| |
SM3LKS > BPQ 16.01.99 22:32l 132 Lines 5262 Bytes #-10141 (0) @ WW
BID : 28243_SM3LKS
Read: DH6BB SP6VXT DB1RAS GUEST
Subj: Re: bpq vs flexnet
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0BOX<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DK0MNL<DF0HMB<DB0HHW<
DB0IL<OZ5BBS<OZ4PAC<OZ4BBS<OZ3BOS<OZ3BOL<OZ3BOD<SK6FV<SK6YW<SK6BA<
SK6LK<SM6MVP<SM6HOC<SM7FEJ<SK7HR<SK7GC<SK5AS<SK5BN<SK5UM<SK5AE<SK5BB<
SK4HC<SM4UMY<SK4KS<SK4WV<SM4TYA<SM3ESS<SK3BG<SK3UB<SK3JR<SM3LKS
Sent: 990112/1838Z @:SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU #:28243 [Ostersund] FBB7.00g $:28243_SM3LK
From: SM3LKS@SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@WW
SM7UZI wrote in a message:
>>Investing (or rather, wasting) that sort of money may be justified in a
>>"full-blown" networking environment but, in the UK at least, many many
>>stations run 'hobby-nodes' as front-ends to their PMS's where the only
>>sensible option is to make the best use of existing equipment.
>To get the best use of existing equipment is usually a good reson for the use
>of flexnet.
You still haven't told us WHAT the reason is to use FlexNet.
Just that you say it is good software doesn't make it better than BPQ.
Some FACTS please.
WHAT makes FlexNet a better choice than BPQ.
Just saying "This is better than that", and "that software sucks",
without saying "THIS makes this better than that", and "THIS makes that
software bad", is just a way to show the rest of us that you really
don't have any arguments based on facts.
You perhaps doesn't even have any hard facts of the "bad product", just
repeating what others told you.
(I will not say that you make things up, but sometimes when I read your
"arguments" I wonder...)
>>TNC's operating in international-standard KISS mode will be around for a
>>long time yet.
>There is no real standard.
>Bpq kiss, smack, extended kiss and other variants are used.
>There have been many ways tried to get rid of kiss, like host modes etc.
>To use hostmode or some thing else is to prefer, kiss isn't very good.
Please excuse me, but KISS has a standard.
Extended KISS, and other versions, is atempts to improve standard KISS,
but I haven't seen a standard there yet.
But the original KISS has a standard. And it is an easy understood standard.
To really use the standard is perhaps not that easy, as you must fully
understand the packet-protocol you want to use.
Why do you think anyone are trying to get rid of KISS when they are trying
to improve it ?
Please tell us why you think "kiss isn't very good".
Facts please, not just your opinion.
Perhaps you doesn't know what KISS really is ?
KISS is good, if you fully understand what it is.
Sure, it lacks some parameters some people wants to be able to set, but
who hasn't a wish-list of what this or that program should be able to do.
KISS was developed to make it possible to develope and test new
packet-protocols, not just ax25.
Host-mode is a way to give programmers an EASY way to let an application
have access to ax25, yet making the application have the control.
The packet-protocol, ax25, is still in the TNC.
With KISS you have transferred the packet-protocol to the computer-software.
This is often the reason why programmers thinks that KISS is difficult
to use, as they must implement the packet-protocol completely in software.
The only thing a KISS-TNC does is to take care of the transport-layer,
the rest is software in the computer.
This is the reason why the KISS-TNC has only a few parameters to set.
The majority of the parameters is set in the computer-software.
Some programmers, sadly to say, doesn't let the user set all of these
parameters. (If they implemented the parameters at all)
This is also the reson why KISS-drivers is used as a generic packet-driver.
---
In an other message SM7UZI wrote:
>>>Bpq still contains bugs.
>>Please explain the bugs.
>Some times then you try to connect the bbs is you connecxted to the node for
>some strange reason.
What version has this bug?
I have NEVER notised this bug you are referring to, and I use BPQ every day.
>If you connect the node by its alias does it reply with it and not with its
>call, which it should have done.
When does this happen ?
Node connects a node with the alias-call, or user connects node by its alias ?
When I tested your "bug", I discovered that in a node-to-node-connect BPQ
reports "Connected to ALIAS:CALL". This is the correct response, and it is
BPQ that makes the responce.
If a non-node, (user, bbs etc..), connects to BPQ, it is the
communication-software in use that makes the response
"Connected to 'whatever-you-typed-in-as-call'", not BPQ.
Once again, what version of BPQ are you referring to ?
Have you notised these "bugs" yourself, or have someone told you that
BPQ has these bugs ?
Often "bugs", and some "viruses" too, is just badly configured programs.
Why use the alias-call in your connect ?
Doesn't the nodes have REAL calls that you can use ?
<Nit-pick-mode on>
If you as a user, in Sweden, connects to a node by an alias you are
violating the national amateurradio-regulations.
In the address-field of the ax25-packet it MUST be a real call, not an alias.
When a node makes a connect using the alias-call, and this alias exists in
the node-list, the node translates the alias to the real node-call and the
ax25-address-field contains the node-call.
If the alias isn't in the node-list, it puts the alias in the
address-field, and you are in violation with the regulations.
My recepy is: Never use alias in a connect-sequense.
You really don't need to use the alias at all, at any time.
Just because you can do it doesn't make it legal.
Lack of knowledge is no excuse to break any law or regulation.
(It may be a reason WHY someone does it, but no excuse)
Other countries may have other regulations.
<Nit-pick-mode off>
73 de SM3LKS
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
