| |
W0RLI > BPQ 28.08.99 11:34l 57 Lines 2184 Bytes #-9910 (0) @ WW
BID : CB92W0RLI
Read: DL7AMN DB1RAS GUEST
Subj: Re: BPQ x FlexDigi
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PPL<OK0POK<9A0YRB<PP5BLU<
WB7AWL<VE7KIT<VE7SRY<VE7VBS<VE7DIE<N7MGZ<W0LVJ<KB7CNN<WA7SJN<N7YSS<
K7IQI<W0RLI
Sent: 990828/0020 @:W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM #:52115
<n5pvl@n5pvl.#ntx.tx.usa.noam> wrote in message news:1607_n5pvl...
> >If you think Linux is useful, that may explain why you think
> >Flexnet is better than BPQ: simple lack of knowledge.
> >
>
> For my part, I agree that Linux is a joke, but I have learned to take
> FlexNet very seriously. That was because FlexNet worked exactly as
> advertised, and Linux was a dismal waste of my time and money.
>
> A debate as to which is better for general use; BPQ or FlexNet is pretty
easy
> to resolve.
>
> BPQ is obsolete, no longer developed. No future, despite it's great past.
By "BPQ" I assume we are talking about the protocol originally
known as NET/ROM. Hardly obsosolete. The software written
by G8BPQ may or may not be obsolete, YMMV. There are many
recent implementations of servers and clients for the NET/ROM
protocol. In my view it is important to separate the implementation
from the protocol. That said, I've not always been clear. To make
my statements more clear I should perhaps be pedantic. What I've
been talking about is the NET/ROM protocol, including those
additions first implemented by G8BPQ in his switch software.
Those additions are, in my view, important. Thus if I say "NET/ROM"
or "BPQ" what is meant is the complete protocol as implemented
by G8BPQ. If I mean to discuss particular implementations, then
I would use their name, e.g. K-net or NET/ROM 1.3 or TheNet 2.0
or BPQ 4.08 or SNOS 1.5.
To be even more clear: JNOS has an implementation of the BPQ
protocol. It is incomplete (does not handle rerouting on failed
links and routes) and also incorrect (the derived circuit RTT information
is done differently than other implementations thus causing serious
timing problems particularly during circuit setup and link reset, data
retries are done with the frames in the wrong order, data retries
are not counted toward circuit failures, etc.).
> BPQ is difficult to set up and operate properly without assistance.
FlexNet
> is easy to set up and properly run.
Cannot comment on this since I've never seen a Flexnet network.
Are there any? Where do they exist? How can I connect and
investigate one?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
