[arm-allstar] Where's Waldo?

Fri Jul 7 17:09:40 EDT 2017

Let me just say this question has been answered several times before. There
are reasons at this time to NOT release source. If someone does not like
that the source for Acid the base of all Allstar variants is freely
available. If you see a problem or fix a problem based on that code it most
certainly could be incorporated into our code. To date no one has submitted
any code to us! This list is for those having issues with the hamvoip code
and we always welcome ideas and suggestions for improvements and we do take
then into consideration. We also very promptly fix any problems unlike
other variants. Unlike on other forums anyone who starts whining about we
should do this or that will be moderated period. The rest of the readers to
not want to hear that. If you do not like that then go elsewhere. Allstar
code is VERY complex and convoluted. It is sometimes referred to as
"spaghetti code." We are working hard to improve that and the overall
efficiency of the code and I believe we have done a great job so far.

*73 Doug*

*WA3DSP*

*http://www.crompton.com/hamradio <http://www.crompton.com/hamradio>*

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:33 PM, "K1RA - Andy Z via arm-allstar" <
arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:

> This note dovetails off my original Nano Interface thread which you can
> revisit, but as it touches on more than that I chose to re-title. I've been
> following Allstar ARM group over the past several years and read the
> strides as well as trials and tribulations of bring the new system
> together.  Much has been accomplished by a very few individuals and they
> are to be commended.  And although I fully appreciate the efforts put into
> FOB conversion by the community, I think those who continue to jump on the
> soapbox and say "they are only $3, just buy a bunch and hack away at it"
> are totally missing the point.  I've gone through several of the mod-FOB
> processes successfully, but still despise it.  Sure I could buy converted
> ones, but FOBs have no processing power or A/D like a Nano, which I
> desire.  Others have their own reasons for wishing for something better or
> shying away from the mod-FOB status quo. I've seen enough to know that
> there is always another way regardless of the opinions or projections of
> others.  Besides that, none of us should have to justify why we wish to use
> any particular hardware or software.  If we have the wherewithal to build
> and integrate it into a system, why shouldn't we?
>
> Let me try to put the issue into perspective with this purely fictional
> story.  There was once this group of individuals who saw greatness in a
> certain open, software project, but wanted to migrate away from the Entel
> PC desktop platform on which it was built.  They wished to leverage LEG
> processors to accomplish running a certain software application.  The
> (giants) Entel folks did what they knew best and preached all the benefits
> of their system configuration.  They said you can't have it any other way,
> its not easy or costs too much to do it any other way.  The LEG folks had
> their reasons for migrating, be it smaller foot print, less power
> consumption, or less expensive equipment costs.  But initially, rather than
> helping the LEG team get their idea off the ground, the Entel folks said,
> just go buy a cheaper ATOM processor based motherboard.  Those take less
> power than a desktop PC.  Also, there are smaller form factor mini-ATX
> boxes and everything is integrated, sound, P.S. network, etc.  There is no
> need to build/solder anything its all plug & play.  Why not just suck it up
> and do it our way?  Now the LEG guys were determined and pushed onward with
> their implementation.  LEG continued to press Entel regarding their
> implementation to better help them understand the inner working of the
> Entel project, but those requests seemed only to be answered with more
> questions and status-quo responses.  Maybe Entel finally saw the light and
> helped LEG make greater strides and then again, maybe they didn't. Who
> would you more relate to, the Entel group or the LEG group?
>
> As some may be able to relate, as a ham, an engineer and all around tinker
> I have my own ideas on what I'd like to accomplish and how.  I've
> identified hardware I wish to leverage and incorporate in certain tasks.
> There is software I'd like to bring to fruition to solve certain problems.
> I see open source projects ripe for the tweaking to meet my needs.  When
> some one or group keeps touting this is the only way to do it, or shows a
> lack of appreciation for helping to expand the knowledge or art of others,
> that is irksome. I understand no one is under any obligation to help anyone
> these days, but I gravitated towards ham radio at a very young age because
> of the openness and sharing I found among the community when it came to
> helping newcomers advance their knowledge and skills.  The open source
> hardware and software, maker and DIY groups today follow that same line of
> thought, which I fully embrace both in my work and hobby communities.  In
> our ham community I would hope others would be willing to share the
> knowledge they have, to push the envelope forward and encourage and assist
> newcomers to get more involved.  Put egos and embarrassment aside and help
> them to build off the backs of giants.
>
> Now a direct request to the developers of Allstar ARM. Where's Waldo? Can
> you please post the source code for this Allstar ARM project? Good or bad,
> clean or dirty, baked or half-baked, in use or not yet in use.  Are you in
> need of assistance doing this? i.e. setting up a Sourceforge or GitHub
> repository? I would be glad to assist.  I use other ham projects (SvxLink,
> GNURadio, KiwiSDR, WSJT, HAMShield, fldigi) and see numerous others
> published through those repositories and I've yet to understand the
> reluctance regarding not posting a project of this magnitude.  Isn't your
> system built on Copyleft software?
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
>
> I've read Allstar ARM software is only alpha, or beta or a release
> candidate and not ready for prime-time, but I don't recall seeing anything
> in copyleft that relieves anyone of the obligation and responsibility of
> providing source of derivative works given a certain state of one's
> development cycle.  Then again, maybe ARM is all proprietary and commercial
> software and I'm totally off base and therefore sorry I asked.
>
> I understand we all have other obligations, family matters, personal. work,
> etc. but it would seem that posting the source should be a #1 priority, if
> not from day one.  This would ensure the project doesn't suffer death due
> to the sole one or two developers having to bow out of development for
> whatever reasons.  It would surely allow other interested individuals to
> begin to spin up and potentially contribute and continue the life of this
> project, if not also provide for other opportunities.
>
> 73
>
> andyz - K1RA
> http://k1ra.us/
>
> p.s. - I would have rather spent my time looking at and writing source code
> than this email
> _______________________________________________
>
> arm-allstar mailing list
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
>
> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>
>