| |
SM3LKS > BPQ 11.08.99 22:43l 49 Lines 1481 Bytes #-9927 (0) @ EU
BID : 43185_SM3LKS
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: SM7UZI - please give it a rest
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<OK0POK<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<OH2RBI<OH2RBJ<
OH1RBD<OH1RBU<OH0RBA<SM0NQR<SK0CT<SL0ZS<SL5ZXN<SK5WB<SK5AE<SK5BB<
SK4HC<SK4EA<SK4BW<SM3ESS<SK3BG<SK3UB<SK3JR<SM3LKS
Sent: 990811/1201Z @:SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU #:43185 [Ostersund] LinFBB7.00g $:43185_SM
From: SM3LKS@SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@EU
SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU wrote:
...snip...
>>
>>Some people, not me, thinks all this is obsolete.
>>But I think that if it does the job, and follows the current standard, it
>>can't be obsolete.
>How come and what standards?
How come what ?
That I don't think it is obsolete? (read the text again please)
That it does the job ? (Correct configuration makes it possible)
>If it is the bpq net/rom are you talking about are you wrong!
>It is very obsolte, it isn't a bit good in any way.
>The worst kind routing that can be used, it is very bad working, and should
>never be used.
>The problem with bpq is that it isn't doing a good job!
What, exactly, is your problem whith BPQ that you don't have with other
NetRom-versions that follows the original NetRom-standard.
The job BPQ does, is the same as any NetRom-node.
(The transportlayer, etc.. is the same.)
I have understood that it is BPQ and KISS you have a problem with.
Or was it because BPQ uses KISS ?
You keep saying that BPQ uses a bad packetdriver.
Do you mean KISS ?
If so, please don't say that BPQ is bad, it can use other modes than KISS.
>The reason for why bpq is used isn't becasue it is good!
WHY isn't it good ?
>It is no standard one are forced follow, but it is maybe that people thinks so
>that is the problem.
>
How about the "standard" you tries to force us to use ? (FlexNet)
...snip... (LARGE bandwith-eating signature-text removed)
/SM3LKS
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
