I would like to tell you about my self.
I'm 32 years old. Born in Poland, citizen of Norway.
Working as a Senior Consultant on CRM/MiddleWare solutions.
I have a strong developer bacground and my education is within technical
chemistry and microbiology.
---
One thing that I have observed is the fact that we face a hierarchy in
our real lifes.
We have one counterpartner, and ourselfes.
In this context, the WL context, we have the developer and the members
of the forum.
The members may be observed as actors with an interest in WL.
The developer is also an actor with interests in WL.
The challenge occurs when one part of the actors tend to find GUI as the
important factor for solving a usecase.
We have to ask: WHat is the purpose of WL.
In my humble opinion, the purpose is to efficiently log QSOs within a
contest.
For this purpose, I do not need GUI, ... I need efficient functionality.
Hence, I do not care about useless colors or cool toolbars.
As long as WL does the logging, I'm satisfied ... because it solves my
request, the usecase which is to log a QSO.
And this is solved perfectly.
---
If anyone want more diamonds ... pls. use another logger with all that
cool monkey crap.
Try to distinguish inbetween what you need and what you would like to
spam your computer with.
---
I don't say that Alec is a fool and I'm the master.
I only know by many years of experience while working with business
processes ... that the answer is not colors and fancy GUI ... but a
simple function that resolve the usecase of importance.
---
with Regards
Filip Poverud
73 de LB1UE
-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
Sent: 27. november 2007 22:31
To: pcooper@guernsey.net; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future
Phil,
As I seem to have recovered after the CQ-WW I want You to know I have
replied to Your further message.
However, I cannot see it posted at all.
In my reply I have suggested implementation of the codes within
Writelog, which I find successfully used in 'Digital Master 780'
and are published at http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html
I have many more ideas which I would like to share. However, before I do
that I need to know whether there is anybody who may want to listen to
me at all.
By the way, during CQ-WW I could not use Writelog because it had taken
me too much time to configure it, so there was no time left to get a
feel of it, in this respect the deficiency is Writelog's obsolete 'help
file'.
Have You received that message,
please ?
Yours,
Alec
SP2EWQ/2
-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:17 AM
To: pcooper@guernsey.net; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future with PSK31
Phil,
Yes, You were/are absolutely clear.
I do hope my point was/is also as clear as Yours.
Writelog has become MY software. However, it does not meet my
expectations, and the opinions I have presented are not just mine.
It is good we agree: improvements are welcome to it.
73,
Alec
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Cooper [mailto:pcooper@guernsey.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:30 PM
To: Alec Otulak; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Writelog's Future with PSK31
Hi Alec,
You are missing the point here. WL does an EXCELLENT job on it's own,
and really does NOT need any additional "bells & whistles" to "improve"
it.
I was merely suggesting that there is nothing stopping you opening
another program to get a full spectrum of what is happening on the band.
Personally, I only had the second window open to see what else was
around.
The problem with that is - being a wide band decode - you can't always
see the weaker stations with this second window. Most times, all you
decode are those stations who insist on using way too much power for a
mode such as PSK31. (And PLEASE do not let us get into a discussion of
power levels and PSK again!) The advantage of WL is that it offers way
superior decoding, so you get to work stations you would not otherwise
hear.
My suggestion was to show that WL does NOT need to implement things
which are already available to you!
I am not going to suggest that WL cannot be improved, but it is up to
the individual to use whatever means they can to assist in ways which
are available readily.
An example of this may be that I sometimes open a second instance of
MMTTY, and choose a different "PROFILE" to see what differences are
decoded. I have sometimes opened MMVARI, just to see what difference
that makes.
Does that imply a deficiency in WL? No, it does not, and nor should WL
be considered inferior simply because it is my choice to open a second
MMTTY or MMVARI window.
I hope that makes my position clear?
73 for now,
Phil GU0SUP
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|