Menu
▾
▴
wsjt-devel
|
From: Al P. <k6...@al...> - 2019-03-30 20:53:57
|
I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart before the horse" to me. Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off. Al Pawlowski, K6AVP Los Osos, CA USA > On Mar 30, 2019, at 11:49, wsj...@li... wrote: > > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod > |
|
From: Jim S. <jsh...@in...> - 2019-03-30 23:08:48
|
And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW? 73 -Jim NU0C On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700 Al Pawlowski <k6...@al...> wrote: > I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart before the horse" to me. > > Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off. > > > Al Pawlowski, K6AVP > Los Osos, CA USA |
|
From: Georg <gi...@av...> - 2019-03-31 09:20:45
|
Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney <jsh...@in...>: > > > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW? > > 73 > > -Jim > NU0C > > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700 > Al Pawlowski <k6...@al...> wrote: > >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart before the horse" to me. >> >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off. >> >> >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP >> Los Osos, CA USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Thomas K. <n4f...@gm...> - 2019-03-31 11:53:52
|
I would like to remind everyone that our beloved hobby is NOT the Internet. Whether a fully automated station is permitted or not permitted under the respective country's regulation, removing the operator from control of a transmission (auto-CQ, etc.) degrades the hobby. Ask yourself this: Why bother doing the hobby if you are willing to relinquish control to some program? Do you want a DXCC award so badly that you are willing to rationalise the thought of using auto-CQ? 73 de N4FWD On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:25 AM Georg <gi...@av...> wrote: > Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. > > > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney <jsh...@in...>: > > > > > > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW? > > > > 73 > > > > -Jim > > NU0C > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700 > > Al Pawlowski <k6...@al...> wrote: > > > >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before > it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the > cart before the horse" to me. > >> > >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me > a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be > interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far > off. > >> > >> > >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP > >> Los Osos, CA USA > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wsjt-devel mailing list > > wsj...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > |
|
From: Dave A. <aa...@am...> - 2019-03-31 18:43:54
|
+ AA6YQ comments below Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. + The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't yet worked. |
|
From: w2ctx <w2...@co...> - 2019-03-31 18:49:14
|
How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting?Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message --------From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@am...> Date: 3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'WSJT software development' <wsj...@li...> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents + AA6YQ comments belowWhy not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. + The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't yet worked._______________________________________________wsjt-devel mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Dan M. <k4...@ou...> - 2019-03-31 19:25:10
|
Regulations aside, why did we become hams? If all you want is to collect QSO’s without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and equipment? Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other protocol. Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing as too much. Just my $0.02. __________ Dan – K4SHQ From: w2ctx [mailto:w2...@co...] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:49 PM To: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@am...<mailto:aa...@am...>> Date: 3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'WSJT software development' <wsj...@li...<mailto:wsj...@li...>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents + AA6YQ comments below Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. + The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't yet worked. _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsj...@li...<mailto:wsj...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Dan M. <k4...@ou...> - 2019-03-31 19:34:18
|
Correction: If all you is to collect QSO’s without actually being involved, makes no sense to me. Seems like buying a good book just to look at, without reading it. __________ Dan – K4SHQ From: Dan Malcolm [mailto:k4...@ou...] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 2:25 PM To: 'WSJT software development' <wsj...@li...> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents Regulations aside, why did we become hams? If all you want is to collect QSO’s without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and equipment? Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other protocol. Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing as too much. Just my $0.02. __________ Dan – K4SHQ From: w2ctx [mailto:w2...@co...] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:49 PM To: WSJT software development <wsj...@li...<mailto:wsj...@li...>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@am...<mailto:aa...@am...>> Date: 3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'WSJT software development' <wsj...@li...<mailto:wsj...@li...>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents + AA6YQ comments below Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. + The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't yet worked. _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsj...@li...<mailto:wsj...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Dave A. <aa...@am...> - 2019-03-31 20:02:14
|
+ AA6YQ comments below Regulations aside, why did we become hams? If all you want is to collect QSO’s without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and equipment? Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other protocol. Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing as too much. + I don't care whether other hams are curious experimenters or appliance operators. Amateur radio encompasses a broad range of activities; no one op is likely to pursue all of them. Who am I to say what others should do? + However, we all share the RF spectrum we've been granted, and we are expected to courteously share that spectrum with our fellow operators worldwide. That means listening to a frequency before transmitting on it. That means politely QSYing when a change in propagation causes two previously independent QSOs to QRM each other. + There is currently only one FT8 "watering hole" defined on each band (ignoring the frequencies used for Fox/Hound operations). Yes, you can operate FT8 outside a "watering hole", but doing so makes you invisible to the majority of FT8 ops who are operating within a watering hole. So the public release of an application that makes it easy for any user to setup his or her station for unattended 7x24 FT8 operation with the goal of working every station not yet worked should be chilling. The FT8 watering holes are already quite busy; imagine what will happen when the unattended stations of several thousand users around the world jump in. + SQ9FVE created this application by modifying the WSJT-X source code. He claims in <https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/wsjt-x-full-auto-mod.652050/> + that WSJT-X can also support unattended operation, but there is a huge difference between allowing WSJT-X to handle the next response to your CQ while you refresh your coffee, and allowing an application to call CQ and make QSOs 7x24 while you are at work or sleeping or out for a bike ride. + I was unable to convince SQ9VFE that a public release of his application is irresponsible. My advice to DXers is to work what you need soon, because the FT8 watering holes may be overrun by unattended stations. + As for the wisdom of making WSJT-X open source, I will point out that the fully documented PSKCore library developed by Moe AE4JY has been available for nearly 20 years, and could be used to create an application that does in PSK31 what SQ9VFE's application does in FT8: enable unattended operation. No developer ever took that step, presumably because they understood the damage it could do. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
From: Bill F. <ae...@ar...> - 2019-04-02 00:53:27
|
On 3/31/19 at 1:02 PM, aa...@am... (Dave AA6YQ) wrote: >+ that WSJT-X can also support unattended operation, but there >is a huge difference between allowing WSJT-X to handle the next >response to your CQ while you refresh your coffee, and allowing >an application to call CQ and make QSOs 7x24 while you are at >work or sleeping or out for a bike ride. The regulations say, "the control operator must be at the control point." It is generally agreed that the control point is where illegal operation can be stopped. There is nothing in the regs about automatic transmission and may contest operators use automatic CQing. So, running for coffee is probably close enough to the control point, particularly if you do it during the receive phase. The others take you away for long enough that you can't maintain effective control. One kind of automatic operation that would probably be applauded by many hams is the ability to send an emergency message, automatically repeating the attempt until the message is received. The FT8 protocol algorithms, with their weak signal performance and automatic error checking and correction are attractive for such a system. I see the transmitting station compressing the message and sending it in binary chunks using a small number of consecutive 15 second phases as a transmission window. When the transmission window is finished, he receiving station requests retransmission of missing/erroneous chunks. When the complete message has been received, the receiving station reassembles the message and reverses the compression. Setting up the transmission involves short messages between the sending receiving stations verifying they are can communicate and setting up any parameters needed. These startup messages might be sent occasionally over periods of hours. It is probably not possible to control how people use wsjt-x and its protocols by technical means. It can be automated using available computer automation software. It can be downloaded and modified by anyone. The ways of controlling its use are the same for all the other modes, social pressure. We have seen bad key clicks controlled by social pressure, and disqualification in some contests. The same applies to SSB splatter and PSK31 over driven audio. The same mechanism applies to how the available bandwidth is used. We have an informal agreement that contests will avoid the WARC bands, which seems to be a good compromise between the many hams who contest, and those who want to be able to operate away from wall-to-wall signals. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | When all else fails: Voice | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | and CW. | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | | Los Gatos, CA 95032 |
|
From: Jim S. <jsh...@in...> - 2019-03-31 14:57:16
|
That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment. On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:01:54 +0200 Georg <gi...@av...> wrote: > Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. > > > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney <jsh...@in...>: > > > > > > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW? > > > > 73 > > > > -Jim > > NU0C > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700 > > Al Pawlowski <k6...@al...> wrote: > > > >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart before the horse" to me. > >> > >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off. > >> > >> > >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP > >> Los Osos, CA USA |
|
From: Carey F. <car...@gm...> - 2019-03-31 16:12:26
|
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as Open Source. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jim Shorney <jsh...@in...> wrote: > > That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment. > > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:01:54 +0200 > Georg <gi...@av...> wrote: > > > Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. > > > > > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney <jsh...@in...>: > > > > > > > > > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW? > > > > > > 73 > > > > > > -Jim > > > NU0C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700 > > > Al Pawlowski <k6...@al...> wrote: > > > > > >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged > before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be > "putting the cart before the horse" to me. > > >> > > >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get > me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be > interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far > off. > > >> > > >> > > >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP > > >> Los Osos, CA USA > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > -- Carey Fisher car...@gm... |
|
From: Bill S. <g4...@cl...> - 2019-03-31 16:53:12
|
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: > All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that > maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such > as this as Open Source. Carey, that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list. Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already is only in response to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always maintained. What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that effort. On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station. 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
From: Carey F. <car...@gm...> - 2019-03-31 20:12:38
|
Hi Bill, Thank you for the detailed discussion of the considerations that the dev group has taken. And you're right: if I had thought a little bit more about the licensing, I would have realized that you have used components (qt etc?) that are under GPL or LGPL (or others) that require works using them to also be issued as open source with the same license terms. My error and I apologize. I'm just unhappy to see the excellent work the dev team has done become corrupted with unfortunate mods. I want to thank you and the dev team for the excellent product. I really enjoy ham radio more than I have in many years since y'all produced FT8! 73, Carey, WB4HXE On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:56 PM Bill Somerville <g4...@cl...> wrote: > On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: > > All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe > developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as > Open Source. > > Carey, > > that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the > complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by > third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free > equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own > would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These > components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable > cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable > development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source > applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list. > > Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one > does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being > offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. > Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO > robot and the automation that has been provided already is only in response > to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were > deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes > completing and the next transmission period requires super-human > concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic > user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some operator > action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal > DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is > logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further > action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other > operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and > running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the > requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always > maintained. > > What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot > of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on > tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. > These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core > development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that > effort. > > On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their > questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio > operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to > find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For > those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step further > and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to mock up > the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no one else > is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot of cost and > time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > -- Carey Fisher car...@gm... |
|
From: Bobby C. <bo...@be...> - 2019-03-31 18:21:59
|
Bravo Bill! I agree 100%. Bobby/N4AU From: Bill Somerville Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM To: wsj...@li... Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as Open Source. Carey, that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list. Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already is only in response to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always maintained. What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that effort. On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station. 73 Bill G4WJS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsj...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: James S. <kd...@gm...> - 2019-03-31 19:52:28
|
Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill. Jim S. N2ADV > On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler <bo...@be...> wrote: > > Bravo Bill! I agree 100%. > > Bobby/N4AU > > From: Bill Somerville > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM > To: wsj...@li... > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents > >> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: >> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as Open Source. > Carey, > > that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list. > > Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already is only in response to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always maintained. > > What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that effort. > > On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Jim B. <k9...@au...> - 2019-03-31 21:55:00
