| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:13l 252 Lines 7738 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2241Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4291 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20246 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 22:05:07 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016090 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:42:04 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:36:59 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
But the packeteers didn't care, they said, CW, RTTY and Voice traffic
handling is old technolgy who cares if it fades. If it fades let it die!
Heh, heh.
And the evil . . . . was those new technologies called packet BBS
forwarding, AMTOR, APLINK, etc . . .
It's interesting to hear now two decades later poor old Charles Brabham
wishing that the government or the FCC or someone (anyone?) could prevent
amateurs from starving the long haul packet BBS system of traffic. Heh,
heh.
As the old saying goes, "What comes around goes around."
We don't need to try to preserve and protect old outmoded ways of doing
things.
We need new compelling applications for packet radio. The "application
mantra" is what will save packet radio not the preservation of the status
quo!
Comments, thoughts?
Peter AB4BC
pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:36431.728593631736pmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.118...
> n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in
<7spven$296k@enews1.newsguy.com>:
>
> >The proper wording, if you care to make a proposal, is to outlaw the use
of
> >non-ham means for the primary routing (ham to ham) of amateur radio
digital
> >traffic.
> >
> >I do not see how a Ham could come up with a legitimate objection to what
I'm
> >proposing, but I'm ready to hear somebody try.
> >
> >--
> >
> >73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> >N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> >http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
> >
> >
>
> With your description of "(ham to ham).. amateur radio digital traffic", I
> assume that when and until it finds its way onto the amateur radio digital
> traffic networkout, it is plain ol' digital data. If my understanding is
your
> intent, it will not change my life or operating habits one iota. How would
it
> effect the operating habits of others that choose not to use the rf
network?
> How will it promote more traffic by insuring that anyone using the rf
system
> will be held hostage to its inefficiencies and limitations with no options
for
> LL forwarding? Why would those living with the problems of the rf network
today
> chose to use it tomorrow when it will be crippled worse? Will the volume
of
> traffic, "secured" by regulation, compensate for that traffic lost from
those
> no longer willing to commit messages to a network of lesser reliability?
>
> I would communicate my ham interests by any means I found preferable to
the
> PBBS/NTS/Whatever you propose, as I do now with my ham and non ham related
> communication, for reasons such as:
>
> I prefer to use my own point to point hf and vhf rf equipment.
> Greater speed by LL.
> Greater reliability by LL.
> More convenience by LL.
> Lower cost by LL.
>
> Given the reasons I have stated and others that do not occur to me at
present,
> I find no value in your proposal unless the purpose is to drive another
nail
> into the coffin of the amateur radio digital traffic network.
>
> Maybe I am missing something in your logic or the facts of the premises.
>
> Why would I choose to send or receive a message by a slow, archaic, broken
> digital traffic network when I have other choices, assuming the prime
reason to
> send or receive a message is other than the use of an amateur radio
network?
>
> Based on my understanding above, of your suggestion to control the primary
> routing of all (ham to ham) .. amateur radio digital traffic, I care not.
The
> actual implementation would mean nothing to anyone, except those that do
use
> the rf network. If they chose to live with the effects, that is their
business.
> If they are held hostage to the effects (such as those that have no option
but
> to use rf to get a message out or in), my sympathy.
>
> I would oppose federal regulation of routing because I am aware of no
reason
> that would justify government regulation of a facet of this hobby,
regardless
> of what has been done in other countries. The rf network should live or
die by
> its own merits, or lack thereof.
>
> Pete/wa4hei
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:32:04 -0700
From: Eric Zeller <ezeller@oacis.com>
Subject: DOS for Hamcomm? (newbie!)
If you use something like Freedos, you will need to disable your anti-virus
software, the anti-virus
software works by keeping any software from writing to the boot sector, and
Freedos needs to write it's
boot loader there in order to setup your computer to a dual boot system.
However I imagine this advice is quite out of date as I see other people have
posted about fixing
your problems with windows. Hopefully you should already be up and running
now.
If you haven't already, you might create a boot floppy that has your specific
needs on it and doesn't
call windows.
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Filippo Cattaneo wrote:
>
> I tried a variety of freeware MS-DOS substitutes: FreeDOS, 4DOS, RxDOS
> etc. - none seems to work, I never reached the point where I felt like
> firing up Hamcomm. The FreeDOS I downloaded from the FreeDOS project site
> got my antivirus all worked up and screaming that Bloodhound was hiding,
> unconquerable, in the boot sector of the boot disk - rats!
>
> I also looked on the Caldera site for OpenDOS, but kept getting shunted into
> Linux or what not.
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:29:13 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Double Posts!
Charles:
Are you speaking from both sides of your keyboard?
[Said in jest!]
Charles even though we don't see keyboard to keyboard, I enjoy the
interaction.
I know you love radio, and I do not question your motives, but your efforts
are misguided and in the current political and regulatory climates will
simply lead to further decay.
Change is necessary.
Peter AB4BC
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7spvi5$297v@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I'm not sure yet how some of my posts are being sent twice. I'll be trying
> to track the problem down and fix it.
> --
>
> Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:46:06 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Double Posts!
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7sqmsb$rrn@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com...
> Charles:
>
> Are you speaking from both sides of your keyboard?
>
> [Said in jest!]
>
> Charles even though we don't see keyboard to keyboard, I enjoy the
> interaction.
>
> I know you love radio, and I do not question your motives, but your
efforts
> are misguided and in the current political and regulatory climates will
> simply lead to further decay.
>
> Change is necessary.
My opinion: it won't happen.
Impossible to get the organization required.
Groups with national and international visibility not interested.
Heck, even NTS uses internet links now. What a joke.
Some of us continue to build working network, for fun, as we
have from the start.
Most of the folks who post here don't have the (insert favorite
phrase for "Hams too lazy to actually do anything") to contribute
but we do gain the occasional ham willing to put forth the effort
involved to get something new up and running.
I post here for amusement between projects. Got kinda burned out
cleaning up old tired 9600 baud links and working on the current
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
