading. We are lucky that Elecraft fixes bugs in firmware for older products, and provides support for module upgrades. Some companies don't. There really isn't a simple solution, except to buy a K4 and make suggestions for new features while it is still the top of the line! Or, as I seem to be doing, follow Shimon Ben Zoma, who said, "Who is rich? He who appreciates what he has," in my case an upgraded K3. 73, Victor, 4X6GP Rehovot, Israel Formerly K2VCO CWops no. 5 http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ . On 27/11/2020 6:47, David Gilbert wrote: "I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community." Presumably you're talking about the amature radio community because nonprofessional collaborative open source software development in general is alive and very well, but even so how about N1MM+, or even WSJT-X and derivatives? I could probably come up with other examples if I was willing to waste more time on it. I think it would be insane of Elecraft to open up any of their products to open source development simply because of the chaos it would create for them trying to deal with users who busted their radios with buggy software that they probably wouldn't even admit to, but I also think your basic premise is flawed. Dave AB7E __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
"I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community." Presumably you're talking about the amature radio community because nonprofessional collaborative open source software development in general is alive and very well, but even so how about N1MM+, or even WSJT-X and derivatives? I could probably come up with other examples if I was willing to waste more time on it. I think it would be insane of Elecraft to open up any of their products to open source development simply because of the chaos it would create for them trying to deal with users who busted their radios with buggy software that they probably wouldn't even admit to, but I also think your basic premise is flawed. Dave AB7E __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
> . I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to > hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the > professional depth in the general community. > I own a popular open-source based 3D printer. Finding the firmware to run the printer reliably is a challenge. Once found (or so I thought) then there’s the task of compiling and loading the firmware after customizing specifically for one of 4 different mother boards the vendor shipped with the same printer model, using vague and incomplete recommendations from the “community". Then there’s the matter of rounding up all the right libraries and versions used during the code ‘make’ when it fails. Oh and it may require re-flashing a boot loader as it is susceptible to corruption for reasons I cannot get a clear answer on. Once loaded to the printer, only then to discover it’s really worse than the version you hoped to repair, or dramatically changed in ways that demand relearning from the beginning. I would have gladly paid $$ extra for non-open firmware that was supported by the vendor and just worked!! I wanted to print - not test and debug code! There is real value in proprietary, closed source…. particularly if it reliably brings the features and functions I purchased and is well supported by a responsive vendor such as Elecraft. Kudos to the Elecraft Team! Steve aa8af __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Seems like this is now the Kenwood page ? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: j...@kk9a.com Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 8:06 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development T __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
The Kenwood TS-590SG is ~$1300 new and you can get one in a week. Why are you bashing it on the Elecraft list? John KK9A Rick NK7I rick.nk7i at gmail.com And yet the TS-590 still has unfixed design flaws (overshoot being one of the worst) without sending it to an authorized shop, taking weeks. It was MONTHS before that firmware was updated (since originally reported). I find the reaction time for updates with Elecraft to be more responsive. Plus you can talk to a tech (except for COVID delays now) the same day you initiate contact. 73, Rick NK7I Scanned by McAfee and confirmed virus-free. Find out more here: https://bit.ly/2zCJMrO __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
I ran my own small engineering company for 25 years. Projects ranged from $1ooK to $10M USD. We had no warranty claims at all. It takes a lot to produce software and hardware to that level of reliability. Recently, someone posted on a different professional forum I am on "As a programmer I am faced with incompetence at every level. No one wants to put the time into making things great, just getting something out the door is the norm." I think that applies to a broad spectrum of products these days, and has applied for some time. A while back, I was participating in a cutting edge open source project. I commented on a design feature, supplying a schematic, simulation results, and references to various related technical specs. The reply from one of the "big" players was that he had not read those thousand pages of tech specs, but surely I was wrong. He even opined why, saying what he "thought" the tech specs must say. He got support from some of his pet squirrels. I dropped out of the project. This is not necessarily the norm...I'd like to think that it is a worst case. I know from personal experience that it takes a lot of time to understand a specific piece of hardware and its associated software. My company never went open source. I eventually closed it because I could not replace retiring professional staff from the current workforce. Not and keep the same level of quality. I don't have the Elecraft experience to speak knowledgeably about all these discussions, but I certainly understand the level of quality that I see, and understand the pressures of modern economics. I can't think of one open source, community-based product that I'd want to hang my hat on, even if I do see some that I'd support. I just don't see the professional depth in the general community. I'd actually vote in favor of opening the older Elecraft stuff up to community support, IF Elecraft went out of business or decided that some piece of gear is so old that it doesn't matter. (I actually own 2 pieces of gear that I'd love to see open source, but I don't see that happening.) Folks have invested a lot of $$ in their gear, and don't want to hear that 10 years later they need to toss it and buy new gear. ~R~ 72/73 de Rich NE1EE The Dusty Key On the banks of the Piscataqua On 2020-11-26 00:08:-0600, Tim Neu wrote: >The point on Moore's law is taken. > >But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older >radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment >of the new) > >Many software development projects now are community based and although >radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for >example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might >have as far as inclination to tweak old radios. > >Just a thought. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Your point continues to be repeated (and it’s become a tiresome and annoying whine). However it remains that the Elecraft code is proprietary, just as most radio manufacturers code, name most any brand. Ditto car engine computer code (gas, diesel, hybrid or battery), computer program operating systems, networking products and more. It’s private and protected by laws. Try walking into Tesla and demanding copies of their designs and coding. You might just hope to land on the lawn, it depends on how well they toss you. While it’s possible to come close to duplicating the hardware (illegally), perhaps even take a good stab at the code; Elecraft gear still has their name on it, they stand behind it with both name and reputation on the line. So their code won’t be released to the public risking someone makIng poor changes, potentially causing issues, that could besmirch the name and product reputation that they’ve built up. That would be ruinous to the product, the users and financial suicide for Elecraft. Ditto Kenwood. Ditto Yaesu. Ditto Icom. And they’re not even in the same league as Elecraft. If the coder is THAT good, apply to join the team. Expand that team to anyone/everyone and you end up with radio version of Windows; bloated, slow, resource hogging that demands new hardware with each update or evolution and can’t get out of its own way to operate in mediocrity. If you want to roll your own, start at the very beginning, just as they did. No one stopped them, no one will stop you. I think they’re doing an excellent job and push their designs to the limit (K3); then take the next step with newer hardware (K4) to build on their success. You’re welcome to try and match all that; starting from scratch. Let’s not (ever) bring this up monthly anymore; the answer in the foreseeable future, is no. For excellent reasons. Most of the users buy in because of the well proven quality and won’t accept substitutes. Stop asking. 73, Rick NK7I Email spiel Czech corruptions happen > On Nov 25, 2020, at 10:10 PM, Tim Neu wrote: > > The point on Moore's law is taken. > > But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older > radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment > of the new) > > Many software development projects now are community based and although > radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for > example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might > have as far as inclination to tweak old radios. > > Just a thought. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
The point on Moore's law is taken. But the options aren't just limited to Elecraft doing more work on older radios or no updates at all (or supporting the old radios to the detriment of the new) Many software development projects now are community based and although radio firmware may be more time-consuming and more complex than OpenWRT for example, community based development may have more umph than Elecraft might have as far as inclination to tweak old radios. Just a thought. On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:35 AM Jim Brown wrote: > Tim, > > It's important to realize the the basic K3 was designed in 2007 with > 2007 parts. It should be obvious that technology has advanced by several > orders of magnitude since then (remember Moore's Law?. That fundamental > limitation is a major reason why features that are on lots of wish lists > aren't implemented, and it's a major reason why there's a K4. > > Elecraft is a small company, so they can't afford to build new models as > often as the bigger companies, but the K3 was a very innovative product > that upped the ante for what a great radio should be. For example, it > took ten years for Flex to incorporate the keying waveshaping that the > K3 introduced in 2008, and, as far as I know, they're the only mfr to > have done so (maybe ANAN?). All the other mfrs are using very primitive > (and very clicky) simple RC time constants dating back 70 years! > Elecraft also did some very slick stuff to make their phase noise much > lower than most radios, again, back in that 2007 design. > > And they may be the only mfr to make their radios modular, so we can buy > as much radio as we need, and so that some features can be upgraded by > buying upgraded modules. If you want a new feature or performance > improvement on a JA radio, you have to buy a new radio.It took Yaesu > three generations of their then flagship FT1000-series rigs to fix their > really awful clicks, and their current flagship, the FTDX5000 debuted > with the worst clicks of any of its competitors. They didn't provide a > firmware fix to make the clicks half as bad until I embarrassed them > with my report summarizing ARRL Lab tests; by then the radio was 4-5 > years old! > > 73, Jim K9YC > > On 11/23/2020 10:13 PM, Tim Tucker wrote: > > But > > one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not > have > > a great track record of developing new features or technologies into > their > > existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for > > various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the > K3, > > but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I > > understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but > > ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they > have > > been for the last several years. > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to tim@gmail.com > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
They also released a whole new radio, the ‘590SG not long after the original ‘590S. The K3 didn’t have a replacement upgrade like that, meaning the K3 to theK3s, for something like 10 years, and they even gave an upgrade path to make the K3 very close in performance to the K3s. No such for the ‘590S to ‘590SG. Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA Email: bu...@brannan.name Mobile: (814) 431-0962 > On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Neil Zampella wrote: > > Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have > funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I > would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to > handle such issues. > > Neil, KN3ILZ > > On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote: >> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time >> (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are >> resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously >> unavailable." >> >> Kenwood! >> >> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported >> and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that >> Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft. >> >> 73, >> Andy, k3wyc >> > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to bu...@brannan.name __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
