[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 
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?


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: