On 24 Sep 2010 09:07:52 GMT
Rob wrote:

Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?


It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve
it or adjust it.

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

Which means it's not amateur radio.

Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio,
can you look at or improve upon any part of it?

E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that
control it?

No, but by studying the interfaces and functions you could design your
own processor and firmware that would replace the original.

With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes.

--

Brian Morrison

Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes.

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves.

There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better
codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop
something and need donations. But this development needs more than
donations.

Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than
you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT
Rob wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented
modes.

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop
themselves.

Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought
is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what
the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does.

I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the
only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about
that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a
free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I
can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults,
one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way
to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according
to the other user's set up.


There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a
better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the
necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people
working on it that have that expertise.


Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop
something and need donations. But this development needs more than
donations.

Yes, it needs talent and for that you need exposure to collect them
together. That's happening now.


Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job
than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free
software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to
provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't
use it.

It's called a choice.

--

Brian Morrison

Brian Morrison wrote:
On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT
Rob wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented
modes.

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop
themselves.

Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought
is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what
the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does.

Not really. You can buy the chip that implements AMBE and use it
as part of a homebrew design.
That is really not much different from buying a power transistor to
get 100 Watts of output from your homebrew transceiver instead of
developing your own, or making your own transmitter tube.
Everyone chooses their own level of components to work from. Some
build the microcontroller for their transceivers from a Z-80, an
EPROM, a CMOS RAM and some LSTTL logic. Others use an integrated
microcontroller with everything on a chip. Still others buy a small
board with a functioning computer system on it and use it as part of
their transceiver.

I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the
only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about
that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a
free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I
can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults,
one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way
to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according
to the other user's set up.

When the chose AMBE there really was no alternative. And even today,
you will not be able to find an open codec that offers speech quality
at the bitrate and bit error resilience that the AMBE codec does.

It is very easy to write "then lets develop that" and apparently much
harder to actually do so.

W.r.t. extensibility, it would sure be nice if codecs could be negotiated
and an alternative could be added, but it would not bring much to
D-STAR as there still would be different worlds of users that cannot
talk to eachother (those with the commercial Icom transceivers that
have AMBE and nothing else, and those with the homebrew transceivers
with open codec and no AMBE).

There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a
better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the
necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people
working on it that have that expertise.

Given enough time, it could be that something is developed that is
open and does not violate patents. But I think it will take a lot
of time and there is little chance that at the end of this development
there is still a userbase left that wants to buy and use products
based on it.

Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job
than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free
software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to
provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't
use it.

It's called a choice.

That is your choice. But that does not mean that others are wrong.

"Rob" wrote in message
...

use it.

It's called a choice.

That is your choice. But that does not mean that others are wrong

Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course,
correct it isn't accepted by bigots.

If half of those who are so "anti" DStar got on an developed an alternative
CODEC (and it is just the CODEC which is proprietary), this debate would
have ended long ago. As it is, by the time the alternate CODEC becomes
viable, I fully expect that such systems will be so "yesterday".

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?


Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.

Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?


Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.

Over here it is probably the mode with the most experimentation going
on in ham radio today...

Of couse not with the codec.
But in any communication system there are things that cannot be changed
or incompatability would result.
That does not mean there cannot be experiments elsewhere in the system,
or in the application of the system as a whole.

Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be
changed because that would break compatability between the many
implementations that existed after some time. It was very clear that
a couple of critical mistakes were made in the design, and there were
proposals on how to fix them, but they never took off as it simply
wasn't practical to change AX.25
It really made no difference if it was open or closed, it was unchangable
anyway.

Yet, amateurs used it as a black-box building block in many applications
and experimented a lot with it.

"Yeti" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't
people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?


Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.

If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition, would
you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful experimentation
or even the remotest prospect of developing those skills?

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

"Yeti" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't
people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?

Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.


Don't confuse Brian with logic, he has his faith in that choice must be good
no matter who provides it or what their motives are.

Steve Terry
--
"I would like to plead for my right to investigate natural phenomena
without having guns pointed at me.
I also ask for the right to be wrong without being hanged for it."
- Wilhelm Reich, November 1947

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course,
correct it isn't accepted by bigots.

I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort
that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed
technology.

I believe that we should encourage the use of open technology and allow
radio amateurs to own their future. A sure way to kill amateur radio is
to make it dependent on corporations who do not share our interests at
a fundamental level.

--

Brian Morrison