|
On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote: > most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to > be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be > very annoying. That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly would automate my FT8 operation in this manner, but about a year ago I made a QSO with a robot KX3 floating from KH6 to the west coast of NA on a scientific raft studying oceanography of some sort. That QSO went into my log, because my operation was not robotic! And it filled in a very rare CQ Field for that award. Likewise, if I'm trying to add EU countries on 160M, I really don't care what is creating and controlling the signal on the other end of the QSO. My accomplishment is building RX and TX antennas that will get my signal from near San Francisco 6,000 miles over the auroral oval to EU, and dig that station's signal out of the noise. When I count that for DXCC, I did my part of the work. OTOH, I do view auto-CQ in any form, attended or not, as cluttering up the spectrum. I almost never call CQ using FT8 on any band but 6M, and even there do so sparingly. And I'm talking about the auto-repeat CQ built into WSJT-X. 73, Jim K9YC |
|
From: <rj...@gm...> - 2019-03-31 22:15:41
|
Sorry guys - pandora's box has already been opened. I do not support automatic, unattended robot QSOs (which are illegal in USA and some other countries) but to ignore it as not happening is denying reality. Stathis has demonstrated this some months ago and I am certain that many are using his technique (macros) without modifying WSJT-X source. What we can hope is that people exercise their good judgment and not abuse it. Or just realize that some people will always "cheat" and live by your own moral compass. Ria N2RJ On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 17:58, Jim Brown <k9...@au...> wrote: > > On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote: > > most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to > > be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be > > very annoying. > > That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly > would automate my FT8 operation in this manner, but about a year ago I > made a QSO with a robot KX3 floating from KH6 to the west coast of NA on > a scientific raft studying oceanography of some sort. That QSO went into > my log, because my operation was not robotic! And it filled in a very > rare CQ Field for that award. > > Likewise, if I'm trying to add EU countries on 160M, I really don't care > what is creating and controlling the signal on the other end of the QSO. > My accomplishment is building RX and TX antennas that will get my signal > from near San Francisco 6,000 miles over the auroral oval to EU, and dig > that station's signal out of the noise. When I count that for DXCC, I > did my part of the work. > > OTOH, I do view auto-CQ in any form, attended or not, as cluttering up > the spectrum. I almost never call CQ using FT8 on any band but 6M, and > even there do so sparingly. And I'm talking about the auto-repeat CQ > built into WSJT-X. > > 73, Jim K9YC > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2...@ar... |
|
From: Joe <ns...@mw...> - 2019-03-31 22:38:33
|
Thing that is funny about this rage? People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a robot QSO Maker. Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all. Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later, you have a QSO Robot. Funny, never heard any rage back then. Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 3/31/2019 2:52 PM, James Shaver wrote: > Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill. > > Jim S. > N2ADV > > On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler <bo...@be... > <mailto:bo...@be...>> wrote: > >> Bravo Bill! I agree 100%. >> Bobby/N4AU >> *From:* Bill Somerville >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM >> *To:* wsj...@li... >> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents >> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: >>> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that >>> maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such >>> as this as Open Source. >> >> Carey, >> >> that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and >> the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided >> by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no >> other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and >> writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing >> maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to >> providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest >> quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why >> many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors >> are high on the list. >> >> Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, >> one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other >> is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts >> removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being >> used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already >> is only in response to large scale user demand. For example >> auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because >> the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next >> transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction >> times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule >> that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling >> CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts >> the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is logged, >> WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further >> action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other >> operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating >> and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs >> but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is >> always maintained. >> >> What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends >> a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and >> add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem >> sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts >> from core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to >> give up that effort. >> >> On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their >> questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio >> operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile >> and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very >> annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest >> they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use >> their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print them >> directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can >> save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and >> maintaining an Amateur Radio station. >> >> 73 >> Bill >> G4WJS. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> wsj...@li... >> <mailto:wsj...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> wsj...@li... >> <mailto:wsj...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Jim S. <jsh...@in...> - 2019-03-31 23:03:04
