| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.09.99 01:10l 201 Lines 7652 Bytes #-9778 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_233D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/233D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE2XOM<OE2XUM<OE5XBR<OE3XBS<S50BOX<S50MBL<
IV3AVQ<IW3EFI<IW9EXL<SV1AAW<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990917/1835Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:63703 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_23
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19171 ; Fri, 17 Sep 99 18:09:10 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015653 ; Fri, 17 Sep 99 18:50:50 MET
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 99 18:47:24 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_233D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/233D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
I have my no-code license for 21 years now, and I have never felt the
urge to "upgrade" (???) to a full license, even though I can copy morse
code and could probably have passed after a few months of practicing.
This only means I cannot transmit below 30 MHz, something which I am not
interested anyway. It has never kept me from being active in packet
radio and the building of the network.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/ |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:57:53 GMT
From: jdouglas@timewave.com (John Douglas)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
In article <7rqec8$mnj@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Charles Brabham"
<n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
>
>Cathryn Mataga <cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote in message
>news:zJRD3.1016$1i3.19197@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
>>
>> >
>> >This is the "Let's forget ham radio and use the internet"
>> >a.k.a. Land Line Lid solution. I'm not interested. It's cheap,
>> >it's easy, but it's not ham radio. No ham radio NETWORK
>> >involved, just a simple link.
>>
>>
>> Whatever...
>
>Those boring old Hams with their constant insistence on using Radio...
>
>Where could they possibly be coming from with that attitude? What would
>cause them to think that way?
>
>Whatever.
>
I really wish I had said that!!!!
John'
N0ISL
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:00:35 -0500
From: Jim Miles <miles@logixnet.net>
Subject: Need Help with Kantronics ][ rtty/cw interface
Hi All
Recently I purchased a Kantronic ][ rtty/cw interface to use with
my R-8 and a IBM compat PC.If anyone out there uses one of these
interfaces with a PC..how do you hook the 5 wires to a rs-232 port
(db-9 or db-25) or do I need a ttl to RS-232 interface?Any help would
be welcomed.
Thanks
Jim
>.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:17:09 GMT
From: emery@cray.com (Scott Emery)
Subject: Old question, Old technology
I find myself looking for a reference for a question that
has surely been answered many times. I don't need the full answer
on the group if there is a reference somewhere (esp. URL).
I have a situation where a number of stations are trying
to use one BBS at 1200 baud. What affects performance, how does
performance degrade as stations are added? Is there a way to
calculate "peak" and/or "expected" performance (meaning total
characters per second transferred).
Looked at another way, I am trying to find a document which
describes what kind of overhead I can expect on a 1200 baud link with
multiple stations.
Scott Emery
KF6LCV
emery@sgi.com
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:03:20 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: The Applications Mantra
"If we could get some new killer applications running on packet, this would
cause the hobby to become more popular and bring in lots of new Hams."
Sound familiar?
It should... This is one of the many variants of the "applications mantra"
which has been floating around the amateur packet radio community for
several years now.
It is politically correct to repeat this mantra, so we get to hear it a lot.
Almost everybody pays the obligatory lip service to it, sooner or later.
Being "politically correct", this also puts the "applications mantra" under
the category of things that people tend to put their mouth in gear to repeat
without bothering to engage their minds first. They don't tend to examine
the statement and see if it really holds water... It's one of those
"everybody knows" things; common knowledge. Most of us would be embarrassed
to even question it but as we all know, I am impossible to embarrass in this
way. ;-)
Many of you will be upset at me taking a few pot-shots at this sacred cow,
but has anyone else in the group taken a good look at this matter lately and
thought it through? Where's the evidence to back up the constant assertions
that a new application for Packet will cause the problems the US Packet net
is currently facing to suddenly go away?
Hams are so used to repeating the "applications mantra" that it never occurs
to them to examine the reaction of Hams to new packet apps as they appear,
and see if the wild enthusiasm that has repeatedly been predicted actually
occurs. In other words, where's the evidence that the "applications mantra"
we have all been busily parroting has any basis in fact?
In my opinion, it is mainly a bit of misdirection brought to us by the
people who are actually responsible for the problems that the "applications
mantra" lamely blames on a lack of new packet applications.
Amateur tcpip devotees have led the chorus in chanting this mantra, and
there are numerous examples of virtually every amateur tcpip enthusiast on
the net taking their turn to pay lip-service to the ever-present and
obligatory "applications mantra".
Until recently, this was almost exclusively done in reference to those
wonderful built-in tcpip apps that are included with modern operating
systems, and how Packet in the US would take a rapid turn-around as soon as
they became available for use on packet... But now that they have been
available for several years and almost none of those same tcpip devotees are
even attempting to use them, those particular apps have now been removed
from the mantra and new, as yet un-thought-of apps have magically taken
their place there.
Convenient, huh? Perpetual "Vapor Apps" whose crying need can't be
questioned because they do not exist and nobody can imagine what they might
be... Great for the circular reasoning so popular with the mantra-chanting
set.
Like I say; Where's the evidence that the "applications mantra" has any
basis in fact?
Gee, what if it turned out that it was one of those things that SOUNDS GOOD,
but is actually a waste of hot air? What if it turned out that a lack of new
killer applications is not what's been holding back and screwing up the US
packet net after all?
This deal is not by any means limited to amateur tcpip... For example, there
is regular ax25 packet software now that allows exchange of digital audio
messages on a reliable and practical basis on nets as slow as 9.6kb. This
(BuxTerm) is a great step forward, so where's the wild enthusiasm? Where's
the hordes of new Packet ops clamoring to build up new network
infrastructure so that they can really enjoy this exciting new application?
Fact is; Both ax25 and tcpip packet ops have been literally swimming around
in new exciting applications for the last few years and I have seen no
evidence whatsoever of the sudden resurgence in the US Packet net that the
"applications mantra" always insists will happen.
The evidence does not support the theory, folks. When a new ham hears the
"applications mantra" and then goes on to parrot it himself, it is clearly a
severe case of GIGO. (Garbage in, Garbage out)
If there were such a crying need for new Packet applications, where are the
To be continued in digest: hd_99_233E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
