[MacLoggerContest] Any other topics?

[Jack Brindle]

On Feb 28, 2005, at 9:19 AM, K1GQ wrote:

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

If something is not published, then it is legally held as trade secret.  
None of the PC-based programs have published their protocols.

>>  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.

Only in a few cases. TRLog and WriteLog, the two biggest contenders in  
the PC world are definitely not free. N1MM is making inroads, but not  
so much yet with the "big boys."

>>  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.

There is a major fundamental problem here. It is not feasible to  
implement the protocols and formats for every PC program. If _I_ were  
making the decision, I would try for TRLog and WriteLog, and maybe N1MM  
compatibility. The information for those three programs is definitely  
not available. Yes, in fact, I have asked. In the case of N1MM I was  
very specifically told that the information is still changing, and that  
since its stability is problematic for Tom, he was not interested in  
adding troubles by letting someone else play.

I would not suggest reverse-engineering the protocols and expecting  
that to work. One slight change and we have to reinvest the time for  
reverse engineering.

There is a very slight possibility for working with CT in that parts of  
the protocol _may_ be available. With the small user-base CTLog  
commands at this time with respect to the other programs, and expecting  
that MLC would be a commercial venture, I seriously question whether it  
is worth while to make this effort.

But then _I_ am not making the decisions here, right?

> (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 :-)

I agree that this is an admirable goal, and one that should be in the  
desired features set. Again having it there will have an effect on the  
programs architecture, although not quite as much as an SO2R  
requirement. I believe there is a LOT of work to be done just to get  
the program up to a level for a single operator without having the  
author reverse engineer other folks protocols.

I strongly agree that creating and publishing the protocols and formats  
would be a great thing. But the effort cannot stop there. Evangelizing  
the standards and getting other authors to use them would be a  
monumental task. Trey and friends had a big carrot when introducing the  
Cabrillo format - use it or get pushed out of the contest market. We  
don't have that carrot. The PC authors will simply say "Sorry, I'll  
keep doing things MY way." How do I know? From conversations with them.  
To a person, they are very friendly and great guys. But they want to do  
things their way.

This is a place where enlisting the help of various individuals in the  
contesting community would be of great help. Having a single  
application that would create a contest template for every platform  
would be of great use for contest sponsors. They could simply publish  
the template (on a web page, say) have the contesters download it, and  
be ready to go. Just the effort saved in answering user questions would  
be a big help for not only the contest sponsors, but the software  
providers as well.

Anyone wish to go try evangelizing these things?

Let's get a good, solid contest program for the Mac going, with the  
proper hooks to add whatever we want in the future. I think we agree,  
we really need that.

- Jack Brindle, W6FB
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------------