Firmware development

[David Gilbert-2]

"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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Vic Rosenthal]

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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Woolley (E.L)]

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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Paul Evans W4/VP9KF]

"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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Rich NE1EE-2]

On 2020-11-26 23:26:-0500, SteveL wrote:
>I own a popular open-source based 3D printer.  <snip>  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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Rich NE1EE-2]

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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[len]

"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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert-2]

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:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[len]

" 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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

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, [hidden email] 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:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

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, [hidden email] 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, [hidden email] 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:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Don Wilhelm]

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, [hidden email] 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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Rich NE1EE-2]

On 2020-11-27 12:29:-0700, [hidden email] 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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[David Gilbert-2]

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:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

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 <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email] 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:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]