[wsjt-devel] RIg list sort order patch

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

Sort rig list in case insensitive order.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qlfi294ydbm4r4n/riglist.patch?dl=1

Currently the rig list is in case sensitive order which is not human friendly.  
e.g. Items like DX show up before Do.
de Mike W9MDB
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

The problem has already been taken care of by Joe.Fox can no longer transmit on 
standard frequencies.
de Mike W9MDB

 

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 5:21:23 PM CDT, g...@isect.com  
wrote:  
 
 Here's something a little different.

How about inviting stations to "vote" on whether a given DX station should
change to DXpedition mode?  I have in mind a new message format, or free
text string, that they can send.  At the DX end, activating DXpedition mode
is dependent on having received, say, 5 positive votes from 5 different
stations within the past hour.  Once there, remaining in DXpedition mode
requires that they make at least 50 QSOs per hour, otherwise they
automatically revert to the general mode ... and start again collecting
votes.  

For completeness, it might be appropriate to count both yes and no votes, so
the active community could block or terminate someone's use of DXpedition
mode by voting them down.  Or something.

I'm explicitly talking about on-air voting, not some Internet based poll.
Seems to me the hams who are active on-air are the ones who should decide
what happens, not the wider Internet community.

73
Gary  ZL2iFB

-Original Message-
From: Alex, VE3NEA  
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 5:20 a.m.
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?



On 2018-05-09 10:40, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a
relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  
> Everybody though he was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't 
> hearing them and users were crowding the lower end of 20M trying to get
him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange problematic.
> 
> I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there
are just too many out there.

I have seen quite a few semi-rare DX stations using the Fox mode recently.
While I think they are doing a wrong thing, I can understand their
temptation to increase their QSO rate by using the feature available in the
software. Currently WSJT-X has two modes of operation, the standard mode
(for non-DX stations) and the Fox mode (for rare DX). Maybe it is time to
add a third mode, optimized for semi-rare DX. In this mode, there DX would
transmit only one signal, anywhere in the standard FT8 segment, and the
Hounds would not have to call above 1000 HZ and then jump below 1000 Hz to
send the signal report, they would work the same way as in the standard
mode. The difference from the standard mode would be only on the Fox side,
the DX station would be allowed to send the DXpedition-style messages like
"K9AN RR73; N7QT  -05" to double their Q rate, and would have a
queue function to make operation more convenient. I am sure that many
semi-rare DX would use this mode instead of the Fox mode if it were
available. What do you think?

73 Alex VE3NEA


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging
tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[gary]

Here's something a little different.

How about inviting stations to "vote" on whether a given DX station should
change to DXpedition mode?  I have in mind a new message format, or free
text string, that they can send.  At the DX end, activating DXpedition mode
is dependent on having received, say, 5 positive votes from 5 different
stations within the past hour.  Once there, remaining in DXpedition mode
requires that they make at least 50 QSOs per hour, otherwise they
automatically revert to the general mode ... and start again collecting
votes.  

For completeness, it might be appropriate to count both yes and no votes, so
the active community could block or terminate someone's use of DXpedition
mode by voting them down.  Or something.

I'm explicitly talking about on-air voting, not some Internet based poll.
Seems to me the hams who are active on-air are the ones who should decide
what happens, not the wider Internet community.

73
Gary  ZL2iFB

-Original Message-
From: Alex, VE3NEA  
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 5:20 a.m.
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?



On 2018-05-09 10:40, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a
relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  
> Everybody though he was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't 
> hearing them and users were crowding the lower end of 20M trying to get
him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange problematic.
> 
> I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there
are just too many out there.

I have seen quite a few semi-rare DX stations using the Fox mode recently.
While I think they are doing a wrong thing, I can understand their
temptation to increase their QSO rate by using the feature available in the
software. Currently WSJT-X has two modes of operation, the standard mode
(for non-DX stations) and the Fox mode (for rare DX). Maybe it is time to
add a third mode, optimized for semi-rare DX. In this mode, there DX would
transmit only one signal, anywhere in the standard FT8 segment, and the
Hounds would not have to call above 1000 HZ and then jump below 1000 Hz to
send the signal report, they would work the same way as in the standard
mode. The difference from the standard mode would be only on the Fox side,
the DX station would be allowed to send the DXpedition-style messages like
"K9AN RR73; N7QT  -05" to double their Q rate, and would have a
queue function to make operation more convenient. I am sure that many
semi-rare DX would use this mode instead of the Fox mode if it were
available. What do you think?

