You missed the point.
My point is that all this time spent on defining applications could and should be spent on defining management/configuration screens, status screens, logging, etc. for the primary purpose of this box. This would include screens for OS (disk usage, memory usage, etc.), radio (power level, SWR, etc.), signal levels (including historical), modulation schemes (selection, status, …), link status, error rates, and bridging function (STP, forwarding status, MAC cache, etc.). If all that stuff is not “IN there” and done well, then the primary function, the ONE thing that we need this box for -- RF bridging -- is not achieved (at least not in a manageable/deployable way). (Just look at a $95 Ubiquity 802.11 radio for an idea of some of the stuff that’s needed to actually operate RF bridges in real world networks. Everything else, all your apps, can be done elsewhere/anywhere (and already are). I don’t really care if they get added, but we can add linux packages ourselves. What we can’t do is develop the management/config/status/troubleshooting screens. That’s gotta be done by the folks building the unit. In my opinion, any time not focused on that is time that should be refocused.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but for those of us who do intend to purchase multiple radios and incorporate them into real networks, the user applications will be (or already are) on their own machines with RAID storage, plenty of memory, etc., with their own security. Subjecting a network device to user logins compromises the security of the network path itself. And creating a single point of failure by mixing an application server and a network device would be a real junior level move. To use your percentages, 99% of network design/management folks would never do that. The other 1% are probably unemployed. If you want to play around that way, or use it as an end-user station, that’s up to you – it’s a free country, and, after all, it’s a hobby. But your assertion that only 1% would keep user apps and network function separate is just ridiculous and indicates you’ve never really run a substantial network.
I’ve said my piece. The developers can choose to listen or not. I hope they do.
From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh N8GNJ
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Webmail Clients
I'm glad that you responded in detail to those that just want a
flexible RF modem. Good grief - that functionality is IN there for the
1% that want to play at that level. Apparently it's tough to convince
the 1% that they're not paying any more, waiting any longer, suffering
from any inefficiencies for having a processor and OS that supports
apps that they can easily bypass and play with pure I and Q.
For the rest of us (you know, the ones that want to throw money at you
and buy MULTIPLE radios, build networks, encourage others to buy
UDRXs)... PLEASE DO develop apps that will be included, supported, and
Steve Stroh N8GNJ
Redmond, WA area
unabashed UDRX fanboy