| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
EZNEC and Linux
EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC
version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
EZNEC and Linux
Roy Lewallen wrote:
EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Wonderful! Thanks Roy. Is there a faq on your site or anyone elses? Now only if Pegasus mail had a linux version I could dump this crummy OS once and for all. tom K0TAR |
EZNEC and Linux
Roy Lewallen wrote:
EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. Roy Lewallen, W7EL 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. |
EZNEC and Linux
In article ,
Roy Lewallen wrote: EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. Roy Lewallen, W7EL That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)? That would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4 PowerPC Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a large extent based on the BSD variety of UNIX. I know that the CodeWeavers people have mainly concentrated on getting things like the Windows versions of the Micro$loth Office suite of programs to run under CrossOver, the point of which escapes me since Office has been around for Macs even longer than it has for Windows machines and thus Mac users are under no pressure to be able to use the Windows versions of the Office programs. (Word and Excel files are, for the most part, platform-independent, or at least are easily translatable between Windows and Mac formats. I frequently turn Mac Word 5.1a files into Windows XP Word files to give to my daughter, and do the reverse when she sends me Word files. Such translation is easily done on a Mac, and with some difficulty can be done on a Windows machine.) Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5 was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make it sort of work). David, ex-W8EZE -- David Ryeburn To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz". |
EZNEC and Linux
Tom Ring wrote:
... Now only if Pegasus mail had a linux version I could dump this crummy OS once and for all. tom K0TAR WINE Pegasus ... http://www.bytebot.net/geekdocs/pmail-wine.html JS |
EZNEC and Linux
Tom Ring wrote:
Wonderful! Thanks Roy. Is there a faq on your site or anyone elses? Not anything regarding use on Linux. The version that's capable of running on a Linux emulator has been available only about one day, and as far as I know only one person has tested it on that system. . . . Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
David Ryeburn wrote:
That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)? That would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4 PowerPC Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a large extent based on the BSD variety of UNIX. The demo program is free, at http://eznec.com. While there's a small possibility that the full program would fail on a system that can run the demo, it's not likely. So anybody wanting to know about a particular system should just download the demo and try it. I know that all EZNEC program types have been run successfully on Macs for many years using the SoftWindows emulator. Ironically, the change to EZNEC which made it able to run on Linux was made in order to make it work under Microsoft Vista. . . . Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
Ya know, older Pentiums can be had for a song at flea markets,
Salvation army, church donation sites, etc.. And are free from trash bins, and curbsides - especially near the local college at the end of every semester... An older pentium may take a few more seconds to crunch your Eznec design compared to some 3GHZ screamer, but that gives you time to think (and scratch) whilst waiting... So as opposed to spending thousands on a new Mac, how about getting an Eznec box for cheap... denny |
EZNEC and Linux
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:14:35 -1000, Cebu_Charlie
wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. Roy Lewallen, W7EL 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. What I need is an operating system that will run all the software that XP does without my spending much time tinkering with it. I revisit Linux every few years with a fresh release and an identical machine to my Windows system. SUSE 10 has come close but some of the simplest things elude me. Since retirement 15 years ago I have become isolated from other users except on the Internet. When I seek answers to simple questions I an usually overwhelmed with a flood of answers of varying usefulness. I would like to run my windows and dos software on my Linux machine with NTFS support, attached to my LAN. I want to be able to install & delete hardware and software with processes that behave in a consistent manner. I should be able to use my PIC programmers and my ham radio software with out tinkering. Until that happens with Linux I am locked into an XP machine and a Win 98 machine in the configuration. I don't want to discourage the Linux community but at this time it is best suited to the business user where a few applications on a number of systems will get the job done. John Ferrell W8CCW |
EZNEC and Linux
What is the cost to upgrade from 3.0.45?
Jim Roy Lewallen wrote: EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required. |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:58:38 +0000, John Ferrell wrote:
I would like to run my windows and dos software on my Linux machine with NTFS support, attached to my LAN. I want to be able to install & delete hardware and software with processes that behave in a consistent manner. I should be able to use my PIC programmers and my ham radio software with out tinkering. I'm sure you understand this, but others may not realize that Linux is not, nor was ever intended to be a drop-in replacement for Windows of any vintage. It is intended as a freely available Unix work-alike although many efforts have resulted in some good ability to run Windows software through emulation. Until that happens with Linux I am locked into an XP machine and a Win 98 machine in the configuration. I don't want to discourage the Linux community but at this time it is best suited to the business user where a few applications on a number of systems will get the job done. It's not ever going to happen in that manner. Linux is its own entity and does that very well, just like the Mac is its own entity. There are similarities between all systems, but again, Linux is not nor was ever intended as a bug-for-bug replacement of Windows capable of running Windows software unmodified. A lot of people, including myself, use Linux as our desktop and are quite satisfied with no Windows in sight. I'm sorry if you were led to believe that Linux is a software compatible replacement for Windows. It's not. 73, de Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
EZNEC and Linux
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:30:29 -0800, 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. Understood, Roy. Besides being an emulator/program loader, Wine also has winelib which is intended as a way to recompile Windows applications for Linux (and other Free Unix systems like BSD, etc.) so they can run natively. This would avoid a complete porting effort. 73, de Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
EZNEC and Linux
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:34:28 -0600, Nate Bargmann
wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:58:38 +0000, John Ferrell wrote: I would like to run my windows and dos software on my Linux machine with NTFS support, attached to my LAN. I want to be able to install & delete hardware and software with processes that behave in a consistent manner. I should be able to use my PIC programmers and my ham radio software with out tinkering. I'm sure you understand this, but others may not realize that Linux is not, nor was ever intended to be a drop-in replacement for Windows of any vintage. It is intended as a freely available Unix work-alike although many efforts have resulted in some good ability to run Windows software through emulation. Until that happens with Linux I am locked into an XP machine and a Win 98 machine in the configuration. I don't want to discourage the Linux community but at this time it is best suited to the business user where a few applications on a number of systems will get the job done. It's not ever going to happen in that manner. Linux is its own entity and does that very well, just like the Mac is its own entity. There are similarities between all systems, but again, Linux is not nor was ever intended as a bug-for-bug replacement of Windows capable of running Windows software unmodified. A lot of people, including myself, use Linux as our desktop and are quite satisfied with no Windows in sight. I'm sorry if you were led to believe that Linux is a software compatible replacement for Windows. It's not. 73, de Nate I did not mean to be critical of Linux, I just could not restrain the urge to expose my wish list! John Ferrell W8CCW |
EZNEC and Linux
Nate Bargmann wrote:
Understood, Roy. Besides being an emulator/program loader, Wine also has winelib which is intended as a way to recompile Windows applications for Linux (and other Free Unix systems like BSD, etc.) so they can run natively. This would avoid a complete porting effort. Wow, I didn't know anything could compile Visual Basic 6 code for any operating system environment except Windows. How well does it handle Windows API calls? EZNEC uses many, many of them. What does it do about functions in COM and ActiveX files? Does it recompile those too? What about third party software in the form of COM or ActiveX files, which can't be recompiled due to lack of source code? Does it successfully substitute for Windows Registry operations? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
EZNEC and Linux
Roy Lewallen writes:
David Ryeburn wrote: That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)? That would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4 PowerPC Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a large extent based on the BSD variety of UNIX. The demo program is free, at http://eznec.com. While there's a small possibility that the full program would fail on a system that can run the demo, it's not likely. So anybody wanting to know about a particular system should just download the demo and try it. I know that all EZNEC program types have been run successfully on Macs for many years using the SoftWindows emulator. Ironically, the change to EZNEC which made it able to run on Linux was made in order to make it work under Microsoft Vista. OK. So the demo at http://www.eznec.com/DemoEXE/EZWDemo40Inst.exe which I downloaded at 2007-02-22 12:43 UTC includes those latest changes? If so, I have to report that it would not run on either of Ubuntu Dapper (April 2006 release) or Ubuntu Edgy (October 2006). In both cases, I removed wine and its config files from my system, removed my .wine directory and did a fresh install of wine before installing the EZNEC demo. With Dapper, I got "EZNEC can't be run on a network from a workstation". I wasn't, but the home directory is network mounted using NFS. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.9-0ubuntu2_i386.deb. With Edgy, I got "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.22-0ubuntu3_i386.deb. I'll try Debian Sid later. They have wine 0.9.30. Please don't interpret this as a complaint. Rather, take it as the beginning of a compatibility list. And I'm still hoping that the demo I tested was out of date :-) 73 LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway |
EZNEC and Linux
Roy Lewallen writes:
Nate Bargmann wrote: Understood, Roy. Besides being an emulator/program loader, Wine also has winelib which is intended as a way to recompile Windows applications for Linux (and other Free Unix systems like BSD, etc.) so they can run natively. This would avoid a complete porting effort. Wow, I didn't know anything could compile Visual Basic 6 code for any operating system environment except Windows. I believe winelib is for C. Which certainly looks like a showstopper in your case. How well does it handle Windows API calls? EZNEC uses many, many of them. About as well as the corresponding version of wine, presumably. What does it do about functions in COM and ActiveX files? Does it recompile those too? I can't see how it could do that. What about third party software in the form of COM or ActiveX files, which can't be recompiled due to lack of source code? Rhetorical question? Does it successfully substitute for Windows Registry operations? I'm sure it tries to, but I've never tested. The Mono guys (.NET for Linux & friends) just announced support for Visual Basic.NET. But I this is probably too different from old fashioned Visual Basic to be of much help. 73 LA4RT Jon |
EZNEC and Linux
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote: .... Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5 was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make it sort of work). David, ex-W8EZE I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a Mac, that'd be something :-) bob k5qwg |
EZNEC and Linux
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:27:24 -0600, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn wrote: ... Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5 was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make it sort of work). I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a Mac, that'd be something :-) I have WordStar 6.0 running on linux (under dosemu.) The last time I ran WordStar in a micro$oft environment was probably around 1991. That's when I cut over to OS/2. Starting around 2002, I started making the transition to linux. All linux now. I keep the OS2 box for nostalgia. 73 Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 *** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm |
EZNEC and Linux
Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or
"standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel 2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm sure this is true for Linux also. I've never purposefully set out to make EZNEC run under Linux -- the market is much too small to justify any but the most minimal of effort. The current state is, as I said, a result of a change made to make it work under Vista, plus one small change to get around an apparent wine bug (it handles the Windows API call WaitForInputIdle incorrectly). I'll continue to make very minor changes if necessary to accommodate various bugs in wine, but nothing major I'm afraid. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jon Kåre Hellan LA4RT wrote: OK. So the demo at http://www.eznec.com/DemoEXE/EZWDemo40Inst.exe which I downloaded at 2007-02-22 12:43 UTC includes those latest changes? If so, I have to report that it would not run on either of Ubuntu Dapper (April 2006 release) or Ubuntu Edgy (October 2006). In both cases, I removed wine and its config files from my system, removed my .wine directory and did a fresh install of wine before installing the EZNEC demo. With Dapper, I got "EZNEC can't be run on a network from a workstation". I wasn't, but the home directory is network mounted using NFS. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.9-0ubuntu2_i386.deb. With Edgy, I got "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.22-0ubuntu3_i386.deb. I'll try Debian Sid later. They have wine 0.9.30. Please don't interpret this as a complaint. Rather, take it as the beginning of a compatibility list. And I'm still hoping that the demo I tested was out of date :-) 73 LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway |
EZNEC and Linux
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:21:57 +0000, John Ferrell wrote:
I did not mean to be critical of Linux, I just could not restrain the urge to expose my wish list! That's fine. I was just trying to clarify the position of Linux in relation to Windows. I'm afraid that at times those of us that do advocate Linux are not as clear about it as we should be. It would be fantastic if there was some magic OS that ran everything. Wait a minute! Linux is almost there! ;-) I have played with WinDRM and some of the Antenna book software with Wine. I have also used Morse Runner with Wine and it's great fun. 73, de Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true." |
EZNEC and Linux
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or "standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel 2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm sure this is true for Linux also. Good clue there Roy. The -42.9 would probably indicate that it is Redhat or Redhat clone. I don't think anyone else uses that extended kernel numbering format. The official kernels are almost always x.y.z, with the rare special minor fix as x.y.z.a. The 42.9 signifies the Redhat patch set applied, which often has nothing to do with official releases, or sometimes it upgrades one kernel partially or completely to another, unspecified, kernel. Redhat kernels are very confusing, misleading, and have there own special bugs. This 2.4.20-42.9 may actually mostly be 2.4.27, 7 versions newer. But you'll never know. The "standard" in Linux is actually the kernel itself. The distributions are the packages that surround the kernel. This includes the desktop and all the other software that comes with the distribution you install. Kind of like the VW bug engine and chassis and tons of parts kits available. Except Redhat insists on changing random parts on the engine, boring a 1600 out to 1950, and still calling it a 1.6 liter. Before I am attacked, I am NOT running down Redhat here. I use Fedora Core 6 at work, and am quite happy with it. As a desktop. As a server platform however, their silly kernel numbering system often makes it very hard to know how their kernel features map to the Linux standard kernels. And when I need to be sure a piece of hardware such as a particular SATA controller or SCSI RAID is supported, I am forced to build a new kernel from scratch from a standard kernel source release. Not hard, just a pain that would be alleviated by Redhat sticking to the rules the rest of the distros (most) stick to. tom K0TAR |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
