[pskmail] Re: Fldigi
- From: Hestenes John <johndhestenes@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 20:12:22 -0700
I like what I am hearing, but PSKMail on android and other smartphone
is more likely to increase than to decrease.
I have a used Samsung Moment android phone that was recently given to me by my
son.
If for no other reason than "fun", I would like to try to run PSKMail on it.
I don't have a clue as to how to start.
Can someone identify links to helpful resources, methods, examples?
John KJ6CVB
On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:46 PM, John Douyere wrote:
> I think this is an interesting thread and a question worth posing.
>
> As always, it is a question of choices since resources are not infinite.
>
> If we step back, and look at the direction taken by Pskmail over the past few
> years, one of its key objectives has been interoperability.
>
> And today I believe I can safely say that we have the only NO external
> hardware solution that runs clients across four major platforms, namely
> Linux, Apple OS X, Windows and Android.
>
> They are all interoperable AND none of them mandates an external hardware. I
> have had full Pskmail sessions using only my phone and my rig by using audio
> coupling.
>
> The key drivers of this success in my opinion have been Open Source AND
> hardware/OS abstraction. Even the Android version is reusing a significant
> amount of the PC version's code.
>
> At the other hand of the scale from this level of abstraction is a more
> hardware, OS specific solution like the boxes you mentioned above. These are
> attractive and often very well designed platforms and I did consider at one
> point developing Pskmail for the Nue Psk platform.
>
> Here is my take on the pluses and minuses of the abstraction approach:
>
> ++ re-usability of code across platforms AND time (hardware chips go obsolete
> regularly and box platforms tend to be rather short lived).
>
> ++ cost reduction as we leverage massive volumes of production versus a very
> narrow user base. Example is now an Android telephone can be bought for less
> than $70 and run Pskmail in full, including all the modes we have in the list.
>
> - poor cpu utilization since all the abstraction levels induce overheads
>
> -- variability of hardware introduces constraints and reduces performance.
>
> On the common platforms (Intel based PCs, Android phones etc...) there is a
> fast trend of cost down AND cpu power increase at the same time, meaning that
> the available abstract platforms are getting cheaper and cheaper 'while NET
> available CPU power (after abstractions) is increasing.
>
> The price we "pay" for this is poorer peak performance. Although an Intel
> processor for example is more than powerful enough for the processing we need
> (as a reference the I7 is producing 128K MIPS versus less than 7K MIPS for a
> quad core DSP used in one of the "latest hardware modem", instructions
> efficiency aside), the variability of the chain from sound card to hardware
> driver to o/s to final program creates constraints that restrict the data
> rates we can practically reach over noisy channels.
>
> Top performance is possible but with a limited set of hardware available on
> these common platforms.
>
> But also let's be honest, we do not have anywhere near the software design
> capability when compared with these commercial solutions. It is a hobby after
> all and it is supposed to be fun.
>
>
> And higher data speed can be fun I agree, hence the recent developments in
> that area.
>
> But an interesting point though: I have spent a fair bit of time developing
> faster modes reaching up to 1760 WPM @ 2400Hz bandwidth, with FEC (or 3200WPM
> without), but I haven't had ANY feedback on the faster modes for the HF Ham
> bands.
>
>
> I had excellent, quality feedback for the targeted FM modes or MARS channels
> on the other hand.
>
> This is telling me that the need for higher data rates on HF HAM bands must
> not be that critical otherwise I would have received more feedback, positive
> or negative.
>
>
> So in summary here is my view: since we only have part time development
> capabilities, I have chosen to spend my development time using the most
> widely available open hardware and software platforms I could access. I will
> continue for a while to work on higher speeds, but in the context of these
> open platforms.
>
> I believe that this is the most effective way I can help the most people use
> that solution.
>
> Of course any proposed addition of resources for developing hardware or other
> software solutions would be welcomed.
>
> All the best,
>
> 73, John (VK2ETA)
>
>
>
> On 09/04/2012 6:16 AM, "Jack Chomley" <radio@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Other related posts:
