ARRL EComms Messaging System...WinLink?

[jeff at aerodata.net]

If The Winlink effort is non-profit as you say, then why the reluctance to
make the backbone servers open source? I mean, its still a choice to not
do, yet I don't grasp the reason you wouldn't do it if profit isn't
involved. Just to be mean spirited or a ego trip maybe? (and yes, I'll
defend your right to do this, yet don't expect a bunch of kudos from me
for it either.)

One of the beauties of open source, in particular a popular project like
WinLink, is that you get more input, more help, etc etc, and you don't
force people to re-invent the wheel. It really would be a win win, since
you claim profit is not involved here.

Since you said the WinLink spec protocol was open, can you please provide
a web link to this document. Thanks

BTW, one thing you don't seem to grasp and keep wanting to make this a "us
vs. them thing", is I don't have anything against the WinLink company nor
do I think you should pit them against Open Source. My beef is with the
ARRL, and no matter how hard they try to erase it, experimentation is
still part of the basis and purpose of amateur radio. Anything that the
ARRL endorses, should meet the spirit of amateur radio, as codifed in the
ITU and FCC regulations.

The cheapening of the value of experimentation in amateur radio, I fear,
will be our true death null.


> Hello Jeff and all,
>
> Couple of points on this and then I think I'll give it a rest. I'd rather
> work on these systems then bicker over them, but want to try to clean up
> some misconceptions:
>
>>Good for them. They still could have insisted on a open
>>standard. Let the Winlink/SCS guys clean up on the client
>>side, their is alot more money there, no doubt windows rulez
>>there. It would have been lucrative for the Winlink/SCS guys
>>in any case, the ARRL just doesn't know how to negotiate. They
>>should have held out for opening the spec up. And I bet the
>>Winlink folks would have folded or at least come to a better
>>compromise. But we are where we are. But don't try and paint
>>this as some competition, its not. It is a ARRL sponsored monopoly.
>
> Winlink is entirely non-profit. The WDT are all volunteers just like you
> and
> me. They are not cleaning up. In fact, they have poured huge amounts of
> time
> and money into these systems and their stations.
>
> The WDT are not married to SCS and have no arrangement with them to
> promote
> or use Pactor exclusively on HF. SCS offers the best available option for
> HF
> messaging so they use it. The WDT does not like having so few options any
> more than you or I do, so they are also working on SCAMP and interested in
> anything else that will perform as well.
>
> The Winlink "spec" as you call it is open. The source code is not. Anyone
> wanting to develop a system like Winlink will get documentation and
> support
> as to the spec.
>
>>I'm a member of the ARRL. I want them to support open source
>>and open standards. By endorsing a proprietary standard, they
>>are not doing this. Something about chickens and eggs I believe.
>
> I'm a member too, and I think they handled this well. I wish they had more
> options to look at, although Winlink was a great one to have. The WDT did
> not need the ARRL's endorsement. They have done just fine without them.
> The
> ARRL was looking for a solution that Winlink could provide.
>
> I think the ARRL does support open source or any other effort that
> produces
> results. They just don't insist on open source. If supporting open source
> means only endorsing open source efforts then much more would need to
> change
> at the ARRL than their endorsement of Winlink.
>
>>Something about level playing fields come to mind.  But to be
>>clear, I wasn't being critical of Winlink. Their choice to be
>>closed source/protocol is something I would defend. Yet I
>>don't think the ARRL should create a standard based on this,
>>in particular for the critical backbones.
>
> I don't watch all this that closely, but I question that open source has
> even come to the playing field. You can't have a game if no one shows up
> to
> compete with you.... I don't think the ARRL created a standard at all. I
> think they adopted a working solution.
>
> If nothing else, the ARRL's endorsement of Winlink seems to have motivated
> the open source communality to come to the table, at least to complain.
> Maybe some of this can be channeled into something more tangible.
>
> 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linlink mailing list
> Linlink at wetnet.net
> http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
>