And yet the TS-590 still has unfixed design flaws (overshoot being one of the worst) without sending it to an authorized shop, taking weeks. It was MONTHS before that firmware was updated (since originally reported). I find the reaction time for updates with Elecraft to be more responsive. Plus you can talk to a tech (except for COVID delays now) the same day you initiate contact. 73, Rick NK7I On 11/25/2020 8:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote: "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable." Kenwood! Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft. 73, Andy, k3wyc __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to rick.n...@gmail.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
For large companies there is still the cost factor. Could that person otherwise be doing something more profitable. Remember who really runs those companies. Sent from my iPad > On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Neil Zampella wrote: > > Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have > funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I > would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to > handle such issues. > > Neil, KN3ILZ > >> On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote: >> "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time >> (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are >> resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously >> unavailable." >> >> Kenwood! >> >> Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported >> and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that >> Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft. >> >> 73, >> Andy, k3wyc >> > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to w...@w2xj.net __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Of course, as mentioned previously in this thread, large companies have funds that they can invest in personnel to do the development, so I would expect that Kenwood would be able to assign personnel quickly to handle such issues. Neil, KN3ILZ On 11/25/2020 10:25 AM, Andy Durbin wrote: "Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable." Kenwood! Kenwood has released firmware updates for TS-590S defects that I reported and made product improvements that I suggested. My experience is that Kenwood has fixed problems far more quickly than Elecraft. 73, Andy, k3wyc __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
It would be nice to see the two remaining “not implemented” features appear in the KX3, especially S-meter absolute mode. I’m not sure there is much demand for addressing multiple transverters. https://ftp.elecraft.com/KX3/Manuals%20Downloads/E740163E%20KX3%20Owner%27s%20Manual%20Errata%20C5-3.pdf I know of some other small open requests for the KX3, but these two are features. I don’t expect to see larger new features. For example, it would be great to see synchronous AM detection, and I have no doubt that the DSP is capable of that, but I’m not holding my breath. wunder K6WRU Walter Underwood CM87wj http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Nov 25, 2020, at 2:04 AM, David Wilcox via Elecraft > wrote: > > I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed) > don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one > with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in its > ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t need, > much less understand, all the neat things it can do. > > I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might > have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s but > still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend the > rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all of > Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio that > I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of good and > bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than a > mistress. > > What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as that > is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the difference in > some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but that’s another rabbit > hole. > > Dave K8WPE since 1960. > > David J. Wilcox’s iPad > >> On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: >> >> While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, not >> physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and >> replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight >> forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. >> Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board. >> >> BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a big >> project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely to >> upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the >> market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The >> upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these >> considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical >> considerations. >> >> 73 Bill AE6JV >> >>> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, k6...@foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote: >>> >>> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you >>> commit to a physical design in year , it will be a design that uses the >>> parts of year forever. I think about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine >>> is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be >>> upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components >>> [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will >>> run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point >>> some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd >>> supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is >>> approaching it's limits. >> >> --- >> Bill Frantz| Security is like Government | Periwinkle >> (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235 >> www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them.| Peterborough, NH 03458 >> >> __ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> Message delivered to djwilco...@yahoo.com > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to wun...@wunderwood.org __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Ele
