Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?


Rod Davis <km6sn@...>
 

Tim, and all,

Let me preface this with a statement of gratitude to Farhan for supplying such a
useful, functional, and affordable rig to all. It has enabled many to get into ham
radio who would otherwise not have an opportunity, and it has put the fun back into
ham radio for many others. I know Farhan and his crew have put an enormous amount
of work into the endeavor.

Furthermore, Farhan has generously provided useful firmware, with source code, based
on the GNU license. Again, I am grateful for that. He has indicated that he 'launched'
the software with no guarantee, and no obligation to maintain it. Please understand
my following comments are not a criticism of any of his efforts in any way.

I believe the question of adopting KD8CEC firmware as the 'base load' should
be addressed from the viewpoint of external functionality, rather than software
structure.

When I use the original firmware, I note the unreliable CW keying, erratic 'adaptive'
tuning, and lackĀ  of CAT interface. Again, not a criticism in any way.

The KD8CEC firmware resolves these issues. The exception to that is 'adaptive' tuning,
which is tuning is difficult or impossible to implement using the Arduino runtime library,
as it is not a real-time operating system. Ian, KD8CEC, addresses that issue in his later
releases by providing the ability to have four additional front-panel buttons with a minor
hardware mod of adding a few resistors. One of the buttons controls tuning rate without
the need to navigate menus.

It is likely that the vast majority of uBITX users are not eager to jump into coding changes,
with the associated nuances. I understand that, and in the 'voting' process about base
load firmware, I believe it is important to keep that in mind.

I suggest separating the 'which base load' issue from the 'software structure and portability'
issues. The user community is probably more affected by external functionality than software
compatibility. See Jack, W8TEE comments posted today, which I support in concept.

----break, to talk about software structure---

Tim, thank you for emphasizing John, VK2ETA 5/14 post, which I re-read. John put a lot of work
into that, and I like the direction he is headed in. I also suggest re-reading his 5/12 post.

---break, for wrapup---

I really appreciate the contributions to the uBITX community from all over the world.

Tim, as an aside note, please be aware my name is spelled "Rod", not "Ron". An easy
typo blip.

Best to All,

Rod KM6SN



Join BITX20@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.