Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Roy:
Like Linux, a superior operating system when compared to windows--it would mainly be done by "the community"... all the hardware guys would have to do is make known the ports, address, etc... they are really un-needed from there--but, it would speed the takeoff of the "system" if they did provide a beginning point... and, one can always run a de-compressor (if they have compressed the executable), then a disassembler to asm, then a converter to "C" and, if you can program, you can now "tweak" the code anyway you would like... you will have a copy of it!!!! If the "hardware guys" didn't know how to provide a software interface, there are "linux hams" who would, most likely, if asked, "sponsor" such a effort on the Linux platform--hopefully--the interface to such a radio would bypass BOTH Mac and Windows, why these OS's are sufficient for home users, non-technical business and gov't--the technical mind deserves more, the power of linux (unix really) would serve them much better... However, the "system" we are speaking of would ONLY require a software interface if you inserted that card/module which allowed computer control, otherwise it would be using the analog card/module and associated faceplate... I think most here start right out trying to "limit" this "system" I have put forward--there would be no limits to it... if you can see a limit, that is only a bug which needs designed around... The homebrew community might be the best place to design, develop and introduce this from... as, if you allow too greedy a manufacturer control--it will just end up dying from his/her attempts to squeeze too much blood from the turnip!!! That is what has happened in the past... Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... |I don't think much of the discussion has looked very closely at what I | think is envisioned here -- a mainframe which would accept various | "cards" from numerous vendors. As I detailed in an earlier posting, it's | tough enough (and costly) to make a robust interface when a single | company has full control of the mainframe and plugins. But let's think a | little about the problems of making a mainframe which could accommodate | cards from various vendors -- cards which have different performance | characteristics. | | The first question is, who will define the interface? Who will dictate | modifications as they become necessary? | | Then let's consider a vendor who wants to make, say, an audio amplifier | card. It has digital signal processing with a dozen different modes. | Each mode has considerable adjustment range, for example the width of a | bandpass filter. The interface would have to have pins dedicated to | these functions, and the front panel would have to have switches and | controls for them. How about an oscillator? One might be digitally | tuned, another analog. There are bandspread and RIT to accommodate in | addition. What do we do about T/R switching and timing if it's to be | used in a transceiver? How about shielding specifications so it won't | interfere with other cards? | | The only possible way I can see something like this being even possible | is for a virtual "front panel" being done in software and appearing on a | PC screen; only in that way could each card be sure that the necessary | controls would be present. Some sort of serial bus with expandable | protocol would be used for all controls. | | Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the | software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to | keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection | software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to | the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when | key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available? | | It's common for people who've never had to design something which will | be reproducible by the thousands and operate without error, to say how | easy something will be. As one of those people who spent a career | designing just such equipment, I'd bet serious money that the cost of | development and maintenance of the interface would never pay itself back | in sales. Unless, of course, it's done by volunteers. My question is: | Why don't folks like "John Smith" get off their duffs and do it? | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Any GE Progress Line Units Still Around? | Boatanchors | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | General | |||
Why do hams always stand in the way of progress? | Scanner |