LXNav V7 vs Butterfly vario?

On Monday, January 7, 2013 3:34:34 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:

Another vario that works extremely well with XCSoar is the CAI302. Cambridge has published extensive and excellent protocol documentation before they (unfortunately) disappeared.



Its declared successor from ClearNav has no XCSoar support, and I suppose there will never be. ClearNav did not publish protocol documentation. I asked for documentation, but Richard Kellerman (who I'm not related to) rejected, saying his business is not interested in interoperability with XCSoar. Don't buy if you want to connect it to XCSoar (or any other free software)..



Cambridge is still around, although they are no longer doingany product development that I know of. I had my 302 repaired a couple of weeks ago.

While it is true that ClearNav is not interested in working with XCSoar, we will, as previously mentioned, support the CAI dataport communications standard for our upcoming CNv XC, so the XCSoar community, as well as everybody else already has our protocol. All CNvs sold to date may be software upgraded to XC version with dataport capability. See our website for more information or for more questions, please join our forum.

Evan Ludeman for ClearNav Instruments

http://www.clearnav.net

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:24:10 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
While it is true that ClearNav is not interested in working with XCSoar, we will, as previously mentioned, support the CAI dataport communications standard for our upcoming CNv XC, so the XCSoar community, as well as everybody else already has our protocol.

That's a trap. It sounds like "buy ClearNav, and it will work with XCSoar", but it will not. Without cooperation, there _will_ be problems[*].

([*] = it will work only if you emulate all CAI302 firmware bugs, bit by bit, and all timings are identical. The thing is, the CAI302 does not follow its own dataport communication standard. Not a big deal for XCSoar, we have workarounds, but a standards-compliant device will not work.)

We already know that ClearNav is not interested in XCSoar, and therefore I am mutually not interested in ClearNav. Connecting a ClearNav vario to XCSoar is explicitly not supported.

Though I hope ClearNav changes their minds. (It's up to their customers to highlight the importance of connectivity to them, or to choose a vendor that is open enough for one's personal taste.)

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:24:10 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:

While it is true that ClearNav is not interested in working with XCSoar, we will, as previously mentioned, support the CAI dataport communications standard for our upcoming CNv XC, so the XCSoar community, as well as everybody else already has our protocol.



That's a trap. It sounds like "buy ClearNav, and it will work with XCSoar", but it will not. Without cooperation, there _will_ be problems[*].



([*] = it will work only if you emulate all CAI302 firmware bugs, bit by bit, and all timings are identical. The thing is, the CAI302 does not follow its own dataport communication standard. Not a big deal for XCSoar, we have workarounds, but a standards-compliant device will not work.)



We already know that ClearNav is not interested in XCSoar, and therefore I am mutually not interested in ClearNav. Connecting a ClearNav vario to XCSoar is explicitly not supported.



Though I hope ClearNav changes their minds. (It's up to their customers to highlight the importance of connectivity to them, or to choose a vendor that is open enough for one's personal taste.)

"Trap". Okay... one more time....

We aren't, and won't be making a 302 replacement. We will be using the CAI developed and published dataport standard and with any luck at all we'll be doing a much better job of it than CAI ever did. If users have issues with our products, they should contact us and I have no doubt they will. Where the problems are with our products, we'll do our best to solve them. Hope that's clear?

Third party developers are of course free to integrate their products with CNv based upon the aforementioned standard. That's the point of using an open standard. If there are issues that come up, you should contact us. If the issues are our issues, I expect we'll fix them.

Evan Ludeman for ClearNav Instruments
http://www.clearnav.net

On 8/01/2013 00:52, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:24:10 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
While it is true that ClearNav is not interested in working with
XCSoar, we will, as previously mentioned, support the CAI dataport
communications standard for our upcoming CNv XC, so the XCSoar
community, as well as everybody else already has our protocol.

That's a trap. It sounds like "buy ClearNav, and it will work with
XCSoar", but it will not. Without cooperation, there _will_ be
problems[*].

([*] = it will work only if you emulate all CAI302 firmware bugs, bit
by bit, and all timings are identical. The thing is, the CAI302 does
not follow its own dataport communication standard. Not a big deal
for XCSoar, we have workarounds, but a standards-compliant device
will not work.)

We already know that ClearNav is not interested in XCSoar, and
therefore I am mutually not interested in ClearNav. Connecting a
ClearNav vario to XCSoar is explicitly not supported.

That sounds very much like pure, bloody-minded sour grapes, Max. XCSoar
will not work with Clear Nav because xcsoar will make sure it won't! I
love it when the lovey-dovey world of the open-source hot-gospellers
meets the slightest opposition to their world view. No more Mr Nice Guy!

Evan said CN was the same as Cambridge. Max says the Cambridge protocol
works well with XCsoar. It appears the only problem is that CN won't
grovel. Good for them!

I'm also interested that Max morphs here from just 'someone who's worked
on XCSoar' (earlier post) to 'I am mutually not interested'. It is
clear that XCSoar's salvation was Max imposing control and leadership on
a loose, woolly and dying project. A very commercial model. Similarly,
LK8000 is a tribute to Paolo's management skills as well as his code
writing talent.

Though I hope ClearNav changes their minds. (It's up to their
customers to highlight the importance of connectivity to them, or to
choose a vendor that is open enough for one's personal taste.)

'NOT very open' is generally my taste. There is some lovely open source
software but I believe that's in spite of the model rather than because
of it. There is also a vast wasteland of sloppy, bloated, unfinished
and buggy projects. Most open source people in my experience are rather
too intolerant of different views and obsessive and evangelical about
their preferred software model - as Max has demonstrated here and the
earlier threats and disparagement of Flarm showed.

I know this is all a bit off-topic but I resent open source's totally
unjustified claim to the moral high ground and I'll write against it
every time they push it. It's all just code and doing it for prestige
and reputation is no more praiseworthy than doing it for money.

Cheers,
GC

@GC: I can understand your point of view. However, I would like point out that you base your opinion on what you read online. And yes, I have behaved like a zealot myself in the Flarm
discussion. I realize that.

I do not agree with Max at all on this subject, but I did not want to bother this group (which is about soaring) with another discussion about software. I suspect there are others like me.
Please understand that Max is not representing every single open source developer.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 3:59:14 AM UTC+1, GC wrote:
That sounds very much like pure, bloody-minded sour grapes, Max. XCSoar
will not work with Clear Nav because xcsoar will make sure it won't!

No, that's not what I wrote, not at all. If you think I wrote that, you misunderstood me completely, and the rest of your post is bogus, because it's based on that assumption.

Who are you, anyway? I received a few flaming hate emails from you in the past, sender address ", sent from an Australian IP address. Are you an anonymous coward?