ARRL EComms Messaging System...WinLink?

[Jeff King]

Rick:

I don't have any problem with the WDT's position, like I said, it is their choice to keep it a closed backbone protocol/source, one doesn't need to agree with the reasons. It is private property.  I've never considered this a "Open Source vs. Winlink" issue as some keep trying to paint it. It simply isn't.

But for the very reason you state, the Winlink team not wanting anyone else to "compete' with them, is yet another reason I am so down on the ARRL for endorsing this. In a critical system, endorsed by the ARRL, what you want is exactly what the WinLink team fears.... a duplication of effort and redundant cross OS systems. It is just common sense in a mission critical application. And in case you doubt me, recall something called "code red" that brought (most) Windows based web servers to their knees. Yet Linux apache servers where not affected. Which is not to say Linux or other open source systems couldn't be affected, but the point is you want common protocol systems spread across different OS'es for the largest system redundancy.

As to my confusing Winlink with a company, sorry, but since the website was registered to a corporation and SailMail charges for access, I assumed such was the case. I figured this was yet another feather in the hat for ham radio, as SailMail sounds like a fantastic application for the small business owner who likes to live life on the sea and still stay in touch on a budget. It shows products can still be developed in ham radio and brought over to the private sector. This is why I got involved with the hobby and is the kind of thinking and innovation that shows ham radio has real value.

And lastly, I concur with you on Scamp. I saw the presentation at the DCC and it was interesting.

Regards,

Jeff



On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:25:25 -0600, Rick Williams wrote:
>The WDT does not want to share the code with anyone else as they
>want to have control over the system. I think it is fair to say they
>don't feel they need any help.
>
>If they gave out the code, it is very likely that others would
>duplicate WinLink with their own system and compete with WinLink.
>
>Your comment about them being a "company" is simply not factual.
>They are a small group who have exceptional programming skills and
>have succeeded in developing a program that no one else has been
>able to do. They have challenged others to do their own programming,
>if they think they can. So far, for whatever reason, no one else has
>been able to do it.
>
>It is no different than when others develop software for amateur
>radio and do not GPL the code. Some even charge money for their
>efforts. To my knowledge, no one has ever complained that such
>software should not be used on amateur radio.
>
>I might mention that on another reflector, Steve Waterman claimed
>that even Rick Muething's SCAMP protocol was going to be closed
>source. Right up until the DCC presentation. But Rick has
>unequivably stated that SCAMP will be GPL'd so we can rest easy on
>that. It is my view that SCAMP may turn out to be the real gem:)
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>