73 Alex VE3NEA


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging
tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] can't decode an interval after an interrupted TX

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

I believe that was fixed in r8646
de Mike W9MDB

 

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:28:26 PM CDT, Jeff Pyle  
wrote:  
 
 Hello,
If a transmissions starts on an interval, and I immediately interrupt it, 
(what's left of) that interval does not decode.  If I click the decode button, 
I get the following error:

Running: /usr/bin/jt9 -s WSJT-X -w 1 -m 3 -e /usr/bin -a 
/home/jpyle/.local/share/WSJT-X -t /tmp/WSJT-X
At line 117 of file /home/bill/src/wsjtx-svn/lib/decoder.f90 (unit = 19)
Fortran runtime error: Cannot open file 'fort.19': Permission denied

This is using FT8.  I don't have a file named fort.19 on my system.
That's the only time I've tried to use the decode button.  Perhaps I'm chasing 
two different things.
WSJT-X v1.9.0-rc4 r8642 on Ubuntu 16.04 64bit.

73,Jeff 
KG8IU--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! 
http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] can't decode an interval after an interrupted TX

[Jeff Pyle]

Hello,

If a transmissions starts on an interval, and I immediately interrupt it,
(what's left of) that interval does not decode.  If I click the decode
button, I get the following error:

Running: /usr/bin/jt9 -s WSJT-X -w 1 -m 3 -e /usr/bin -a
> /home/jpyle/.local/share/WSJT-X -t /tmp/WSJT-X
> At line 117 of file /home/bill/src/wsjtx-svn/lib/decoder.f90 (unit = 19)
> Fortran runtime error: Cannot open file 'fort.19': Permission denied


This is using FT8.  I don't have a file named fort.19 on my system.

That's the only time I've tried to use the decode button.  Perhaps I'm
chasing two different things.

WSJT-X v1.9.0-rc4 r8642 on Ubuntu 16.04 64bit.


73,
Jeff KG8IU
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Wolfgang]

Hello Alex,

MSHV has such a mode. Unfortunately it is also capable to TX with
multi carriers - and this is creating the same chaos as Fox & Hound
does right now. I was a semi-rare DX stations with up to 12 callers
at the same time. An 'Multi Answering Auto Seq Protocoll' with one
carrier, will speed up the queue of a pile-up at the semi-rare DX.

The test and the results thereof, plus the usage of Fox & Hound in
the wild, leads to the conclusion that this approach is way to
complicated, either as Fox or as Hound.

Posted that info http://lz2hv.org/node/10 a while ago, unfortunately
- and as usual - no comment for my post, not even a 'no' or 'forget
it'. Maybe because of the old rule: 'not invented here' ;-)

73's de OE1MWW
Wolfgang



Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 7:20:02 PM, you wrote:



> On 2018-05-09 10:40, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
>> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a 
>> relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  
>> Everybody though he was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them 
>> and users were crowding the lower end of 20M trying 
>> to get him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange problematic.
>> 
>> I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are 
>> just too many out there.

> I have seen quite a few semi-rare DX stations using the Fox mode
> recently. While I think they are doing a wrong thing, I can 
> understand their temptation to increase their QSO rate by using the
> feature available in the software. Currently WSJT-X has two 
> modes of operation, the standard mode (for non-DX stations) and the
> Fox mode (for rare DX). Maybe it is time to add a third 
> mode, optimized for semi-rare DX. In this mode, there DX would
> transmit only one signal, anywhere in the standard FT8 segment, 
> and the Hounds would not have to call above 1000 HZ and then jump
> below 1000 Hz to send the signal report, they would work the 
> same way as in the standard mode. The difference from the standard
> mode would be only on the Fox side, the DX station would be 
> allowed to send the DXpedition-style messages like "K9AN RR73; N7QT
>  -05" to double their Q rate, and would have a 
> queue function to make operation more convenient. I am sure that
> many semi-rare DX would use this mode instead of the Fox mode 
> if it were available. What do you think?

> 73 Alex VE3NEA



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Alex, VE3NEA]

On 2018-05-09 10:40, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  
Everybody though he was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were crowding the lower end of 20M trying 
to get him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange problematic.


I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are 
just too many out there.


I have seen quite a few semi-rare DX stations using the Fox mode recently. While I think they are doing a wrong thing, I can 
understand their temptation to increase their QSO rate by using the feature available in the software. Currently WSJT-X has two 
modes of operation, the standard mode (for non-DX stations) and the Fox mode (for rare DX). Maybe it is time to add a third 
mode, optimized for semi-rare DX. In this mode, there DX would transmit only one signal, anywhere in the standard FT8 segment, 
and the Hounds would not have to call above 1000 HZ and then jump below 1000 Hz to send the signal report, they would work the 
same way as in the standard mode. The difference from the standard mode would be only on the Fox side, the DX station would be 
allowed to send the DXpedition-style messages like "K9AN RR73; N7QT  -05" to double their Q rate, and would have a 
queue function to make operation more convenient. I am sure that many semi-rare DX would use this mode instead of the Fox mode 
if it were available. What do you think?


73 Alex VE3NEA

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Ryan Tourge]

If you could force my FT-857D to comply with CAT control I would be all for
it HIHI

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Yup...sure ishopefully that will stop 99% of them (except the ones who
> manually dial in the rig).
> Ensuring they have CAT control would help with that but not sure we want
> to enforce CAT control, do we?
>
> de Mike W9MDB
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 10:49:48 AM CDT, Jay Hainline <
> ka9...@mtcnow.net> wrote:
>
>
> Isnt this addressed in r8647?
>
> Jay KA9CFD
>
>
>
> Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
>
>  Original message 
> From: Black Michael via wsjt-devel 
> Date: 5/9/18 09:40 (GMT-06:00)
> To: WSJT Software Development 
> Cc: Black Michael 
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?
>
> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a
> relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody though he
> was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were
> crowding the lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the
> Fox/Hound exchange problematic.
>
> I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there
> are just too many out there.
>
> So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the discussion
>
> #1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the frequency list which is
> hard-coded for the "standard" bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound
> mode on those entries with an appropriate message.
> #2 Passive solution -- Detect Fox/Hound messages during decode and don't
> display them at all unless you have the modes enabled.  This would not stop
> older versions from seeing the decoding though.
> #3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a big warning message
> comes up about band usage.
>
>
> de Mike W9MDB
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

Yup...sure ishopefully that will stop 99% of them (except the ones who 
manually dial in the rig).Ensuring they have CAT control would help with that 
but not sure we want to enforce CAT control, do we?
de Mike W9MDB
 

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 10:49:48 AM CDT, Jay Hainline 
 wrote:  
 
 Isnt this addressed in r8647?
Jay KA9CFD


Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
 Original message From: Black Michael via wsjt-devel 
 Date: 5/9/18 09:40 (GMT-06:00) To: WSJT 
Software Development  Cc: Black Michael 
 Subject: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible? 
There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a 
relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody though he was 
calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were crowding 
the lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange 
problematic.
I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are 
just too many out there.
So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the discussion
#1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the frequency list which is 
hard-coded for the "standard" bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound 
mode on those entries with an appropriate message.#2 Passive solution -- Detect 
Fox/Hound messages during decode and don't display them at all unless you have 
the modes enabled.  This would not stop older versions from seeing the decoding 
though.#3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a big warning 
message comes up about band usage.  

de Mike 
W9MDB--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! 
http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Bobby Chandler]

Mike, I believe Joe has a routine in a later build that inhibits FOX from 
using standard frequencies. It won't work, however, until the 'FOX' builds 
it or they download the GA release when it is available.


Bobby/N4AU


bob...@bellsouth.net
n...@arrl.net 



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Jay Hainline]

Isnt this addressed in r8647?
Jay KA9CFD


Sent from my  U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
 Original message From: Black Michael via wsjt-devel 
 Date: 5/9/18  09:40  (GMT-06:00) To: WSJT 
Software Development  Cc: Black Michael 
 Subject: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible? 
There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a 
relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody though he was 
calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were crowding 
the lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange 
problematic.
I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are 
just too many out there.
So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the discussion
#1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the frequency list which is 
hard-coded for the "standard" bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound 
mode on those entries with an appropriate message.#2 Passive solution -- Detect 
Fox/Hound messages during decode and don't display them at all unless you have 
the modes enabled.  This would not stop older versions from seeing the decoding 
though.#3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a big warning 
message comes up about band usage.  

de Mike W9MDB--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Brian Dickman]

Another "active solution": auto-disengage Fox mode if many decodes are
standard CQs. It's a good indicator that you are sitting on the
standard channel and shouldn't be allowed to call Fox.

--
Brian AF7MD

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel
 wrote:
> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a
> relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody though he
> was calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were
> crowding the lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the
> Fox/Hound exchange problematic.
>
> I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are
> just too many out there.
>
> So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the discussion
>
> #1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the frequency list which is
> hard-coded for the "standard" bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound
> mode on those entries with an appropriate message.
> #2 Passive solution -- Detect Fox/Hound messages during decode and don't
> display them at all unless you have the modes enabled.  This would not stop
> older versions from seeing the decoding though.
> #3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a big warning message
> comes up about band usage.
>
>
> de Mike W9MDB
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] The Real Question.

[Steve Sacco NN4X]

  
  
Greetings, all.  Thank
you,  WSJT development team for your amazing work.  I was on 6M
last evening, working E's across the U.S., and was really
appreciating how in just one year, FT8 has taken over the band,
and essentially displaced both SSB and CW for DXing.  In just
one year!
  
Anyway, regarding Mike
W9MDB and other's comments regarding the use of FT8, which have
been a recurring theme:  So the question really is "What are the
bounds of control for the WSJT development team to restrict the
use of WSJT-X?".
There seems to be a PoV
which holds that, Apple/Steve Jobsian-like, the WSJT team has
the right (and, indeed the responsibility, because you cannot trust
the Great Unwashed!!) to delimit the use of WSJT down to some
unspecified level of detail.   IIRC, this granularity is
currently limited to frequency usage.  I also recall a setting
buried somewhere in WSJT-X which sets a signal strength
threshold, above which the signal will be ignored.  I don't know
the back-story behind this signal strength idea, but it hints
once again about "control".  
  
The logical conclusion
of this PoV would include check-in of WSJT-X with a central
control point for:
    1) Ensuring that
the user is authorized by the WSJT-X development team to use the
product
  
    2) Confirming that
the proposed frequencies are "Approved" by the WSJT-X
development team
    3) Confirming that
the proposed station on the other end of the QSO is also
authorized by the WSJT-X development team
  
    4) Confirming that
use use of WSJT-X is allowed within some WSJT-X development team
specified date/time range
    5) Etcetera: Use
your imagination: Has the user donated to the support of the
product?  Is the user running a "supported" version within some
WSJT-X development team's definition of  the timeframe of what
"supported" means?  There is literally no limit to what could be
used to restrict its use.
  
 
  
I would suggest that
this is a profoundly bad path to follow.  The developers are not
responsible for the use of the tool, and rather than expending
valuable energy on attempting to control its use from their
by-definition narrow view of the world, should instead focus on
education and inclusion.  For the DXpeditions that are
experimenting with the in-development DXpedition mode, rather
than being critical of their use, reach out to them for data
which could help improve the product, and/or offer to work with
them ahead of time to acquire the data and coach them how to use
the features.
All IMHO, obviously,
but I felt it needed saying.
73,
Steve
NN4X

  

  

On 5/9/2018 10:40 AM, Black Michael via
  wsjt-devel wrote:


  

  
There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in
  Fox mode from a relatively rare location and caused a mess
  on 14.074.  Everybody though he was calling simple CQ but
  was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were crowding the
  lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the
  Fox/Hound exchange problematic.


I don't think we can leave this up to "operator
  responsibility" as there are just too many out there.


So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the
  discussion


#1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the
  frequency list which is hard-coded for the "standard"
  bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound mode on
  those entries with an appropriate message.
#2 Passive solution -- Detect Fox/Hound messages during
  decode and don't display them at all unless you have the
  modes enabled.  This would not stop older versions from
  seeing the decoding though.
#3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a
  big warning message comes up about band usage.  




de Mike W9MDB
  

  
  
  
  
  --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
 



-- 
Steve Sacco
NN4X
Narcoossee, FL 
EL98jh
  


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! 

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[jarmo]

Wed, 9 May 2018 14:40:40 + (UTC)
Black Michael via wsjt-devel 
kirjoitti:

> There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from
> a relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody

S01WS every day, and running n5. Quite annoying...

Jarmo

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] FT8 CQ Fox block possible?

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

There apparently was somebody on 20M FT8 last night in Fox mode from a 
relatively rare location and caused a mess on 14.074.  Everybody though he was 
calling simple CQ but was Fox so wasn't hearing them and users were crowding 
the lower end of 20M trying to get him making even the the Fox/Hound exchange 
problematic.
I don't think we can leave this up to "operator responsibility" as there are 
just too many out there.
So throwing out a few ideas to hopefully open up the discussion
#1 Active solution -- Add a "Fox" setting to the frequency list which is 
hard-coded for the "standard" bands and would prevent enabling Fox or Hound 
mode on those entries with an appropriate message.#2 Passive solution -- Detect 
Fox/Hound messages during decode and don't display them at all unless you have 
the modes enabled.  This would not stop older versions from seeing the decoding 
though.#3 Simple solution -- Whenever Fox mode is selected a big warning 
message comes up about band usage.  

de Mike W9MDB--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel