|
Hi Graham, Opera fans and critics,
in my opinion, it's not one but really two
different arguments:
Yes, sharing source code is one. Surely
one big motivation for spending time on amateur radio is learning. I'm curious
to find out about the ways others are doing things, and expect them to be
just as curious about mine. We are not only "users" but (by
definition of being a ham) have an interest in the technology itself. That's why
I prefer to share source code along with my humble (and sometimes
ridiculous) programming attempts - ideally, ideas are free for
all.
But of course that's only my own preference,
and I would surely respect an author's decision to keep his code
to himself. In any case, detailed explanations about what a
program or algorithm is doing are extremely valuable.
The other argument is about over-the-air protocols,
which I would always expect to be published. There used to be a "plain language"
rule, which formally made it illegal to use secret or encrypted codes in
amateur radio. It had to do with political neutrality and prevention of abuse,
but nowadays it still makes perfect sense to me. Open protocols also allow
others to develop alternative (and perhaps in some aspects
better) modulators and decoders. At least in principle, I would
like to be able to understand the meaning of every single bit or dit which is
leaving my antenna!
In my opinion, it is not enough that "anyone can
download" a piece of proprietary software, allowing him to decode that secret
protocol with an undisclosed algorithm. How would you prove to a suspicious
mind what was really being exchanged over the air? Things are becoming
even more complex when extensive data transfer over the internet is
involved. As to myself, I can safely state that I haven't bothered to touch
Opera software before Guido reverse engineered the protocol and
made it publicly available. Just as well as I would rather avoid using
proprietary digital voice modes in ham radio.
So much for my two cents...
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
PS emails from Blacksheep are still coming here in
with large delays and in wrong order.
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: [O_P_E_R_A_] Opera upgrades for
2014
Its the old source code argument
There are plenty of locked systems in
use , source code comes under 'IP' Intellectual Property rights ,
there is no need to disclose as long as
all can use the same , sure
some would like to see 'how' but that's
another angle , same with encryption, DSSS numeric based
data modes like Olivia , chip64, contessa , ros hf as
long as the software has the same keys
then that meets the requirements
The Opera decoder is a data
decoder , Marcus is running correlation , pattern
matching , two different things entirely , one has high
equipment over heads , the other uses anti noise/
fec/afc software routines to negate hardware affects on system
performance and counteract propagation conditions , Opera is a
averaging system and requires for a decode , the
average of the min s/n , from 50% of the
data randomly dispersed along the time line , ie first
50 last 50 or any 50%
G,
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: LF: RE: [O_P_E_R_A_] Opera upgrades for
2014
What your saying is for those of us wanting to improve things
go play with the other systems and leave OPERA just as it is?
Bob
From: [email protected]To: [email protected]Date:
Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:39:58 +0000 Subject: Re: LF: RE: [O_P_E_R_A_] Opera
upgrades for 2014
There are plenty of commercial data mode
systems in use on the Ham bands that are
locked and not publicised , from my experience , the
locked systems seem to give a superior level of performance
to the open code versions , pactor-4
being a good example , using modern ss techniques
achieves high data/power ratio , but missing is
the cdma layer that would enhance b/w user
efficiency , but that exists in another locked data
mode , which is free
So where /what is the problem ?
G,
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RE: [O_P_E_R_A_] Opera upgrades for
2014
Thanks for forwarding the message Bob - so I won't
spend any effort in implementing Opera myself if Markus's DS algorithm is really
embedded in the Ros-software.
Despite the fact that I don't like, and will
not use, the original Opera software myself as long as its author makes such a
secret of it, leaving it to others to reverse-engineer the
algorithms.
Cheers,
Wolf .
Am 27.12.2013 19:31, schrieb
Bob Raide:
Trevor and all; Especially #1!!! If that alone could
be accomplished the rest later would do just fine. Bob,
WG2XRS/4-4000 meters, WE2XEB-2200 meters, WE2XGR/6-630/600
meters-W2ZM...
To: [email protected]CC:
[email protected]From: [email protected]Date: Fri, 27 Dec
2013 16:48:00 +0000 Subject: [O_P_E_R_A_] Opera upgrades for
2014
A few thoughts for Opera enhancements VLF to
160m
(1) Deep Search Detector built in to existing Opera system with
ability to run alongside existing
Op decoders and report directly to PSK
reporter
(2) Reinstate the dual receive function without having to
open multiple instances of the software.
(3) Dynamically resizable
screen or replace the dials with led bar type indicators - would make
the
overall screen size a little smaller.
(4) Option to "tear off" the
waterfall to enable positioning on another part of the monitor screen -
like wsprx for example.
Trevor G0KTN
__._,_.___
. ![]()
__,_._,___
|
