| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 30.09.99 14:24l 206 Lines 7713 Bytes #-9736 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_245J
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/245J
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990929/2350Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:4363 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_245
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20262 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:06:55 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016111 ; Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:43:19 MET
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 23:37:21 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_245J>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/245J
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> AutoPOWER Systems, Fairview, TX (30 mi NE Dallas) Collin County
> QRP-L QRP-ARCI FISTS NORCAL ZOMBIE ARS 10-X 33.2 N 96.6 W EM13RE
>
>
> "Peter O. Brackett" wrote:
>
> > Simply put, "use it or loose it".
> >
> > There are many commercial interests who covet our frequencies. We need
to
> > populate and show use those frequencies, not just keep them for a few
> > "elite" folks having "fun".
> >
> > Just as with the amateur packet network heyday of the 70's and 80's, we
need
> > plenty of ham radio "users", call them appliance operators if you will,
to
> > keep the networks viable. The only way to keep these great majority of
> > appliance operators is to treat them like "customers", try to give them
> > compelling applications so that they continue to participate and create
a
> > "market" for ham equipment, and traffic to keep our networks viable.
> >
> > Returning to the past is fun, but it won't protect our valuable
spectrum.
> > We must move forward and attract the users back to the amateur packet
> > networks even if they don't have the same form and functions as before.
And
> > Chalie's idea of convincing the government regulators to protect us by
> > regulation is a "pipe dream", they (The FCC) are under siege themselves.
> > The Administration, the Congress, the commercials are mostly all
espousing
> > the breakup of the FCC and the elimination of most regulations. Like
the
> > ostrich of Africa when frightened, Charles Brabham has his head in the
sand
> > and that is very dangerous to our hobby!
> >
> > Use it or loose it.
> >
> > Comments, thoughts?
> >
> > Peter AB4BC
> >
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:42:06 -0700
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hank Oredson wrote in message <7sru6h$50h$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> 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?
>
>Why not use nntp (and smtp/ftp/pop et al) on ham radio?
>I do. Works fine. Doing it to read and respond to your post.
Yeah, that's true. And, funny thing is I do actually run NNTP also using
mailgw for PBBS traffic, which is kind of neat. (Though I have a pretty
limited feed right now.) I haven't had time to mess with that stuff lately,
though it works as far as I can tell from my limited testing. I just
use nntp for reading pbbs, since it allows me to only download after
looking at subject names. But, I haven't actually tried doing an nntp
feed or anything. Hey, does anyone archive PBBS? Is there a
dejapbbs somewhere? Hmm.
I do think that the 'content issue' with PBBS improves with a better
reader program. The deal is that conventional BBS's make you sift
through all the junk you don't want to read. And really the issue
isn't so much the junk itself, but that there isn't a really good way to
filter it. With pbbs->nntp links, it is much easier to browse old messages
and ignore stuff you don't want.
Btw, how do run nntp on Win98? I've never heard of such a thing?
And in nntp, how does it handle it when people come up with new fields, like
Pactor@ww or pact@ww -- do you create a new newsgroup for
each type? Right now in mailgw, it basically just stuff everything
that's not pre-assigned a newsgroup to the ampr.pbbs.usa.misc,
for example, but that isn't really a perfect solution. I think the jnos nntp
guy in England was creating new newsgroups on the fly, which seems
like the 'right' way to do this.
I have been working on my super-duper new Linux PK232 Pactor code -- and
I'm eeking out the last few bugs in that, aside from which seems to be working
pretty good. (I maybe try connecting out to your frequencies you listed.
Though
right now I"m finishing off the 'receiving connections' stuff.. Right now I'm
running
with back to back pactor modems, and I still need to fix the final
disconnection sequence to be clean -- and figure out what exactly
to do with linefeeds and carraige return characters so that fbb compressed
forwarding works. Aside from that it seems to work.)
I can move some of this to PBBS, once I bug Mike into sending me
@usa. I'd copy this to both here and PBBS, though I'm not sure if
Outlook will allow me to put in 2 diffferent newsgroups on 2 different
servers or not. (I can send out to @usa no problem now.)
Really, it doesn't take that many bodies who say stuff to keep up a
conversation. I'd guess that less than about 10 people
account for most of the slightly heated discussion here on dig.misc.
So, for all the talk of the masses of bodies moving to the internet,
I really think we could do much of what we do here on PBBS.
One other thing. I'm still trying to figure out if there's a way in Windows to
gateway
all the 44.xx.xx.xx addresses through the RF link, and all the rest of the
ip addresses through my regular gateway. I can do this in linux, but
I'm not enough of a registry guru to know how to make that happen. It
only lets me specify a gateway in Windows, but it doesn't allow me to specify
a netmask or ip adress range in Win98 like I can with route statements
in Linux. Errr.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 02:47:55 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >
>
>
> I believe now that our HF allocations are safe, but that save was really a
> slam dunk" since no one else really wanted them. And so . . . I believe
> that our "sacred" HF bands will be like our National Parks, simply
preserves
> for the use of nostalgic older communications modes. the ARRL needs to
work
> on the UHF, uWave and broadband applications.
>
> HF will be like sailboating today, a fun hobby, and an interesting
activity
> ffor a few diehards, but not really technically relevant.
The single most ignorant declaration I have seen expressed on this
newsgroup.
And that's saying quite a lot.
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 02:41:49 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7sr737$9uv@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com...
To be continued in digest: hd_99_245K
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