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
The point of a new radio is not the full feature list but *what it does for you* in your current and desired-future operating conditions. Very few of us take full advantage of every bell and whistle, but newer radios do tend to enhance whatever experiences most amateurs seek. This applies not only to Elecraft but also to the other manufacturers. It would be commercial suicide for a company to produce separate radios for contesting, DXing, ragchewing, moonbounce, high-QRN environments, CW, SSB, RTTY, PSK, WARC bands, point-and-shoot, search-and-pounce, SO2V, diversity reception, pileup running, pileup busting, ... you name it. So almost all radios attempt to do well at most or all applications within various price constraints. Elecraft does distinguish itself with a small number of highly modular offerings and long-term support and enhancement commitments so you don't feel the urge to upgrade every three years. I enjoyed the K3 for about 14 years (and still do!), installing most but not all available upgrades, but the K4 is a new delight. There are features of K3 that I never used (e.g. external reference oscillator) and features of K4 that I may never use (e.g. multiple rx-only antennas) but others find them essential or at least highly desirable. Some will decide to buy a given radio based solely on some feature that others find extraneous. Yes, radio architectures change over time. Many are now digital, software-defined, direct conversion designs, quite different from the analog superhets that most of us grew up with. Their controls and features have changed. If their advantages don't outweigh (for you) the effort to learn a few new tricks (or concepts or practices), don't upgrade. For me, K4 represents the new generation of transceiver and I'm delighted with what it does for me. I feel like a kid in a new sandbox. YMMV. 73, /Rick N6XI On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:05 AM David Wilcox via Elecraft < elecraft@mailman.qth.net> wrote: > I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed) > don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one > with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in > its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t > need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do. > > I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might > have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s > but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend > the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all > of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio > that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of > good and bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than > a mistress. > > What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as > that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the > difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but > that’s another rabbit hole. > > Dave K8WPE since 1960. > > David J. Wilcox’s iPad > > > On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: > > > > While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, > not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and > replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight > forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. > Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board. > > > > BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a > big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely > to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the > market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. > The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these > considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical > considerations. > > > > 73 Bill AE6JV > > > >> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, k6...@foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote: > >> > >> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you > commit to a physical design in year , it will be a design that uses the > parts of year forever. I think about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine > is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be > upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components > [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will > run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point > some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd > supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is > approaching it's limits. > > > > --- > > Bill Frantz| Securi
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Well that IS rather condescending. I would take a different view, that MOST of the hams using Elecraft use MOST of the features on a regular basis but because the features are designed well, the user doesn't NEED to fiddle about (or understand the precise ways they work). One of the benchmarks of a good UI is that most of it is set and forget. Elecraft: PASS With the support group, the manual and the Cady book; there is ample opportunity to learn some of the nuts and bolts for those who want to know. Once set to operate in the fashion that the user prefers; the radio (with all the features) is simply used. If one doesn't understand a function or wishes to learn a better use of a feature, they can read or just ask (or watch a video if that is how they best learn). No one is born with all knowledge and I won't be disparaging to new hams; some of them blow right through all the exams in one sitting going from nothing to the highest license. They may not have experience yet, but clearly they're not idiots as you imply. (Sadly, some are, even after decades of opportunity to learn better.) It is the job of every ham, to teach them how to be better, to pass knowledge along. Some people LIKE making adjustments and learning the deep secrets of any device; others adjust according to their needs and a few just leave most of the settings as stock and yet none of them are wrong. Elecraft radios are no more complex than other radios but the simpler front panel UI (based on USING the radio, not fiddling with it) hides it a lot more than many other brands. Then add that Elecraft designers actually USE the radios in all things ham radio; they understand what is needed for the 'average' ham, the DXer and the contester no matter what mode they choose. Kencomsu may, we never know and hear only crickets from them. The K4 won't be much different; simple up front with the bulk of the used (but no need to be in your face) features accessible with the menu UI. Certainly it's a better platform for future growth with refinements unavailable when the earlier models were designed; but that's splitting hairs that only an extreme user (contesting, DXing) would require. It will be a solid, dependable radio, no matter how the ham chooses to use it; with growth potential unavailable from almost any other brand. Name any other company that gives you FREE firmware updates in real time (not months later like Icom or never like most others) until the issues are resolved to the user satisfaction; or that ADD features previously unavailable. Or offer hardware updates or refinements, in part because the radios are designed to be modular and upgradeable as new devices are available. Or board level support. No, I won't disparage or belittle any of the Elecraft line; the UI makes it all available (mostly set and forget); you get to talk directly with the designers and owners of the company and they do more than any other company to make things 'right' in the eyes of the customer/user; not just give cookie cutter designs and answers then move on with no help provided. And the product line just works better, hearing ability is among the very elite and transmitters are cleaner on the air than most of the other brands. If a user is constantly fiddling about with the controls; it's because they either want to or don't understand their proper use and should ask questions. Set and forget is an asset. Once set, the complexity hidden within the UI is one of the strong points, because it doesn't require an EE and operation becomes simple allowing the user to simply use and enjoy the radio. If the user has not looked into all the settings, perhaps it's because they haven't needed to do so. That's a telltale mark of a good product (although the ham SHOULD learn more about what tool/s they're using, in my opinion). Maybe you haven't dived into the depths, because you haven't needed to or other reasons; but I wouldn't group all users in that category. Each user has an level of understanding and ability; no two are exactly the same; no two stations are precisely alike. When I first get any piece of gear, I go through every setting, making sure I understand it's use (adjust if needed); then I stop being concerned about the vast array of choices and just use the radio. I may go back for refined adjustments, but that's not very often. I suspect most hams are similar to that method. If it's been a while, the manual, Cady book and group can be used (in that order) to find the proper control. By design, Elecraft radios can be used by a wide range of hams from basic noob to EE+ education; from ragchewers to extreme use>; they've hit the mark. They allow the hams to rise to higher level of understanding, competence and ability because of the quality; with some help from the manual, user groups, Cady book and DIRECT contact. VERY few companies are at that level, ot
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
I would venture to say that most hams (especially those recently licensed) don’t and can’t utilize all the features of even an older K3, let alone one with all the enhancements. The K4 is so far beyond the “average” ham in its ability that unless you are an electronics guru with an EE you won’t need, much less understand, all the neat things it can do. I am not disparaging the K3, K3S, or the K4 but whatever version you might have or want it will do the job 95% of the time. I love my upgraded K3s but still haven’t scratched the surface of what it will do. I could spend the rest of my life exploring all the features of my fine radio (I have all of Fred Cady’s books) but there are other avenues of enjoyment in ham radio that I am pursuing. This IS a hobby and it has been my go to in times of good and bad since 1960. Cheaper than a psychiatrist and less trouble than a mistress. What I have said above may not apply to the top of the list contester as that is a field all to itself. Those guys and gals may notice the difference in some of the enhancements to the K line in a pileup, but that’s another rabbit hole. Dave K8WPE since 1960. David J. Wilcox’s iPad > On Nov 24, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: > > While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, not > physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and > replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight > forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. > Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board. > > BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a big > project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely to > upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the > market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The > upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these > considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical > considerations. > > 73 Bill AE6JV > >> On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, k6...@foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote: >> >> There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you >> commit to a physical design in year , it will be a design that uses the >> parts of year forever. I think about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine >> is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be >> upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like >> memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will run out >> of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point some time >> back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported >> all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching >> it's limits. > > --- > Bill Frantz| Security is like Government | Periwinkle > (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235 > www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them.| Peterborough, NH 03458 > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to djwilco...@yahoo.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
