> Perhaps this is a subject better for a QRZ forum?
I agree. I drifted off list topic. Im going to stop answering, and will move to
QRZ.
I absolutely agree with Steve's comments on the quality of WSJT-X and Hamlib,
and associate myself with his comments.
See you on QRZ.
Thanks. Robert.
Dave:
On the first point, we more or less agree. A development team can focus on many
things, true. The point Im trying to make here is that logging and weak-signal
processing are two very different functions, and don't belong in the same
application. If an exception is to be made here, yes,
TCP APIs in a uniform
manner and libraries exist in nearly every programming language in use today.
Hopefully this is with less snark.
Thanks. Robert. AD6I.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Robert A. Klahn (AD6I) wrote:
> IMHO, this sort of thing is often better implemented as a prog
IMHO, this sort of thing is often better implemented as a program emulating the
client's supported protocol. That program can then communicate with whatever
downstream service is needed, in its preferred protocol.
Even better is to apply some well defined modern application solution instead,
I did not see Steve's reply before I sent mine. While I disagree with the
conclusion that "Peter’s overview is 100% correct.", I don't think we have to
reach agreement on that point. If you are designing a client/server
application, and want to make a call as if you should implement
Hi Peter:
While its true that the TCP protocol puts additional computing requirements on
both the sender (the local PC) and the recipient to guarantee the reliable,
ordered, and error-checked delivery of data, these additional requirements are
nearly insignificant in modern fast networks and
I wrote a lengthy reply to Stephen VK3SIR post, which I just discarded.
Ultimately, I think I was adding more noise than signal.
I will say just this: I hope that everyone distributing changes to WSJT-X are
following the obligations of GPLv3, including distributing the source code. To
not do
e a GPLv3 licence or compatible one,
> and so on. Personal use does not incur those responsibilities.
>
> See this FAQ entry from the FSF:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
> On 04/06/2020 17:24, Robe
Bill:
This is more a curiosity than anything else. GPLv3 makes no distinction between
personal and non-personal use. Are you simply saying you are less bothered by a
license violation when it comes under "personal use"? What license violation do
you think is going on here? What IP do you think
I found after upgrading to Catalina and WSJT-X v2.1.1 that I had to reset my
Serial Port and Soundcard settings in WSJT-X. Hope this helps. Thanks. Robert.
AD6I.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 2:42 PM, Greg Vatt wrote:
>
> Same problem here. macOS Catalina 10.15.1, ICOM IC-7610.
>
> Greg NC7B
>
>
Hi Stephen:
I have, in my dubious spare time, been working on a WSJT-X FAQ sanctioned by
Bill, G4WJS, and Joe, K1JT. Once it's up, it should reduce the repetition, and
the need for extra releases.
Now that Im letting the cat out of the bag, if anyone has a candidate FAQ
(hopefully with an
I beg to differ with Greg's, NC7B, comments on Mac OS X 10.11 (El Capitan).
The OS is only 3 years old, and there is a substantial hardware base that can
not upgrade beyond it. I mean this in only the nicest way, but Hams tend to be
in the category of users who run older hardware. I think it
Im a little hesitant to jump into this conversation because Im new to the list,
but here I go.
Support for long-ish messages, such as what you find in some State QSO parties,
or Sweepstakes comes to mind, is somewhat contradictory to the original purpose
of WSJT-X, which is, weak signal
13 matches
Mail list logo
