| |
SM3LKS > BPQ 14.08.99 00:04l 159 Lines 5878 Bytes #-9925 (0) @ EU
BID : 43298_SM3LKS
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: BPQ Obsolete
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<DB0PDF<DB0CL<DB0CXH<DB0RDB<
DB0IL<OZ5BBS<OZ4PAC<OZ2DIZ<OZ2BOU<OZ3BOF<OZ2BOO<SK6YW<SM6DLD<LA9H<
LA4O<LA5G<LA2T<SK3UB<SK3JR<SM3LKS
Sent: 990812/1553Z @:SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU #:43298 [Ostersund] LinFBB7.00g $:43298_SM
From: SM3LKS@SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@EU
SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU wrote:
To : BPQ@EU
...snip...
>>In Sweden, only SM7UZI thinks BPQ is obsolete.
>I hope not!
OK, you don't think so.
But I have not seen any other message, originating in Sweden, that support you.
>>No other swedish amateurs had said anything negative about BPQ.
>No, and what should that indicate?
>If that is true is some thing that you want to tell the whole world!
What is true, or not, is a relative thing.
What I say i true, someone else says it is wrong.
And they can both be right.
An example:
It's 10 degrees centigrade. Is it cold ?
That depends what temperature the person is used to.
So you can't tell the whole world the truth, it might not be true everywhere.
>There is no need for insulting your fellow swedish apr users!
I'm sorry if you got insultet by my statement.
But honest, when did I insult you ?
When I said that only you says that BPQ is crap ?
>All people are not interested in this kind of rather stupid discussions!
Why do you keep starting this "stupid discussions" then ?
...snip...
>This is not a discussion, leading to some sort of developement of the packet
>network or much very good. Maybe will some peole learn something, it is why I
>still am answearing and so on.
OK, a good reason, but educate us instead of saing that we don't know
anything and your way is best.
You just say a thing, but not explaining so people can understand.
Example: Just saing that BPQ has a bad packetdriver isn't enough.
Everyone doesn't know what a packetdriver is.
An explanation should avoid a lot of misunderstanding, and replies.
...snip...
>>I have a working node with a 386SX33, 4 MB RAM, 60 MB HD, FBB v7.00g,
>>BPQ v4.08a, USCC>4-card (4 ax25-ports).
>Use tfpcx or flexnet, they are both better packet drivers.
>Give up the node, both speed and memory is better used by the bbs.
>But tha computer is really not enough for both a node and fbb7, not even fbb7
>you shuld get some more ram.
An exellent example of bad teaching.
As you don't know anything about the actual performance of this computer,
I fail to see how you can make that statement.
>>The node has never had any problems to keep up with the traffic at any time.
>>The node is in a central place in the node-network, if it dosen't work,
>>the node-net is down in a large area.
>It it a rather slow node!
>The traffic could be speeded up a bit, by kicking out the bbs ans use the
>computer as node only and get one with more ram for the bbs.
You can't possible know how this configuration works.
Have you seen it in action ?
And no, it is not slow.
...snip...
>>In what way ?
>>(Sorry, I forgot: Things manufactured yesterday is automatically obsolete)
>It seems lit you are not realy interested in how to improve the performance of
>youy node, the apcket network etc.
>More like you se this like it is your duty to defent the bpq software.
Im am really interested in improving the network, but I'm realistic.
I can't do changes in my corner, and automatically think that everyone is
about to do the same changes.
Changing to FlexNet can actually be a degrade of the network, as it has
non-standard responses, the routing is not compateble, etc..
In one place where they have a FlexNet-node, the network actually hung for
extensive periodes because a non-standard resonse from FlexNet.
To get the most out of FlexNet, it should be used everywhere.
This is often an impossible task, as many nodes is unattended and remote,
and that makes a replacement from NET/ROM-tnc to FlexNet-computer a VERY
bad thing if you want a network that is stable.
(Computers do crash you know, NET/ROM-tnc's has NO problems there)
That makes a NET/ROM-compatible node better than FlexNet in any place of
the network.
>>They are cheap, and they can do the job with processor-capacity in reserve.
>Sometimes, but not always.
>Why do you think computers get faster and faster?
Theuy are getting faster by two reasons:
1. The companies that makes them want more money.
2. Computergames etc..., programs with a graphic frontend demands fast
computers. (AKA windows-based programs)
But when you comes to packetradio, you don't need any graphichal frontend,
it has no big arithmetic operations to perform.
You don't need a state of the art computer.
A 486DX33 has almost never more than 10% usage of processorcapacity,
running a packet-node and BBS in the same computer.
...snip...
>But for unnatendes stations is windows not at all good.
>You can't get a windows node run for years with out any crash etc!
For unattended nodes, just using a computer is a bad thing.
Computers should only be used in attended stations.
...snip...
>>I use a single-processor-computer, and I have not discovered any loss in
>>the node-performance. (Linux + linux-node)
>Teh you ahve a fast computer, low speed packet modems, much ram for hd cache
>etc.
>But for many people is it much easier to get two old 386, 486 computers to use
>as node and bbs, than one faster comptuer for both.
>Not very strange.
I'm using a 486DX66. Thats not fast according to you.
It is an old one, you just said so yourself.
>>As a matter of fact, my node (in an obsolete single-processor-computer,
>>running a multitasking OS) has a less problems than the other in my area.
>If it is a good node is there never any problems, it shall run for years woith
>out any breaks! Like most rmnc/flexnet noced!
>Your node is not like that!
How do you know that ?
And what node is not like that ?, my Linux-node or the 386-BPQ-node ?
BPQ-node:
It has run for a lot of years with just 2 crashes, HD-crashes that could
just as easy happened if we were running FlexNet.
The computer has never crashed because the use of BPQ.
Linux-node:
More than 2 years of uninterupted 24h/day usage. No problems.
...snip... (LARGE signaturetext removed)
73 de SM3LKS
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
