Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?


Dave Bottom <ars.kd6az@...>
 

It is interesting that an actually simple and innocent question has drawn many down into the weeds without answering a straight forward question.

Personally I got interested in the uBITX because it was such a clever design much like my Side Band Engineers SB-33 from 1961. I loved that little radio with bilateral amplifiers and use of a clever mixing scheme limiting both the number of oscillators and even crystals, while being all solid state except for driver and finals.

The uBITX answered the need to eliminate most crystals required for a Multiband transceiver with the si5351. Cool!

Secondly it was an opportunity to learn (relearn) programming that I wanted so badly to do.

Whether the original base code, Ian’s or others, they are all sources of learning, and I’m suspecting that the huge success of this third project has Farhan already thinking about a successor, armed with the great feedback from the community.

Delivering very functional software that can be loaded without compiling any code makes it a wonderful starting point for a stock, as delivered currently uBITX, and much more important allows the potential for Farhan to focus more on a next generation Transceiver.

I think it is obvious the that there are a handful of features or capabilities that have floated to the top of the list, and make great sense to focus on those potentials.

There is nothing taken away from the success and learning from this great community by doing so.  We should all be excited about that potential and keep learning.

Having started using Ian’s software very early on and seeing not only his passion for the project but also his attitude, openness and respect for others are examples of the very people that make this great community what it is.

Farhan do what makes sense for you to pursue your next challenge.

I like what Ian has done and regardless of what I finally end up running it is makes the uBITX an impressive little rig out the chute. So I say sure. Lets all get on with the fun of learning.

Dave WI6R

From my dumb iPhone
  

On May 19, 2018, at 4:31 PM, K9HZ <bill@...> wrote:

Who needs that?

 

Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ

 


On May 19, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Mvs Sarma via Groups.Io <mvs_sarma@...> wrote:

i suppose that we need to prevent TX enable in the Non-ham bands. while the Rx could still be useful for listening.

regards
sarma
 vu3zmv
 
 
 
On Saturday 12 May 2018, 11:38:37 AM IST, Ashhar Farhan <farhanbox@...> wrote:
 
 
Peeps,
 
Given that Dr.Lee's software is now pretty stable from 1.06 onwards, what do you all say about using this as the 'shipped' firmware? I have some personal quirks that make me modify it for my personal use (ex: I prefere general coverage when changing the bands rather than steps to and from ham bands) but do we consider it to be usable and stable for our needs? 
 
I resisted feature-ful software as the base because smaller code base makes it easier for people to get in and modify, there is space in the memory for modifications, etc. 
 
If there is a general consensus, then, we will customize it to the standard hardware, and start burning this into the next batch of ubitx.
 
Opinions, please.
 
- f
 
 

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