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 |
EZNEC and Linux
On Feb 22, 7:27 am, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn wrote: ... Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5 was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make it sort of work). David, ex-W8EZE I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a Mac, that'd be something :-) bob k5qwg I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail... I like the lesser amount of clutter vs the bloated new versions of readers. Also, fairly immune to the security problems that can plaque MS exploder. But I'm pretty much a windows user...XP at the moment.. No plans to get Vista anytime soon.. The main reason I'm stuck to windows is the flight simulator requires it. But.. I also like it because all my sound card programs, etc run off the same sound config. No swapping around junk like the old DOS days. My puter is also my TV/Video recorder, etc too these days.. All windows based.. I've never once run Linux yet.. They never had any app's that were interesting to me.. Or at least nothing that wouldn't run on windows. Neither it, or Mac runs a decent flight sim.. And like I say, my puter is 79% airplane... In fact, the flight sim is why I first bought a computer in the first place. I never really had much use for one before that. I'm running a P4 at 3.15 ghz, and to me, it's a dated system... :/ I'm nearing upgrade time again. Course now, it's a duo core, etc, vs the usual ramp up in clock speed you used to do.. I'm waiting as long as I can.. Maybe end up with a quad core or whatever.. The longer I wait, the more I get for my $$$.. I also need a lot of drive space since I started recording loads of video. I have 240 gig's, and it's always full.. I need about 500 gigs more just to get a little breathing room. My problem is, I'm lazy, and I record more movies than I edit and burn to disk.. So they stack up on me.. Editing and burning gets to be a time consuming chore I don't really like too much.. Or at least, I can think of better things to do. MK |
EZNEC and Linux
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/ |
EZNEC and Linux
|
EZNEC and Linux
|
EZNEC and Linux
"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 |
EZNEC and Linux
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail... I switched from Netscape when they dropped the newsreader function. I now use Thunderbird and I like it. T-bird is the bomb! The mail/news/rss reader--NOT the drink! JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
EZNEC and Linux
On 1 Mar, 23:47, Owen Duffy wrote:
(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote : ... 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. As an experienced scientific / engineering software developer, I suggest that much the same issues exist in a conventional 3GL language as in the "Visual xxx" environment. Good software doesn't just happen, it takes (aside of the relatively trivial task of writing the functional elements), huge effort in dealing with exceptions, and testing, testing, testing. If you dig deep into the source of Fortran programs, you will often find the heritage of small memory and slow processors in days gone by, where implementers used COMMON for variables to reduce memory use, and used COMMON for passing parameters to avoid the overhead of parameter passing function calls. This practice was, IMHO, the greatest risk to accuracy in such programs, and the area that demanded the greatest attention to design and documentation. The public NEC2 code uses COMMON, and the last bug that I demonstrated in a C port of the code was related to messed up parameter passing in COMMON. So, the old 3GL world wasn't that good anyway! Owen All very interesting Geoffrey and Owen and really it all adds up that we need more supervision of programmers when they pupport to be experts. I have used AO for many many years all with the understanding that the author had his work hacked that forced him to give up merchandising the effort. So for many years I used the program on the basis if I didn't like the answer then ignor the result. Time has shown that with all these so called antenna programs all users are doing the same thing.....if you don't like the response then it is garbage in garbage out and I was as guilty as everybody else.It was for that reason I put a program test on this newsgroup such that the results given normally would raise eyebrows. Even asked Arie to check his but only silence reigned which emphasises that people are just lazy or choose to remain silent when un unsuitable answer occurrs.( This also emphasises what a great job W4RLN is doing for ham radio where he points out where all the programs differ and who he perceives as correct To me it shows that the human mind really only believes what he wants to believe so a program with high gain results is the best seller even tho inaccurate. Art |
EZNEC and Linux
John Smith I wrote:
T-bird is the bomb! Is a bomb good or bad? :-) -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
EZNEC and Linux
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: T-bird is the bomb! Is a bomb good or bad? :-) Is bad good or bad? ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com