| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:23l 215 Lines 7734 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245G
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DB0CEL<DB0SHG<DB0OBK<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2342Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4332 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20254 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 22:26:28 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016102 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:42:47 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:37:13 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245G>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245G
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
>Best Regards,
>
> Peter AB4BC
To me it just seems pointless to run PBBS on the internet. Why not use nntp
or
something with a better user interface? What's even the point of having
a 'network' on the internet -- since it makes more sense to run a messaging
system from a single server with a fat data pipe, and then take connections
from the entire planet. It's just a waste of bandwidth to move all that data
around, if the users can connect in at just as fast. I could replace the
entire
Westnet with my DSL line and a few Linux machines here if people
came in over their net connections-- but what would be the point of it? If
you're
going to do internet stuff, it makes more sense to do proper state of the art
internet stuff. Like real time games -- or 3d interactive VR stuff, or maybe
real
voice or video chat or something like this? Running PBBS over the internet
seems about the equivalent of dialing someone up on the phone and
using morse code. Why bother?
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:05:54 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Cathryn:
My sentiments exactly. Apart from keeping the circuit "alive" for emergency
use there is no compelling reason to do that.
And so . . . . what exactly are the next generation of appealing and
compelling applications of amateur packet radio to be?
APRS is nice and it is fun, but the appeal is not wide enough.
What? We desparately need to find new applications, but . . .Charlie wants
us to stop the application mantra.
How about. . . . Nahhh no one would like to do that . . . .
Let's brainstorm here on the NG.
Maybe with the participation of everyone here and even including the
"lurkers" we could come up with new compelling applications to keep amateur
packet radio alive and to generate enough traffic to fill up our "bandwidth
to burn"!
Ideas anyone?
Best Regards,
Peter AB4BC
Cathryn Mataga <cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote in message
news:xg8I3.613$9d.8281@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
> Peter O. Brackett wrote in message
<7sr1ad$3t1@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>...
> >Hank:
> >
> >Ironical isn't it. Your comments below are identical to the comments of
the
> >NTS gang when packet came along. They said packet, and other new
> >technologies like AMTOR, APPLINK, etc. were siphoning off all of the
traffic
> >away from the CW nets and the TCC. (Hint I'm an old CW traffic handler
> >myself! Used to be an NTS CW NCS, cdma before Ethernet, heh, heh.)
> >
> >Now the shoe is on the other foot, here are Charles (And sometimes even
> >yourself!) complaining with exactly the same language as the old NTS'ers
did
> >back in the 70's and 80's. In fact your BBS software (God bless it!) was
> >the major offender was it not? Now the shoe is on the other foot.
> >
> >Technology has passed packet by in the same way that packet passed the CW
> >NTS nets, and the NTS nets bypassed the old original Trunk Lines.
> >
> >BTW. . . the CW NTS nets still meet and operate all cycles every night.
> >Traffic is getting thinner all the time though. Familiar fists keep
passing
> >on to the great hamshack in the sky. And whenever I meet some of my CW
> >friends for an eyeball at a hamfest or NTS meeting, even though they
still
> >have very snappy fists, I see a lot of white hair and white beards, and
not
> >many youngsters.
> >
> >Is that the future of packet now?
> >
> >Have we come full circle?
> >
> >Or is there a younger generation who will run with new technology, and
> >provide a better route to cause all the traffic bypass the old routes.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> > Peter AB4BC
>
>
> To me it just seems pointless to run PBBS on the internet. Why not use
nntp or
> something with a better user interface? What's even the point of having
> a 'network' on the internet -- since it makes more sense to run a
messaging
> system from a single server with a fat data pipe, and then take
connections
> from the entire planet. It's just a waste of bandwidth to move all that
data
> around, if the users can connect in at just as fast. I could replace the
entire
> Westnet with my DSL line and a few Linux machines here if people
> came in over their net connections-- but what would be the point of it?
If you're
> going to do internet stuff, it makes more sense to do proper state of the
art
> internet stuff. Like real time games -- or 3d interactive VR stuff, or
maybe real
> voice or video chat or something like this? Running PBBS over the
internet
> seems about the equivalent of dialing someone up on the phone and
> using morse code. Why bother?
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 1999 21:10:27 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
ab4bc@ix.netcom.com (Peter O. Brackett) wrote in <7sq4in$24g@dfw-
ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>:
>Cathryn et al:
>
>With respect to having fun.
>
If too few are using or supporting the PBBS/NTS it makes no difference
whether they are haveing "fun" or anything else. Without sufficient support
the network fails. Without sufficient incentive there is insufficient use
and support. Today, in my area of the country, I find insufficient reason
to use or support the archaic remnants of the network. Most other users and
supporters of yesteryear have defected the the internet. I suspect there is
no voluntary incentive to return to rf in many areas of the country.
I would return to 1200 bd rf if I had no choice. I would do 300 bd hf, if I
had no choice. I will do none of the above because:
I have a choice.
Much of the data I am interested in is worthless if "old".
The speed of the above options consumed far more of my life than I am
willing to invest today, for the gain received, relative to other options.
I was never involved in packet as a public service as the prime directive.
It was always from the perspective of "what's in it for me?" and "what's in
it for the supporters?". In today's market of options, in my part of the
country, if you do not want to do archaic rf for the sake of rf, there is
nothing in it for anyone except for a few individuals in isolated locations.
Even though our fun hobby may be justified by "public service" roots, it is
a recreational hobby and as such derives most of its support from those
that find value in its recreational aspects. I have no reason to promote or
support an old "junker" rf packet network that limps along like an old
"junker" car with a new tire and generator.
It is time for a new network model with the integration of new technology
and applications along with older technology that meets particular demands.
In my neighbourhood, the old network belongs in the junkyard as it has ceased
to be of value to most of its past supporters. If junkers are your fun, so be
it. It is not my kind of fun. It is not the fun of many others. It is not the
fun that will engender popular support and a reasonable argument for an
amateur
presence on a large block of frequencies coveted by commercial interests.
"Idiot" Pete/wa4hei
>.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 1999 21:00:35 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245H
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