While I agree with Skip here, my agreement is based on practicality, not physical ability. The internal K3 hardware design is quite modular, and replacing the DSP boards for the main and sub receivers should be straight forward. We have seen how the K3 can be improved by replacing boards. Upgrading the DSP is just another kind of new board. BUT, designing, coding, and manufacture engineering these boards is a big project. The boards will be quite expensive. How many people are likely to upgrade? And, we already have the K4, built to remain competitive in the market. The K4 is probably a better radio than the mythical upgraded K3. The upgrades to the K3 are also likely to cost more than a K4. All these considerations make this project a non-starter. As I said, practical considerations. 73 Bill AE6JV On 11/24/20 at 6:03 PM, k6...@foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote: There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you commit to a physical design in year , it will be a design that uses the parts of year forever. I think about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits. --- Bill Frantz| Security is like Government | Periwinkle (408)348-7900 | services. The market doesn't | 150 Rivermead Rd #235 www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them.| Peterborough, NH 03458 __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Welcome Tim, There's an inescapable rule in electronic product development: Once you commit to a physical design in year , it will be a design that uses the parts of year forever. I think about 2006 or so for the K3 [mine is S/N 642 and that's about when I bought it]. Yes, the firmware can be upgraded over time, but only within the constraints of 2006 components [like memory and CPU]. There is also the fact that eventually, you will run out of bells, whistles, and horns for updates. The K3 hit that point some time back. Elecraft had fixed all or nearly all of the bugs, they'd supported all of the add-on accessories, and I'm fairly sure the MCU is approaching it's limits. The K4 is a 2018-ish design. The first rule above still applies. It has a vastly improved computer and massive amounts of memory however, and that will undoubtedly be filled slowly with "features." In 2028-2030, it will likely be where the K3 is today. 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 11/23/2020 9:35 PM, Tim Neu wrote: Hello, all, I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user. I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future versions of firmware. SDR code is neat because it can add new features; but that really only is a benefit if cooks are in the kitchen. How long will new features be developed? Also wondering if there are any ways for the programming community to help contribute to new features. It would be interesting to see more digital modes supported with the integrated digital interface. JS8? I'm not sure what is possible on such a small radio. What are the physical hardware limitations? __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Hi Tim, Like any product development company, we have to strike a balance between creating new products and enhancing old ones. That said, we've provided literally hundreds of new K3/K3S/P3/KX2/KX3/PX3/KPA500/KPA1500 firmware revisions over the past 10 years, for both MCU and DSP code. Many of those releases stemmed directly from customer input. The K4 is a different beast entirely. It has essentially unlimited code space, and a high degree of modularity to facilitate future hardware. The team is still small, but we now have a much bigger playground :) 73, Wayne N6KR > Hello, all, > > I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user. > > I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future > versions of firmware. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Tim, It's important to realize the the basic K3 was designed in 2007 with 2007 parts. It should be obvious that technology has advanced by several orders of magnitude since then (remember Moore's Law?. That fundamental limitation is a major reason why features that are on lots of wish lists aren't implemented, and it's a major reason why there's a K4. Elecraft is a small company, so they can't afford to build new models as often as the bigger companies, but the K3 was a very innovative product that upped the ante for what a great radio should be. For example, it took ten years for Flex to incorporate the keying waveshaping that the K3 introduced in 2008, and, as far as I know, they're the only mfr to have done so (maybe ANAN?). All the other mfrs are using very primitive (and very clicky) simple RC time constants dating back 70 years! Elecraft also did some very slick stuff to make their phase noise much lower than most radios, again, back in that 2007 design. And they may be the only mfr to make their radios modular, so we can buy as much radio as we need, and so that some features can be upgraded by buying upgraded modules. If you want a new feature or performance improvement on a JA radio, you have to buy a new radio.It took Yaesu three generations of their then flagship FT1000-series rigs to fix their really awful clicks, and their current flagship, the FTDX5000 debuted with the worst clicks of any of its competitors. They didn't provide a firmware fix to make the clicks half as bad until I embarrassed them with my report summarizing ARRL Lab tests; by then the radio was 4-5 years old! 73, Jim K9YC On 11/23/2020 10:13 PM, Tim Tucker wrote: But one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not have a great track record of developing new features or technologies into their existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the K3, but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they have been for the last several years. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Firmware development
Tim, I'm an owner of 3 Elecraft radios and am a huge fan of the products. But one thing that the last few years has shown is that Elecraft does not have a great track record of developing new features or technologies into their existing transceiver products. They release updates and patches for various issues, and certainly did release new features early on for the K3, but a lot of the ideas the community suggested went unanswered. I understand why this is, and hope that it will change with the K4, but ultimately the K3, KX3, and KX2 are largely the same product that they have been for the last several years. Tim AE6LX On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:35 PM Tim Neu wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm a brand new and generally satisfied Elecraft KX2 user. > > I'm just wondering what sorts of features are in the oven for future > versions of firmware. SDR code is neat because it can add new features; > but that really only is a benefit if cooks are in the kitchen. How long > will new features be developed? > > Also wondering if there are any ways for the programming community to help > contribute to new features. > > It would be interesting to see more digital modes supported with the > integrated digital interface. JS8? I'm not sure what is possible on such > a small radio. What are the physical hardware limitations? > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to ae...@worldwidedx.com > -- Owner, worldwidedx.com AE6LX, Amateur Radio __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