|
A while back a Cuban surfaced on one of the Facebook groups describing a system he was coding that sounded very much like a QSO robot. After some blow back from other group members he backpedaled and claimed that was not at all what he was doing. Still, I wonder. The guy seems to be on the air making FT8 contacts just about every time I turn it on.... 73 -Jim NU0C On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:38:17 -0500 Joe <ns...@mw...> wrote: > Thing that is funny about this rage? > > People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a robot > QSO Maker. > > Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first > released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very > simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all. > > Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later, > you have a QSO Robot. > > Funny, never heard any rage back then. > > Joe WB9SBD |
|
From: Neil Z. <ne...@te...> - 2019-04-01 00:52:11
|
There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far between, and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign was passed around as a 'bot' and ignored by many. However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this and, according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your callsign, then sell you the compiled program. Different scenario !! Neil, KN3ILZ On 3/31/2019 6:38 PM, Joe wrote: > Thing that is funny about this rage? > > People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a > robot QSO Maker. > > Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first > released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very > simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all. > > Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later, > you have a QSO Robot. > > Funny, never heard any rage back then. > > Joe WB9SBD > Sig > The Original Rolling Ball Clock > Idle Tyme > Idle-Tyme.com > http://www.idle-tyme.com > On 3/31/2019 2:52 PM, James Shaver wrote: >> Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill. >> >> Jim S. >> N2ADV >> >> On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler <bo...@be... >> <mailto:bo...@be...>> wrote: >> >>> Bravo Bill! I agree 100%. >>> Bobby/N4AU >>> *From:* Bill Somerville >>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM >>> *To:* wsj...@li... >>> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents >>> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote: >>>> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that >>>> maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software >>>> such as this as Open Source. >>> >>> Carey, >>> >>> that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and >>> the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided >>> by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no >>> other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and >>> writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing >>> maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to >>> providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest >>> quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons >>> why many closed source applications are Windows only and these >>> factors are high on the list. >>> >>> Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, >>> one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other >>> is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic >>> parts removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X >>> being used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided >>> already is only in response to large scale user demand. For example >>> auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because >>> the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next >>> transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction >>> times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule >>> that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. >>> calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX >>> contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is >>> logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take >>> further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There >>> are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest >>> operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to >>> logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate >>> each QSO is always maintained. >>> >>> What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends >>> a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions >>> and add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we >>> deem sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This >>> detracts from core development and maintenance and we would rather >>> not have to give up that effort. >>> >>> On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their >>> questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio >>> operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile >>> and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very >>> annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest >>> they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use >>> their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print >>> them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they >>> can save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, >>> operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station. >>> >>> 73 >>> Bill >>> G4WJS. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wsjt-devel mailing list >>> wsj...@li... >>> <mailto:wsj...@li...> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wsjt-devel mailing list >>> wsj...@li... >>> <mailto:wsj...@li...> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wsjt-devel mailing list >> wsj...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
