| |
W0RLI > BPQ 18.02.00 21:00l 39 Lines 1117 Bytes #-9733 (0) @ WW
BID : 17F05W0RLI
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Solution to BPQ32
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0FSG<IN3TRX<OE7XBB<OE2XUM<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PPL<
OK0POK<9A0YRB<HI8GN<WU3V<VE7KIT<VE7VBS<VE7DIE<N7WE<KB7CNN<WA7SJN<
K7IQI<W0RLI
Sent: 000218/0033 @:W0RLI.OR.USA.NA #:4916
<sm7uzi@sk7iq.malmoe.m.swe.eu> wrote in message news:sm7uzi285...
>
> >> >So flexnet is pretty much useless with KISS TNCs.
> >>
> >> No, the KISS-mode on radio interfaces is pretty much useless.
> >
> >Evidence for this statement?
> >
> >> I has so poor timing that you should not use it, and that is
> >> why flexnet does not support KISS-TNCs.
> >
> >Funny, the KISS I know about has CRC and can supply packet sent
> >timing accurate to about 2 milliseconds. I wonder why the FlexNet
> >bigots seem to know so little about KISS?
> Evidence for this statement?
They keep claiming "it does not work", and refuse to provide any
proof. Since it *does* work, right here at this station, I conclude
that folks who say "it does not work" are either ignorant or stupid.
Same way you keep claiming "FlexNet is better" but provide no
evidence. The evidence I have seen shows that FlexNet is WORSE
than NET/ROM, by up to a factor of TWO in throughput. So I
don't use it, since NET/ROM is better.
The evidence I refer to has been posted here several times already ...
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
