Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?


where is this new code..I can download it and reverse engineer it to create some useful documentation for the beginner..You'll go crazy trying to learn from the source code.
Brian K9WIS

---- Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:

This is only loosely related to the question regarding what should be the
uBITX Arduino software system, but it might be interesting to some.


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Vince Vielhaber <vev@...> wrote:

You, like Tim, are looking at it from an experimenter's point of view as
an experimenter's platform. Not everyone who purchases one is an
experimenter or plan to use it as an experimenter's platform. The idea of
standardizing on the CEC firmware will (IMO) appeal to the greatest number
of hams. That's the goal, attract as much interest as possible.

As atouk said earlier, "uBITX should be targeted at new hams, not new
coders. New hams already have enough to be confused about." I don't know
if you've been paying attention to the general population of hams these
days, a great number of them aren't the slightest bit technical and having
a radio that they can plug their computer in to for $109 plus a bit of
connecting wires would be rather attractive to them.


On 05/15/2018 03:25 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote:

Or the other way around
Nobody is stuck with stock firmware, update to the KD8CEC firmware if
you choose :)

I would be fine with the units coming with latest stock firmware and a
not about KD8CEC possibilities.
Just my 2c


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Vince Vielhaber <vev@...>

Simple solution. Download the original firmware, modify it and load it
your Raduino. Noone ever said you'd be stuck with the CEC firmware if it
came as stock.


On 05/15/2018 10:28 AM, Tim Gorman wrote:


Ian's code may be easy for you to read and understand. That is most
definitely *not* the case for many of us.

Any code that can be changed on the fly by defining options to be
included or excluded probably can't be considered "stable". It becomes
a minefield for others trying to add their functionality. Regression
testing to insure the software still works as intended becomes a
nightmare of trying all the numerous options together in a multiplicity
of option combinations.

This is not meant as disparagement Ian's software. It has a lot of
functionality that many people have asked for. Many people are using
it. There is a good reason for that.

But that doesn't mean it is suitable as the base load for all future
ubitx units.

Does Ashar have the resources to do a full regression testing of Ian's
software as it stands today when changes are made to the ubitx hardware?

tim ab0wr

On Mon, 14 May 2018 22:42:01 -0700
"Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <> wrote:

I haven't looked at Ian's code yet.
But suspect it is plenty readable.
And if it's readable, there's a bunch of people here that could
support it. And I doubt Farhan would ship with it unless he was
confident he understood it and could make his own mods and fixes.

Farhan would be shipping something that is hopefully stable.
And if Ian is so inclined, he will continue adjusting the code to
suit his whims. Now I'm confused, was there somehow a problem with

Generally, a few hundred lines of C code is fairly easy to figure out.
Though there are exceptions:

Jerry, KE7ER

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 09:24 pm, W2CTX wrote:

If CEC firmware is selected to be the delivered "base" then you
must think about the following two implications:

1. Is Ian willing to support the "base" in the future w.r.t. uBITX
production hardware changes?
As well as answering all the "newbie" questions about all the
options everyone is eluding to?

2. If Ian does not support the "base", then customers will be
confused by having CEC as "base" and IAN still supplying CEC
firmware that is different.

Michigan VHF Corp.

Michigan VHF Corp.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.