[Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface?

[kevinrock@earthlink.net]

AMEN!!  

I was torn between developing for OS X or Linux.  Now I don't need to choose.  With Apple's latest technology I can develop for both at the same time and port over 
to Win2K if I want.

Thanks for the breath of fresh air in this thread.  I enjoy writing code that is device as well as OS independent.  Drivers are not complex unless the interface has not 
been engineered and simply kluged together.
   Kevin.


7/18/2002 5:01:06 PM, Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net> wrote:

>On 7/16/02 9:55 PM, Margaret Leber at maggie@voicenet.com wrote:
>
>>Uh...don't you think that's how a USB interface would work too? The "S" 
>>in USB stands for "serial", you know...it's not ESP.
>
>You missed the point. Serial is just the method by which the data is 
>trasferred.
>
>The key difference is the OS infrastructure built up around USB. In the 
>serial world, everyone gets direct access to the raw bytes -- which is 
>exactly the problem. A skillful programmer could come up with a driver to 
>share a serial port -- but then he'd have to convince the whole world to 
>use his driver instead of reading and writing raw bytes.
>
>With USB, defining and using a driver is pretty much a given, and the 
>OSes allow for this. 
>
>>Honest, this stuff isn't magic just because it's in a driver. Somebody 
>>has to *write* that driver.
>
>Yes, ONE person has to write a driver for A radio on AN operating system. 
>Compare that to the situation today, where EACH person has to instill 
>software for EACH program on EACH operating system for EACH radio. 
>
>In short, a lot less software would have to be written, and it would make 
>new things possible. (Like multiple programs accessing the radio 
>information similtaneously.
>
>>  And soon you'll have to worry about whether 
>>Microsoft  *likes* your driver (and your company), and is willing to 
>>sign it. 
>
>Fooey. If Micrsoft gets that way, then turn your back on them. There 
>already exist better alternatives.
>
>>And the driver won't be portable to other operating systems.
>
>Each OS that supports USB has its own infrastructure for USB drivers. The 
>design of the class driver would be portable, although the exact code 
>would not.
>
>>Just get a dongle and be happy. Unless there's too much QRM from the 
>>USB, of course. :-)
>
>You folks just don't get it, do you? If this is the state of ham radio, 
>to eschew anything new and cling to the old, then the hobby isn't long 
>for the world.
>
>
>Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
>Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>You must be a list member to post to the list. 
>Postings must be plain text (no HTML or attachments). 
>See: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>Elecraft Web Page: http://www.elecraft.com
>