[TenTec] Technical Correspondence

Thu Jul 26 23:26:58 EDT 2007

Having been involved with an international electronics company, we produced 
high end video and audio equipment, we often found that 3rd party vendors 
would contract to develop operating systems in an effort to "enhance" or 
provide features which we, the company, deemed not considered profitable or 
they would provide unique interface modules for a small quantity of users. 
Time and time again after this code was made available and modified or 
completely re-structured by 3rd party contractors, the burden fell upon us, 
the company, to fix the problems.  Too many times have I heard "oh, I'm 
using such and such company software, but it is in your equipment and your 
need to fix it".

Frankly speaking, if you endeavor to re-write code or modify code then one 
should consider that the original was most likely done by a team of software 
writers, most likely beta tested extensively and now it is undertaken to be 
............well you fit in a word.

Now then, in this case, the radio is used on the air, in contests, and 
receives other public exposure which may in many cases be poor 
representation of the product.  What remains is the product name is still on 
the front and that is where the blame or fault will always sit.

Clearly I do not favor allowing any operating system software to be "open" 
for which the world will tinker.  As someone else said, there are those that 
think they know what they are doing and they are many.  And then those that 
know what they are doing and they are few.  The difference is that the small 
group knows about the large group but they large group doesn't have a clue 
about the small group for they figure they are in the small group.

73
Bob, K4TAX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <wo8l at aol.com>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Technical Correspondence

>
> Hi Again,
>
>
>
> In the end, the issue is this.
>
>
>
> Should people have the freedom to modify all code in a good fasion or bad 
> fashion at random?? Who decides what's good or what's bad.??Can 
> the?modified programs be applied universally?? How do the economics shake 
> out?
>
>
>
> I think those who embrace open code without limit are idealistically right 
> in talking about "freedom."?
>
>
>
> But if it doesn't work or creates enormous problems, we all suffer in the 
> end and have no "freedom."? We're enslaved to chaos.
>
>
>
> My challenge to open code people is this.
>
>
>
> Send your salesman to me.? Show me that the work force, current and 
> future, knows how to use this product.? Show me that it interfaces with 
> Microsoft, Lawson, SAP, current and legacy systems of all ilk on 
> mainframes, networks, PCs, everywhere seamlessly.
>
> If not, then it's a just an experiment in your basement.? Call me when you 
> get it done.? Some day somebody will.?
>
> In the meantime, it's all theoretical and fraught with flaws.
>
> --Rick
> ?? WO8L?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Calvin <ac5aa1 at gmail.com>
> To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment' <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 6:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Technical Correspondence
>
>
>
>
> But aren't comparisons of "open source" code using Linux as a reference a
> bit flawed?  Who will be the agency who approves the code module changes 
> to
> an Orion (for example) if this were to be the path taken?  Who would test
> each of the possibilities all in combination with the others?  Even the
> various Linux distro's can't keep the kernels in sync, and, while I'm not
> familiar with the specific implementation, they have an approval body for
> what does and doesn't make it into the various releases.  Companies who
> specify Linux have to be careful about which releases are picked up, how
> much testing they have before using them, and how to release on a 
> realistic
> schedule for users.  This is not trivial work, and to assume open source
> would work without significant effort from Ten-Tec would be inaccurate.
> (I'm not responding to Clark here, just making a general observation based
> on my work with proprietary Unix, AIX, and various Linux distro's.)
>
>    73, Duane
>
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> Austin, Texas
> www.ac5aa.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Clark Savage Turner
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Technical Correspondence
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:01 AM, wo8l at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> The idea of opening up software to any and all comers is a little
>> scary.?
>
> Sure, it may scare some people, it involves the writer/owner allowing
> the customer/user to have some control in the features, understanding
> and repair of the software (rather like most all other consumer goods
> we buy, we can look at them, dissassemble them if we like, fix them?)
> Closed source, however, involves full control retained by the
> writers/manufacturers.   As a user, you depend fully on them for all
> features, fixes and updates.  Not always a bad thing, not always a good
> thing.
>
> Note that (at least a few years back) - surveys indicated that business
> network downtime insurance was LESS when a company used Linux (open
> source!) and cost more when using Microsoft servers and software.
> Linux, open source, provided the more reliable solution!   Microsoft
> has been working hard to catch up to that sort of reliability   A very
> interesting situation.
>
>> First, in today's digital communications world, if?a company doesn't
>> own and control the software, then what do you own?? A box with a
>> bunch of electronic parts in it, I'd say.
>
> This, actually, has nothing to do with closed source by itself.  You
> can certainly open the source and keep copyright and patent rights
> intact.  In fact, patents are open source by law!  You HAVE TO publish
> your innovation in order to receive a patent.  Of course, copyright is
> easily circumvented by other writers if the source is out there, but
> many of us respect the rights of others, we just want to know how to
> understand it or fix it if the writers are too busy or too lazy to fix
> it!  (OR if they want to make me buy a whole new piece of software to
> "fix" the bugs left in the last version!)
>>
>> Second, if you have open software, warranty and repair issues get very
>> sticky.? You'd almost need a policy that when somebody modifies the
>> software on their own, the warranty is void.? In terms of out of
>> warranty
>
> "Almost" need this?  All warranties I've ever seen include this.  It is
> completely standard and is fair, of course.  Why would it be otherwise?
>
>> repairs, there would be cases when it would be too much trouble to
>> return the product to optimum condition.
>>
>> Third, and most important, people overestimate their knowledge and
>> ability with software and that leads to trouble very quickly.? I work
>> as a contractor in computer type jobs.? The world is full of people
>> who think they know what they're doing when they really don't,
>> including me.? I commonly ask the question "why in the world did you
>> do THAT?"
>
> Well, that certainly is a good point.  You point to the main feature of
> closed source - the user is NOT responsible and has NO control or power
> when the software is broken or a feature does not work, the owner of
> the software is the only one who can touch it (or refuse to touch it).
> That's OK for those who want things that way, but for those who like to
> be responsible and learn about things, fix things, look at how they
> work  (like most hams I know???), open source makes a lot more sense.
>>
>> Open software is nice in theory but it can lead to real problems.
>
> Oh, heck, its nice in reality for much longer than most closed source
> companies have existed.  It leads to different benefits and risks than
> closed source, but it focuses on the user's interest in the software
> rather than the writer's control of the software.  That is a different
> set of problems :-)
>
> Clark
> WA3JPG
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 