| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 17.10.99 21:35l 234 Lines 7081 Bytes #-9715 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_261B
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/261B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE2XUM<OE5XBR<OE3XBS<S50BOX<S50ATV<S50MBL<
IV3AVQ<I4UKI<IW3HHD<IW3EFI<IW9EXL<SV1AAW<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991017/1532Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:8441 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_261
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21453 ; Sun, 17 Oct 99 15:09:36 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016445 ; Sun, 17 Oct 99 16:17:49 MET
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 99 16:07:11 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_261B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/261B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
which did not fully implement the protocol. Result - the cheaper units
sold better even though they didn't work as well on weak signals. On the
other hand, it was the less expensive units and retrofits to existing
units that made Pactor so popular.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:50:36 +0200
From: Walter Muth <wmuth@rbwelektronik.de>
Subject: PACTOR or AMTOR
Hi ...
But there should be a difference between a hardware rig and protocol and
coding of the transmission.
I think you have to use " open language " in amateur now you have to buy
special equipment from
only one manufacturer to listen to PACTOR-II. There is no detailed
description of the protocol and coding.
I dont speak about software implementation.
73
Walter
Bob Lewis wrote:
> > I have ethical problems with the idea of a protocol where you
> > must pay a license fee, though. Where's the hamradio spirit in
> > that...
>
> Icom charges for their rigs - where's the hamradio spirit in that... I
> guess anyone who designs and builds a product (whether hardware or
> software) has the right to give it away or to ask to be paid for it. I
> think they learned a lesson from Pactor-I where many mfgs. sold hardware
> which did not fully implement the protocol. Result - the cheaper units
> sold better even though they didn't work as well on weak signals. On the
> other hand, it was the less expensive units and retrofits to existing
> units that made Pactor so popular.
>.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 1999 19:10:31 GMT
From: pmunsel@aol.com (PMunsel)
Subject: PK-96 help, please..
I now have this TNC running. It was so simple, I hate to state what I did, but
I must thank the fella who pointed it out. All I did was send the * command,
and it started working. I could not remember that command, and could not find
it in the manual. Anyway, it is working now, and I appreciate the help.
73,
Paul N5XMV
>.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 1999 19:13:02 GMT
From: pmunsel@aol.com (PMunsel)
Subject: PK-96 help please
I owe a BIG thanks to John Douglas from Timewave for helping me get my PK-96
running again. It was a simple command, and I could not remeber what it was.
Also, I could not find the command in the manual.Again, THANKS John.
73,
Paul Munsel N5XMV
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:01:43 -0500
From: Bob Winingham <kc5ejk@onramp.net>
Subject: PK-96 help please
> Also, I could not find the command in the manual.Again, THANKS John.
> 73,
> Paul Munsel N5XMV
Page 6 re-initialization
Page 12 The * to set auto baud
>.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 1999 13:57:28 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
> As a long term Unix developer I could tell you all the horror stories
> you might like about getting SunOS and Solaris and HPUX and BSD
> to all run the same application. "Fully incompatible" is more like it.
I'm surprised to hear you say that. In my experience, there's usually
not too much problem at all with well written, modern code.
I am a developer with the Debian GNU/Linux project (www.debian.org).
I've done quite a bit of porting stuff to linux and haven't experienced
problems. I also do a bit of development on Solaris and HP-UX.
With an awareness of the differences, and the use of smart tools like
GNU autoconf etc, there's not too much difficulty.
Hamish
>.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 1999 14:00:01 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
> I have ax25-utils.
> Where is NET/ROM?
[...]
> Where is IP over NET/ROM?
Both built in, once configured. Is there a problem?
> Where is NET/ROM over Ethernet?
Also possible I believe. I've never had the need so I don't know
how to set it up. Ask on linux-hams.
hamish vk3sb
--
Hamish Moffatt Mobile: +61 412 011 176 hamish@rising.com.au
Rising Software Australia Pty. Ltd. http://www.risingsoftware.com/
Phone: +61 3 9894 4788 Fax: +61 3 9894 3362 USA: 1 888 667 7839
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:38:16 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pier who
could keep a Win95/98 machine going for more than a week or so without
crashing in some awful way. Talk to a really experienced LINUX user, and
they'll tell y again.
>
I probably will, but I'll give it another year or two to develop first.
Since I'm not a LINUX user, my Win95/98 machines do not constantly crash and
mess up, and that's an important consideration. They are quite reliable, in
fact, and I'd like to keep them that way.
I've been reluctant to use LINUX because I've never known a LINUX user who
could keep a Win95/98 machine going for more than a week or so without
crashing in some awful way. Talk to a really experienced LINUX user, and
they'll tell you that they can only keep a Win95/98 machine going for a
matter of hours or even minutes between crashes!
That seems like an awful lot of inconvenience to put up with, just to use
LINUX on one of my machines. I'm not sure if I'm ready to give up the
reliable, crash-free performance I've been enjoying for years on my Win95/98
stuff.
I intend to wait until this problem with LINUX boxes mysteriously causing
nearby Win95/98 machines to become crash-prone has been tracked down and
resolved.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:17:07 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:7u4m3i$19lg@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.9910131935050.162-100000@dns.bde-arc.ampr.org...
> >
> >
> > Linux version 2 is a lot better than the version 1 based series of
> kernels.
> > Maybe you should try again.
> >
>
> I probably will, but I'll give it another year or two to develop first.
> Since I'm not a LINUX user, my Win95/98 machines do not constantly crash
and
> mess up, and that's an important consideration. They are quite reliable,
in
> fact, and I'd like to keep them that way.
>
> I've been reluctant to use LINUX because I've never known a LINUX user who
> could keep a Win95/98 machine going for more than a week or so without
> crashing in some awful way. Talk to a really experienced LINUX user, and
To be continued in digest: hd_99_261C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