From: Wolfgang <oe...@gm...> - 2019-04-01 07:40:39
|
<html><head><title>Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - and Neil's 2 cents</title> </head> <body> <span style=" font-family:'Courier New'; font-size: 9pt;">Hello Neil, <br> <br> you mix up your personal view of the scenario! <br> <br> - long time ago there was a Ham in Greece, made some robot add-ons with <br> a keyboard macro language and after revealing his activities he was blocked <br> by the WSJT-X team in the source code ;-) The case can be found in the <br> [wsjt-devel] email archive. <br> <br> - the one on ebay is (was) written in a macro language (most probably <br> 'AutoHotkey') and compiled into binaries. This guy inserts the buyers call <br> sign into the macro-code to prevent sharing the software, but the seller stayed <br> anonymous. This was an add-on, or external software, simulates key strokes <br> etc. without any change in the source code or binaries of WSJT-X at all. <br> Apparently the person wanted to make money with his external add-on software. <br> Questionable software, but not illegal in some contries. Offer has been removed <br> in ebay listings. Bad luck, business model lasted short ;-) <br> <br> - SQ9FVE modified the source code and added some interresting functions plus <br> the optional robot function and a change of the GUI in WSJT-X. He published <br> the binaries in the QRZ.COM forum for free. This was clearly a breach of GPL, <br> because he did not publish the source code and mentioned originators of the <br> source etc. etc. Download link has been removed. <br> <br> Looks like 'a storm in a glass of water' right now... <br> <br> There is a huge number of WSJT-X users with a very wide spectrum of personalities <br> around the globe. Right now, this local monday morning in Europe, pskreporter.info <br> lists the impressive number of 519.066 FT8 counts over the last two hours :-) <br> <br> So, some have fear of clones, some want to run their robots. But those are only <br> a few of them. Sooner or later all this will be history. <br> <br> 73's de OE1MWW <br> Wolfgang <br> <br> Monday, April 1, 2019, 2:51:59 AM, you wrote: <br> <br> <br> There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far between, and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign was passed around as a 'bot' and ignored by many. <br> <br> However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this and, according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your callsign, then sell you the compiled program. <br> <br> Different scenario !! <br> <br> Neil, KN3ILZ <br> <br> <div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;"> <tr> <td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td> <td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td> </tr> </table> <a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body></html> |
|
From: Neil Z. <ne...@te...> - 2019-04-01 12:58:27
|
Hi Wolfgang, glad to hear your view from across the pond, however, in the US any sort of 'autobot' is illegal as these are not operating as beacons, but as stations with 2 way communications. You have to have a human behind the rig/monitor to control the station here. I may have conflated the eBay posting with the QRZ posting, but with them popping up (so to speak) within days of one another it seemed to be a bit more than just a coincidence, although it turns out it was. 73s, Neil, KN3ILZ On 4/1/2019 3:40 AM, Wolfgang wrote: > Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - and Neil's 2 cents > Hello Neil, > > you mix up your personal view of the scenario! > > - long time ago there was a Ham in Greece, made some robot add-ons with > a keyboard macro language and after revealing his activities he was > blocked > by the WSJT-X team in the source code ;-) The case can be found in the > [wsjt-devel] email archive. > > - the one on ebay is (was) written in a macro language (most probably > 'AutoHotkey') and compiled into binaries. This guy inserts the buyers > call > sign into the macro-code to prevent sharing the software, but the > seller stayed > anonymous. This was an add-on, or external software, simulates key > strokes > etc. without any change in the source code or binaries of WSJT-X at all. > Apparently the person wanted to make money with his external add-on > software. > Questionable software, but not illegal in some contries. Offer has > been removed > in ebay listings. Bad luck, business model lasted short ;-) > > - SQ9FVE modified the source code and added some interresting > functions plus > the optional robot function and a change of the GUI in WSJT-X. He > published > the binaries in the QRZ.COM forum for free. This was clearly a breach > of GPL, > because he did not publish the source code and mentioned originators > of the > source etc. etc. Download link has been removed. > > Looks like 'a storm in a glass of water' right now... > > There is a huge number of WSJT-X users with a very wide spectrum of > personalities > around the globe. Right now, this local monday morning in Europe, > pskreporter.info > lists the impressive number of 519.066 FT8 counts over the last two > hours :-) > > So, some have fear of clones, some want to run their robots. But those > are only > a few of them. Sooner or later all this will be history. > > 73's de OE1MWW > Wolfgang > > Monday, April 1, 2019, 2:51:59 AM, you wrote: > > > There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far > between, and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign > was passed around as a 'bot' and ignored by many. > > However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this > and, according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your > callsign, then sell you the compiled program. > > Different scenario !! > > Neil, KN3ILZ > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virenfrei. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
From: Joe <ns...@mw...> - 2019-04-01 14:10:26
|
