| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 25.11.99 07:56l 201 Lines 6950 Bytes #-9672 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_301C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/301C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0BOX<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0ME<DB0OVN<DB0PKE<
PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991125/0259Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:24622 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_30
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA24297 ; Thu, 25 Nov 99 02:30:35 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016979 ; Wed, 24 Nov 99 20:31:54 MET
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 99 20:28:18 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_301C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/301C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
: out.
: Why should you be any different? A Lid is a Lid.
It speaks for itself...
-jw
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:32:42 -0600
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: from newsline...amateurs provide Internet access in UK
Hey, great idea.
Maybe over here on this side of the pond we can now get a "champion", say
like Charles Brabham, to lobby our FCC to legalize full Internet/Amateur
Radio internetworking just like in the UK.
Charles, what think?
Peter AB4BC
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:m3aeoe4nbg.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
> this is an experiment worth watching. It would be interesting to see
> how we can replicate the experiment in United States in such a way
> that we prevent commercial encroachment while increasing amateur radio
> activity. My belief is the best way to do this is via the same model
> that we used for repeaters, i.e. club based connectivity. That way
> appropriate funding can be had for the Internet connection in a
> noncommercial context.
>
> HAM RADIO MAY JOIN THE INTERNET IN THE U-K
>
> United Kingdom hams may be permitted direct connection of their
> stations to the Internet by years end. This as the nations radio
> regulators look for ways to encourage more people to join the hobby.
> Jeramy Boot, G4NJH, has the story from Nottingham England:
>
> -----
>
> David Hendon, Chief Executive of the Radiocommunications Agency on the
> 29th of October announced the start of a two month consultation period
> hopefully leading to limited amateur radio access to the Internet by
> the turn of the year.
>
> Mr Hendon, speaking at the ' Making Connections' roadshow in London
> spoke of the important role amateur radio had, in the past, played in
> encouraging young people to take up a career in radio engineering. He
> spoke of the decline of amateur radio world wide and he emphasized the
> need to make amateur radio an attractive pursuit for young people to
> take up. Linking amateur radio to the Internet would be an important
> step forward.
>
> It is hoped, subject to licensing considerations, that limited access
> perhaps via the Repeater Network would be in operation by Christmas.
> However, he stressed that this would just be the start. The amateur
> community would be consulted fully to ensure the best possible use was
> made of this initiative.
>
> Jeramy Boot, G4NJH.
>
>
> --
> Eric S. Johansson ka1eec esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us
> This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:28:33 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: FSK demod
Bob Lewis wrote:
>
> The other modes yes, but Pactor-II is *not* FSK and you can't use the
> FSK circuits build in to any of the rigs.
I'm sorry, Bob, that was a typo. I meant to type PACTOR I. PACTOR I
is an FSK mode.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:45:47 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: JNOS vs TNOS??
Rob <NoEmail@NoWay.com> wrote in message
news:rTx_3.192952$5r2.444817@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> But my question still remains -- what do you think is better -- JNOS or
> TNOS?? Which has more features?? Which is more reliable?? etc
Neither one is suitable for use by amateurs. You might as well go back and
use spark-gap equipment if NOStalgia is your interest.
JNOS is historically the most bug-ridden, low-rent software ever used by
amateurs. TNOS is a takeoff on JNOS. You can pick your poison with complete
assurance that whichever one you go with, it will suck.
There is a small group of Hams who take great pride in the fact that they
have managed to get one of these programs to actually run, but nobody takes
either one of them seriously anymore, as much better software has since come
along to replace them.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:39:59 GMT
From: jra@febo.com (John Ackermann N8UR)
Subject: JNOS vs TNOS??
In article <rTx_3.192952$5r2.444817@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, "Rob"
<NoEmail@NoWay.com> wrote:
>I still see that TNOS has a web site. But perhaps the development is dead!
>
>But my question still remains -- what do you think is better -- JNOS or
>TNOS?? Which has more features?? Which is more reliable?? etc
TNOS probably has more features than JNOS (I say probably because JNOS has
been developing in the time that TNOS has been stagnant, and it has caught
up in many, if not most, areas). It includes a bunch of additional server
functions, more sophisticated PBBS stuff, and a different, and much more
complex, security/access control system which is handy for gateway use, if you
can figure it out. How much use most folks made of those additional features
is open to question, though.
TNOS also used to be the only real choice if you wanted to run under Linux,
but today JNOS/Linux works just fine, so that's not a differentiator.
Today, I'd run JNOS simply because of the ongoing development, and the
excellent support available at the nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca mailing list.
John N8UR
jra@febo.com
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:46:32 -0800
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: JNOS vs TNOS??
I run native Linux, and SV2AGW for Win98. Apparently, Flexnet has some
TCP/IP capability. I hear the guys in the NE corridor of the US, run
MFNOS, which I think is another NOS variant. And, they were also looking
into trying Xnet -- so that they could better communicate between Linux
ip machines and the Flexnet network over there. The MFNOS guy, claimed
they were implenting IPV6!, I think.
I believe there's an advantage to running NOS over internet based IP stacks
like with Linux and WIndows, that you can specify that the retry timers
backoff
linearly, rather than exponentially. Apparently, this is considered extremely
evil from the internet perspective, but it's a fast kluge to get ip to work
a little better when the connection is dropping packets due to noisy links--
rather than congestion. (There's a linux Kernel hack, I thought someone posted
to do this, though I haven't seen anything like this for Windows.)
It's actually, just a hard situation all around, the more I've looked into
this, since
To be continued in digest: hd_99_301D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
