[Ham-Mac] Re: WinLinkMac? WinLinkX?

[James Nedbalek]

On Apr 16, 2004, at 07:03, Don Agro wrote:

>> Add me to the list of those wanting a Mac OSX version of WinLink. 
>> WinLink is the primary communications mode for sailing hams, and I'd 
>> love to be able to use it on my boat without Virtual PC.
>
> Just a cursory look at their web site shows that:
>
> 1) WinLink is a proprietary system whose protocols are closed and 
> unpublished, belonging to the Winlink 2000 Development Team.
>
> 2) Paclink requires the new Microsoft .NET framework 
> <http://winlink.org/Client.htm>
>    I am not aware of any port of the .NET framework to the Mac.
>
> 3) It would be impossible, to construct a Macintosh client for Winlink 
> without the permission and support of the Winlink 2000 Development 
> Team.
>
> I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, just pointing out that the 
> best place to start would be to lobby the Winlink 2000 Development 
> Team to determine their position on a possible Macintosh client.
>
> <http://winlink.org/miscellaneous.htm>
>
> The possible outcomes would be:
>
> 1) Sure - we are planning to do one.
> 2) We aren't working on one but we would be glad to help with 
> documentation and technical support to any team that wants to take 
> this on.
> 3) Macintosh ? You've got to be kidding.
>

Thank you Don for some of this new information.  It is interesting to 
discover that now the protocol is closed and unpublished.

A couple of years ago, I started to add the WinLink feature to RDCP/Mac 
and at that time they supplied the information on the protocol and 
stated it was open and encouraged other software packages.  Also, one 
of the developers was very helpful during some email exchanges.

To shorten the frustrations, was able to incorporate the FBB version 0 
and 1 protocols in RDCP+/Mac.   However attempts to add the FBB version 
2 (WinLink) were not as successful.  Since testing required substantial 
time and propagation to the WinLink stations I was forced to put this 
on the back burner, especially as client demands increased.

Perhaps they have changed the policy regarding the "openness" of their 
system.  Something I should and will check.  It would be a shame to 
discard all the C++ classes when it is possible that only a bit of 
debugging would remedy the constant "protocol error" message received.


------------
James Nedbalek, Nedbalek Enterprises, Inc.
nedbalek@winternet.com   952-934-8317