In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cebu_Charlie wrote:

great Roy, but do us all a favor and port it out to linux so we dont have to
play with wine to use it.

I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not about to spend a couple
of years of full time to do you a favor so you won't have to fool with
wine. Sometimes it's just a tough world.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello, Roy, and all. I have used a g77-compiled version of NEC-4 on a
Linux platform and it worked fine. The GNU compiler works with FORTRAN-77
source code as well as C. I assume a g77 compilation of the NEC-2 source
code would also work. Of course this is just number-crunching NEC that
does not provide the other bells and whistles of EZNEC. Sincerely, and
73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Recompiling Fortran code which has no interaction with the user other
than getting text input from one file and writing text output to another
is a vastly different problem than re-writing a 60,000 line Visual Basic
interactive graphical user interface in another language then
recompiling for Linux while retaining full functionality of all
features. The difference between the two problems seems to escape a lot
of people, but problems do always look easier to solve when it's someone
else's job to solve them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. B. Wood wrote:
In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cebu_Charlie wrote:
great Roy, but do us all a favor and port it out to linux so we dont have to
play with wine to use it.
I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not about to spend a couple
of years of full time to do you a favor so you won't have to fool with
wine. Sometimes it's just a tough world.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello, Roy, and all. I have used a g77-compiled version of NEC-4 on a
Linux platform and it worked fine. The GNU compiler works with FORTRAN-77
source code as well as C. I assume a g77 compilation of the NEC-2 source
code would also work. Of course this is just number-crunching NEC that
does not provide the other bells and whistles of EZNEC. Sincerely, and
73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Amen.

Jim



"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...

but problems do always look easier to solve when it's someone
else's job to solve them.


Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Recompiling Fortran code which has no interaction with the user other
than getting text input from one file and writing text output to another
is a vastly different problem than re-writing a 60,000 line Visual Basic
interactive graphical user interface in another language then
recompiling for Linux while retaining full functionality of all
features. The difference between the two problems seems to escape a lot
of people, but problems do always look easier to solve when it's someone
else's job to solve them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. B. Wood wrote:
In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cebu_Charlie wrote:
great Roy, but do us all a favor and port it out to linux so we dont
have to play with wine to use it.
I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not about to spend a couple
of years of full time to do you a favor so you won't have to fool with
wine. Sometimes it's just a tough world.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello, Roy, and all. I have used a g77-compiled version of NEC-4 on a
Linux platform and it worked fine. The GNU compiler works with
FORTRAN-77
source code as well as C. I assume a g77 compilation of the NEC-2 source
code would also work. Of course this is just number-crunching NEC that
does not provide the other bells and whistles of EZNEC. Sincerely, and
73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337


Recompiling Visual Basic code in Linux is simpler now as Mono is VB
compatible! And free of course...

So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dan Andersson wrote:

...

So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on
Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all
varietys
of Linux!

//Dan, M0DFI


My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

JS

eeah, just another structured programing language.

The latest seems to be 'D'.

A statically linked program, particularly one which is object based,
would result in a hefty sized binary. But it would work.

Chris

John Smith I writes:

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!
//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

I don't think that was called for.

We may like Linux, but programming just for Windows doesn't make
somebody an idiot.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

On 1 Mar, 06:41, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
John Smith I writes:

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all varietys
of Linux!
//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

I don't think that was called for.

We may like Linux, but programming just for Windows doesn't make
somebody an idiot.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

The bottom line should be is EZNEC accurate? Has the programming been
held within the confines provided by the original provider'
the U.S. government. Who overseas the content of this so called
program. If it has a patent then all would or should be revealed
in the patent disclosure. Has anybody taken this for his own use for
the advancement of science which is the reason for patents?
Has anybody upgraded the assigned patent for the sake of science
or has something not been disclosed to prevent true examination
and as such invalidates the patent? Does the government have the
option of review of all algorithms or are they in the same position
the country is with voting machines? Basically the purchaser is really
in the position of caveat emptor especially since all programs provide
different results!
Art

art wrote:
The bottom line should be is EZNEC accurate? Has the programming been
held within the confines provided by the original provider'
the U.S. government. Who overseas the content of this so called
program. If it has a patent then all would or should be revealed
in the patent disclosure.

No. A patent must disclose enough of the method so that someone
"versed in the art" of programing could reproduce it. That's pretty
vague. I might be able to look at the patent and reproduce or better
the process easily, while you look at it and scratch your head. Or vice
versa.

Obviously the more complete a patent application is and the simpler it
is to understand, the more likely it is to be granted and the easier it
will be to explain to a jury in an infringment case. It does not
need to be simple or easy to understand and most are not.

Then as you alluded to later in your comments, there is the whole problem
of implementation. Without a lot of effort, a home computer version of
most scientific programs will produce meaningless results due to
lack of precision.

Experienced scientific and engineering programers know this and compensate.
"Teach yourself Visual whatever in a week" programmers don't.

The biggest problem with visual whatever programmers is they tend to
be seduced by the flashy interface and ignore the substance under it.

Caveat Emptor.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 1 Mar, 06:41, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
John Smith I writes:

Dan Andersson wrote:

...
So if someone sits on the VB code for EZNEC, just rebuild it .Mono on
Linux
BUT LINK IT STATICALLY! This means the code will run on almost all
varietys
of Linux!
//Dan, M0DFI

My gawd man. Let us hope no serious program is ever written in Visual
Basic!

Oh, I forgot, some idiots did do that, didn't they?

I don't think that was called for.

We may like Linux, but programming just for Windows doesn't make
somebody an idiot.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

The bottom line should be is EZNEC accurate? Has the programming been
held within the confines provided by the original provider'
the U.S. government. Who overseas the content of this so called
program. If it has a patent then all would or should be revealed
in the patent disclosure. Has anybody taken this for his own use for
the advancement of science which is the reason for patents?
Has anybody upgraded the assigned patent for the sake of science
or has something not been disclosed to prevent true examination
and as such invalidates the patent? Does the government have the
option of review of all algorithms or are they in the same position
the country is with voting machines? Basically the purchaser is really
in the position of caveat emptor especially since all programs provide
different results!
Art

Art,
wouldn't it be better if you picked knitting or bird watching?
You would not have to deal with all of us morons and overseas governments
that don't get your brilliance.

bada BUm