| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.06.00 14:49l 230 Lines 7124 Bytes #-9439 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_168C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/168C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<
PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL
Sent: 000618/0056Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:52494 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_168C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 00 00:19:57 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_168C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> > > Furthermore, all
> > > WinLink2000 BBSs are interconnected via Internet, which means it becomes
> > > obvious their main purpose is to act as a cheap e-mail replacement. The
> > > fact that all tfc is compressed (unreadable by thirds) makes it very
> > > difficult to check if this network is not misused by pirates of all
> > > kinds.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > It's a pity that PACTOR-II has been kind of devaluated and is being used
> > > almost entirely as a workhorse to carry binary BBS tfc. It's getting
> > > more and more difficult to find a live QSO partner amidst all these
> > > signals produced by unattended systems. No wonder PSK31 has become so
> > > popular: Behind every signal you monitor there's a human being!
>
> Well ... the value of bulk transfer protocols like PACTOR-II and CLOVER
> is that they work very well for BBS-BBS movement of messages. This allows
> hams to time-shift: i.e. carry on QSOs with other hams who are not on the
> air at the same time, etc. It's real convenient. PSK31 is not useful for
> this
> mode,
> so all use will, by the nature of the protocol, require a human to
> interpolate
> the errors out of the datastream.
>
> > > 73, Markus HB9BRJ
>
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Pat __O
> _-\<,_
> (_)/ (_)
> Patrick R. McKeeby
> N0ZO@lcia.com
> n0zo@lee.win-net.org
> http://members.lcia.com/n0zo/
> IRC - mIRC #netlink channel
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:44:49 GMT
From: n0zo@lcia.com (Pat McKeeby)
Subject: More on WinLink.
Hank you know very well what message Hans wanted you to post - your
digressing.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:24:14 GMT, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
wrote:
>
>Got this from Hans ... guess he doesn't have internet access.
>
>I'm not certain what message I was asked to post ... but here are a couple.
>Seems that Hans confused what someone else posted with my responses
>to that post. So i get a bunch of emails from him ... eh?
>
>> Hank,
>
>> I understand you have been stirring up all kind of shit again lately.
>
>You understand incorectly. Read the newsgroups, respond there.
>
>> You know, Hank, I do not mind being critiqued nor do I
>> hide behind a brick wall.
>
>You have just done so by not posting this to the appropriate newsgroup.
>
>> But I do have a serious problem with folks like yourself when you take
>liberty to
>> criticize others on nets and similar broadcast media and at the same time
>refuse to
>> post messages by those who you attack (me in this case)
>> when we are trying to clarify and straighten out your obvious
>misunderstandings.
>
>What nets are you talking about? What "... broadcast media..." ? CBS? NBC?
CNN?
>
>> The WinLink group has done more in the recent past for the betterment and
>growth
>> of the HAM community than anyone I
>> know of. I don't know if you feel threatened or abandoned
>> or what it is, but you sure are not making friends with the kind
>> of bullshit you send around.
>
>I'm not the one who feels threatened.
>
>> I suggest you study and learn what WinLink 2000 is really all about - you
>might be very surprised.
>
>Did that, no surprises.
>
>> Do as you wish, just shut up and stop playing god.
>
>Afraid of the truth?
>
>> Hans - N8PGR
>
>Perhaps the following is what he's talking about?
>
>
>> Hank, if you don't mind this post it on the newsgroups
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: N8PGR@winlink.org [mailto:N8PGR@winlink.org]
>> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 05:48
>> To: n0zo@lcia.com
>> Cc: pmbo@observatory3.stmarys.ca
>> Subject: Re: On the snoozegroups
>>
>>
>> Pat,
>>
>> Please forward my reply to the sender of this original message.
>>
>> All,
>>
>> You guys are missing the boat altogether with this gossip talk. WinLink
2000
>> is 100% BBS compliant with any style BBS on the market known to man. There
>> is NOTHIG proprietary about anything WL2K does or can do. At present we
>> support any Pactor and Packet modulation schemes available. Clover may be
>> added in the future if enough interest exists.
>
>See your point 3. below. Please explain how WinLink is "compliant" if it
>does not allow for "... interactive keyboarding ...", which is the main focus
>of traditional BBS systems.
>
>> Now granted, with WL2K with have moved FORWARD a giant leap by doing three
>> very important things:
>> 1. Intra BBS forwarding is removed from the airwaves so that USERS can use
>> the spectrum for what it is intended to be. I'm sure you have read the
>> bitching from the PSK group about this subject.
>
>What a giggle. "We're the good guys, we avoid using ham radio!"
>
>> 2. NEW features have been added to allow more efficient forwarding of
>> information between WL2K base stations and the users. True, presently only
>> AirMail has adopted these features, however, the specs are public and
anyone
>> is welcome to join the bandwagon.
>
>Presumably you have bulk compressed forwarding now?
>That "... giant leap ..." was done many years ago in all the BBS codes
>I know of, except for WinLink.
>
>> 3. The only feature removed from WinLink 2000 is interactive keyboarding
>> with a base station, again, to promote more efficient use of the airwaves.
>> Since client software is free and readily available to anyone who wishes to
>> use it there is simply no need for keyboarding any longer.
>
>So it is not possible to use, for example, Linux to connect with WinLink?
>
>> Any use of words like alliances, private, proprietary, commercial or
>> whatever is pure nonsense. Yes, we are taking advantage of the best
>> technology has to offer and employ such technology to the fullest in the
HAM
>> world - what's wrong with that?
>
>Um ... you have me confused with someone else.
>What "... technology ..." do you mean? The internet? What a giggle.
>
>> Hans - N8PGR
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Mid: 129061_CMBO
>> From: SMTP:n0zo@lcia.com
>> To: SMTP:"K4CJX - Steve Waterman" <k4cjx@home.com>;N8PGR@N8PGR
>> Sent: 06/16/00 03:25:00
>> Subject: On the snoozegroups
>>
>> I found the below on the newsgroups, Ole Hank strikes again. It was
>> entitled:
>> N0ZO no longer longer supports keyboard inputs.
>>
>> Path:
>>
news1.atlantic.net!pants.skycache.com!newsfeed2.skycache.com!newsfeed.skycac
>> he.com!Cidera!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!news-
out.worldnet.att.net.MI
>> SMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmasters3!bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
>> t.POSTED!not-for-mail
>> From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
>> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
>> References: <wgFY4.10775$ND5.640240@news20.bellglobal.com>
>> <393375B5.638FFC9A@philips.com> <sj7a95rl5pj146@corp.supernews.com>
>> Subject: Re: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!
>> Lines: 84
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_168D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