I'm curious as to how someone knows someone is running a BOT or not? I mean if the system is running perfectly, and or the operator is also on top of things. How can someone on the other end tell the difference? Just curious... Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 4/1/2019 7:58 AM, Neil Zampella wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > glad to hear your view from across the pond, however, in the US any > sort of 'autobot' is illegal as these are not operating as beacons, > but as stations with 2 way communications. You have to have a human > behind the rig/monitor to control the station here. > > I may have conflated the eBay posting with the QRZ posting, but with > them popping up (so to speak) within days of one another it seemed to > be a bit more than just a coincidence, although it turns out it was. > > 73s, > > Neil, KN3ILZ > > On 4/1/2019 3:40 AM, Wolfgang wrote: >> Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - and Neil's 2 cents >> Hello Neil, >> >> you mix up your personal view of the scenario! >> >> - long time ago there was a Ham in Greece, made some robot add-ons with >> a keyboard macro language and after revealing his activities he was >> blocked >> by the WSJT-X team in the source code ;-) The case can be found in the >> [wsjt-devel] email archive. >> >> - the one on ebay is (was) written in a macro language (most probably >> 'AutoHotkey') and compiled into binaries. This guy inserts the buyers >> call >> sign into the macro-code to prevent sharing the software, but the >> seller stayed >> anonymous. This was an add-on, or external software, simulates key >> strokes >> etc. without any change in the source code or binaries of WSJT-X at all. >> Apparently the person wanted to make money with his external add-on >> software. >> Questionable software, but not illegal in some contries. Offer has >> been removed >> in ebay listings. Bad luck, business model lasted short ;-) >> >> - SQ9FVE modified the source code and added some interresting >> functions plus >> the optional robot function and a change of the GUI in WSJT-X. He >> published >> the binaries in the QRZ.COM forum for free. This was clearly a breach >> of GPL, >> because he did not publish the source code and mentioned originators >> of the >> source etc. etc. Download link has been removed. >> >> Looks like 'a storm in a glass of water' right now... >> >> There is a huge number of WSJT-X users with a very wide spectrum of >> personalities >> around the globe. Right now, this local monday morning in Europe, >> pskreporter.info >> lists the impressive number of 519.066 FT8 counts over the last two >> hours :-) >> >> So, some have fear of clones, some want to run their robots. But >> those are only >> a few of them. Sooner or later all this will be history. >> >> 73's de OE1MWW >> Wolfgang >> >> Monday, April 1, 2019, 2:51:59 AM, you wrote: >> >> >> There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far >> between, and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign >> was passed around as a 'bot' and ignored by many. >> >> However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this >> and, according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your >> callsign, then sell you the compiled program. >> >> Different scenario !! >> >> Neil, KN3ILZ >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> Virenfrei. www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
|
From: Georg <gi...@av...> - 2019-04-01 14:04:06
|
Well, my WSJTx receives 24/7 and fully automatically sends all received stations to PSK-reporter... I know there is a difference... but I don‘t understand all the fuss. Bots are easily recognizable. So just ignore them or use them to your advantage. 73‘s Georg NZ1C/DJ6GI > Am 01.04.2019 um 08:58 schrieb Neil Zampella <ne...@te...>: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > glad to hear your view from across the pond, however, in the US any sort of 'autobot' is illegal as these are not operating as beacons, but as stations with 2 way communications. You have to have a human behind the rig/monitor to control the station here. > > I may have conflated the eBay posting with the QRZ posting, but with them popping up (so to speak) within days of one another it seemed to be a bit more than just a coincidence, although it turns out it was. > > 73s, > > Neil, KN3ILZ > >> On 4/1/2019 3:40 AM, Wolfgang wrote: >> Hello Neil, >> >> you mix up your personal view of the scenario! >> >> - long time ago there was a Ham in Greece, made some robot add-ons with >> a keyboard macro language and after revealing his activities he was blocked >> by the WSJT-X team in the source code ;-) The case can be found in the >> [wsjt-devel] email archive. >> >> - the one on ebay is (was) written in a macro language (most probably >> 'AutoHotkey') and compiled into binaries. This guy inserts the buyers call >> sign into the macro-code to prevent sharing the software, but the seller stayed >> anonymous. This was an add-on, or external software, simulates key strokes >> etc. without any change in the source code or binaries of WSJT-X at all. >> Apparently the person wanted to make money with his external add-on software. >> Questionable software, but not illegal in some contries. Offer has been removed >> in ebay listings. Bad luck, business model lasted short ;-) >> >> - SQ9FVE modified the source code and added some interresting functions plus >> the optional robot function and a change of the GUI in WSJT-X. He published >> the binaries in the QRZ.COM forum for free. This was clearly a breach of GPL, >> because he did not publish the source code and mentioned originators of the >> source etc. etc. Download link has been removed. >> >> Looks like 'a storm in a glass of water' right now... >> >> There is a huge number of WSJT-X users with a very wide spectrum of personalities >> around the globe. Right now, this local monday morning in Europe, pskreporter.info >> lists the impressive number of 519.066 FT8 counts over the last two hours :-) >> >> So, some have fear of clones, some want to run their robots. But those are only >> a few of them. Sooner or later all this will be history. >> >> 73's de OE1MWW >> Wolfgang >> >> Monday, April 1, 2019, 2:51:59 AM, you wrote: >> >> >> There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far between, and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign was passed around as a 'bot' and ignored by many. >> >> However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this and, according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your callsign, then sell you the compiled program. >> >> Different scenario !! >> >> Neil, KN3ILZ >> >> >> Virenfrei. www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsj...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X