Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?


Personally, I think there is great value in maintaining the original "factory" code base, simply because this is a hacker's dream!

Delivering with your original core software takes nothing away from those that wish to adopt Ian's, or anyone else's mods (inclusing their own).

The only drawbacks I see are:

1) Ian (or others) would have to maintain their branches if you were to make any changes to the core that would "need" to be proliferated. This can be achieved by ensuring that any changes you make to the core are communicated (documented).

2) Those enthusiasts who wish to use alternate firmware, but are not comfortable with, or equipped to, modify the Raduino may be discouraged from becoming a BitX enthusiast.  Possible solutions are building a stronger community of support (which is essentially happening with this online community), or in the extreme some of us becoming a pass-through for Raduino uogrades.

Just some thoughts!

Tony, KB9A 

UBitx #1:  Cigar Box case, KD8CEC firmware
Bitx40 #1: Grey case kit from Amateur Radio Kits, PE1NWL firmware
UBitx #2: Maroon case kit from Amateur Radio Kits (still under construction)

On May 12, 2018 3:42 PM, "Tom Christian" <tmchristian@...> wrote:
I have been using Ian's firmware because of the added features, especially CAT.  But, if possible, I would like to have the choice to use your preference for general coverage when changing the bands rather than steps to and from ham bands.  As much as I like Ian's software as a whole, I miss that part from your firmware.  Thanks!

Join to automatically receive all group messages.