| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.99 23:35l 191 Lines 6914 Bytes #-9773 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_235D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/235D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PPL<OK0POK<9A0YRB<PP5BLU<IW9EXL<
SV1AAW<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990920/1751Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:389 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_235D
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19348 ; Mon, 20 Sep 99 16:54:28 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015709 ; Mon, 20 Sep 99 18:18:21 MET
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 99 18:11:14 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_235D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/235D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
forwarding, it is tuned towards high throughput and high channel
utilisation. Unfortunately, this increases the latency time and the
latency times become less predictable, thus making interactive
applications not very comfortable to use and easily killing the
enthusiasm for any new interactive applications. OTOH, tuning for
better interactive response drops the channel usage and total net
throughput.
Even a 1200 bit/s full duplex backbone link would be great for
interactive use, since short frames could be sent effectively, without
taking the penalty from TxDelay. Unfortunately the good latency times
could be easily destroyed, if bulletin forwarding with long AX.25
packets would be inserted. On 9600 bit/s full duplex, a full length
AX.25 (bulletin) frame (sent at moderate intervals) would not destroy
the latency times for other users very badly (only 250 ms compared to
2 s on 1200 bit/s).
Paul OH3LWR
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:14:26 GMT
From: nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: FullDup RF links, anyone?
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>George T. Baker <w5yr@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:37E27426.7BAD150@swbell.net...
>> Rob, granted that you have excellent radio networking capabilities - and
>> are to be congratulated upon the accomplishment! - I still have a
>> question in my mind:
>> What do you *DO* with the networks?
>Let me ask you a related question:
> What do YOU *DO* with the internet?
His Internet connectivity seems to be as leaky as some packet links...
(he is accusing me of not reacting... sheesh! maybe he needs some
education on the topics of "time zones", "people having a job", "people
not being at the computer all the time" etc)
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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:18:21 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Ham tcpip network = pipedream
Having trouble getting those last few contacts for your DXCC? Use the
Telephone!
It's easy! It's fast! It costs less! It requires no
knowledge or ability whatsoever!
Still can't talk to those rare and distant countries on 10
meters, even with an expensive new tribander?
Use the Telephone!
Do you have NTS Health 'n Welfare traffic which must be moved to a
recipient several hundred miles away? Use the Telephone!
Want to build an Amateur Radio Digital Network? Use the Telephone!
Want to reliably communicate with distant Hams while radiating
a minimum of RF? Use the Telephone!
For some strange reason, in every aspect of Amateur Radio
except Packet, it is widely recognized that using the Telephone is not an
appropriate response to the challenges we face as Ham Radio operators.
Everywhere else, there is an unspoken understanding that as Hams, we are
expected to be clever in our use of Radio and in the process of
overcoming those challenges, advance the art and better ourselves as
persons.
Why is it, I wonder, that the type of information we transmit
(Digital as opposed to Analog) makes any difference in this matter? Why is
it "OK" to bypass and undermine the use of Radio by Hams who want to
transmit Digital info, but not "OK" to do so for Analog stuff?
Is there a particular reason why advancing the art of Amateur Radio in
respect to moving Digital info is deemed to be of less importance to us as
Hams? Is there any logic behind the widely-held perception that
as long as you are handling Digital info, it doesn't really matter (As a
Ham) whether you use Radio to communicate or not?
In places where the regs specify that non-ham means of
communication not be allowed within the Amateur Radio Digital Net, there has
been unchecked progress and advancement over the last decade.
In those places where the use of Packet/Internet gateways have not been
regulated though, the opposite has happened and Network
infrastructure has been severely compromised while Hams have lost interest
and heart in large numbers. This is what has happened to the USA, Australia,
and other places where "packet hackers" have been given a free hand to do as
they wish.
I have read about FlexNet nodes in Europe which regularly handle 10
Megabytes per hour and more of traffic. That represents a high level of both
physical and technical development and advancement, along with a high level
of interest and enjoyment among the individual Packet ops there.
The difference is infrastructure. Use the Telephone instead of
Radio, and infrastructure is what you give up. Sure, it's a challenge to
build a digital network; It's expensive, difficult, frustrating, and
sometimes appears to be impossible. The alternative though, is the
mediocrity which follows those who prefer to cop out, cheat, and
cheapen themselves while they undercut others.
I just don't see why our response to the challenges we face as Hams should
be different when wanting to move Digital as opposed to Analog information.
I do not see why Hams using Radio is treated as being less important in the
US than it is in Europe.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:24:23 +0100
From: Roger Basford <Roger@g3vkm.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Help: Shutdown Fault with "Logger"
Hi,
I've recently installed Robert Furzer's excellent "Logger" program,
primarily to get its enhanced PSK31 features. I'm having a problem when
shutting down the computer after using the program, instead of the
normal Win95 closing screen I get an error message saying that
"Msgsrv.exe has caused a general protection fault in module GDI.EXE". I
then have to do a power-down to clear the dreaded "blue screen" that
results.
Assuming this is not a program fault but something related to my system
set-up, does anyone have any ideas on this? The system runs an Intel PII
233 MHz processor with 64 Mb of RAM with Win95 OSR2.
Thanks for your interest,
Roger Basford, G3VKM
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:16:25 -0400
From: "tom" <tsokol@injersey.com>
Subject: Kenwood "HamWindows"
In the early 90's Kenwood had a rig control program called "HamWindows."
To be continued in digest: hd_99_235E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
