| |
VK2DYX > BPQ 01.08.99 06:37l 134 Lines 5718 Bytes #-9940 (0) @ WW
BID : 7821_VK2DYX
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Re: BPQ in General
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<SP6KBL<DB0GRL<SR6DJG<SR6DJC<
SR9ZAA<PP5BLU<WB7AWL<KF6EPD<VK5ASF<VK7AX<VK2KAW<VK2CZR<VK2IO<VK2KLW<
VK2DYX
Sent: 990731/2243Z @:VK2DYX.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC #:7821 [Taree] FBB7.00g23
From: VK2DYX@VK2DYX.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC
To : BPQ@WW
From: SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@WW
>>I enjoy reading the sometimes vitriolic comments of the flexnet supporters.
>>I Run a BBS system here with a couple of DRSI type 2 cards and 4 radio
>The unproto beqcons is a function of fbb not bpq!
>If you can get fbb to send it on one port only with bpq can you do that with
>flexnet aslo, use the portcalls!
Yes but with BPQ and Fbb you don't have to use portcalls.
>What can you do with bpq but not with flexnet, any major lack of features?
I never said that BPQ did things flexnet could not, it's just that BPQ does it
much easier in one package. With flexnet you have to run flexdigi on another
machine for a node is that progress???
>The major problem with bpq is that its routing is bad working and that is uses
>kiss.
>That is what makes it obsolte and that is why it should be replaced.
>The few good thing about bpq can never be more important than a good working
>routing.
>To use flexnet, x-net or thenet node is what you should so!
>Flexnet or x-ent is to prefer.
In my setup I don't need a lot of routing tables or entries as I am part of a
Rose network, the main use of the node is to link to sections of the network
at present so that users can have keyboard contacts, mail forwarding is
automatic. I don't need any other system. The fixed parameters in BPQ may
not be the best option but it works well enough here with as many as 6
forwarding links going at once. Flexnet did not perform any better when I
ran it as there are no other stations with adaptable parameters in the
network.
>>I know I am going to be told that flexnet can do all these things ....BUT it
>>needs TWO computers to do them, and still not as well as bpq does it on ONE
>>computer.
>Depends on what computer you use and if you want to run a node or juut s bbs
>with flexnet as apcket driver etc.
>Baycom mailboxes use flexnet as packet driver.
Well I don't NEED to run a node it's just that with BPQ I can and do as it
offers another service to the local users that they wouldn't otherwise have,
so I run the node as well as the BBS and it works very well on the 486DX2 66
machine I run it on.
>>Also as others have said flexnet requires many separate peices of
>>software to acheive what bpq does with one.
>That is good so you don't have to laod support for hardware you don't have.
That is probably the only argument in favour of flexnet.
>>Again with bpq it possible to run up to eight different software packages
>>interfaced to the bpq switch, I have simutaneousely run as many as four under
>>win95 in the past.
>That can you do with flexnet also.
Perhaps you can but it was not redily obvious to me during the setup of
flexnet.
>>As for baycom style modems, many of my users are running
>>them with bpq quite successfully though this DOES require a second driver in
>>the form of BPQAX25.COM, in fact I started the BBS with just that setup.
>For baycom modes is bpq no good at all!
>Uee flxnet, tfx, or tfpcx instead!
It might not be the BEST way to do it but it sure works OK and that is what
matters to the user.
>>So untill someone comes up with a new system that does all that bpq does in a
>>single package I will be staying with bpq even if it is "OUTDATED" and "OLD"
>>and all the other derogatory things that have been said about it. To those
>>who would send flames ....
>The reason why bpq is so small and can be used on the same computer is that it
>was made in those days when computers where much slower.
Well that is an admission isn't it, BPQ is small and compact!!! I would think
that is a big plus in todays world where so much software is known as
bloatware because it takes so much space and memory.
>If it was written to day would it also have been more sophisticated using
>adaptive parameters etc and require more of the computer.
>New nodes are much better sice it to day are more powerful computers avaliable
>for a pcket radio.
Yes it would ne nice to see a version of BPQ with adaptive parameters but
untill all the stations in ones area are using adaptive paramters it does not
offer much improvement.
>So that bpq can be shoehorned in with a bbs (not always with good result the
>bpq node often get slow) is possible thanks to that bpq lack of many important
>features. The prise you pay fo only using one comptuer is high when using bpq,
>it is not worth it.
Well as I have said before I don't have any problem with the setup here it
may not be a huge system but it runs well and runs reliably.
>If you only want to use one computer, give up the node thing then and run your
>bbs and packet driver, but no worthless node!
Fine for you to say but why should I do that when it works just fine, when
some other system that works better comes along I will use it. For now I
don't consider flexnet better just different.
>The packet driver part of bpq is not good that either, uses kiss etc.
Well it works very well with the DRSI cards and USCC4 card that I run.
>And there are aslo other good nodes.
>If you don't like flexnet that doesn't mean that bpq is the best node for you
>(it is not), there are others much better than bpq.
>Take a look at x-net!
I have had a look but BPQ does what I want....end of story for now!!! BUT th
i
s does not mean I am a one eyed fanatic like SM7UZI, I will liik at all new
software, I am witing for the new AGW 2000 version and the DLL to go with it
to run FBB 32 bit as it seems to offer a good alternative to BPQ, though now
I read that John is working on a 32 bit version of BPQ so we shall have to
wait and see what that brings.
73. de Karl, sysop, VK2DYX @ VK2DYX.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC
E-mail karlb@midcoast.com.au
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
