[MacLoggerContest] Any other topics?

[K1GQ]

On 2005 Feb 28, at 11:52, Jack Brindle wrote:

There is a lot of disinformation here, which I can't let pass.

> I'll second what Don says here. The formats, protocols and network 
> communications for the various PC-based programs are closely-held 
> secrets.

In the case that I care about, there are *no* secrets, closely-held or 
otherwise.

>  With few exceptions, the authors have not collaborated to share this 
> information, instead choosing to reinvent the formats so that users 
> are locked in to their own programs.

Nor is there any lock-in motive; the software is free.

It is true that there has been little incentive for existing software 
to interoperate at the network level, and none does that I am aware of. 
  As Apple computer enthusiasts, we're painfully aware that pretty much 
all of the work needed to implement interoperability will rest on our 
shoulders.

>  To be fair, testing with everyone else's program would be a bear, 
> especially since those programs tend to change very often. Also, in 
> some cases the information changes with every release since it is 
> extremely closely related to the internal data format of the program 
> (for those cases).

Wrong again.  The information exchanged across the CT network has not 
changed in format or content for years.

> While there may be some cracks in the information wall, don't expect 
> these authors to open up their network formats. The cracks? TLF is a 
> Linux-based open-source program. There may be a couple of others in 
> this vein as well.

Have you asked any authors?

> I believe there are several common areas where we may lead the way 
> with standard, open methods. M/M network data formats and protocols is 
> certainly one, as well as a common contest definition format. Any 
> others?

This is right on!  My original posting had two motives:

(1) I'd like to sneak up on the team that I operate with by bringing in 
one superb Mac OS X contest program that Just Works in the existing 
ethernet-based network of DOS logging programs (currently 11 
computers).

(2) I'd like the designers of MLC to not overlook the features implied 
by this configuration that do not apply at all in the single-computer 
situation, such as Gab and Partner mode, not to mention the fundamental 
database issues surrounding managing a consistent log with multiple 
asynchronous writers.  And then there are the serial number contests...

Ooops, I've probably convinced y'all that this is too hard :-)

   Bill