| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:16l 220 Lines 7147 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_255F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/255F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/1858Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16256 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_255F
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 00 00:12:37 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_255F>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
controlled, except an R/C station
that transmits in the 26-27 MHz frequency band, a FRS unit, a LPRS unit, or a
MICS transmitter.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:59:31 +1000
From: "Shane Deering" <vk3bvp@crosswinds.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> I think my observations are right on target. There are perhaps
> several reasons tcp/ip over ham radio has not become popular.
I'm not real sure of exactly what happened here. A lot of people
got on the tcpip bus when it passed through here some years
ago, but got off again just down the road.
> The fact that the usual (e.g. Windows, Mac) applications could
> not be used is one reason.
I think that would have helped keep people interested. And maybe
even given a reason/excuse to improve the network.
The client software of the day was pretty spartan.
Server software doesn't really matter much.
> The difficulty of getting *NOS setup
> and running properly is another.
That wasn't a problem around here. We'd have generic set ups that
only required a search and replace for things like callsign(s)and IP
addresses. The rest can be fine tuned as the users learns about it.
> A Linux solution is not of
> interest to most hams.
It's not ready for the real world yet.
> The applications embeded into the various
> *NOS executables are either not easy to use, don't work well,
> or do not exist at all. One expects, for example, to click on
> a file and attach it to an email message.
This is a real problem. As long as I don't use HTML or attachments
I don't have any problems sending out packet messages using
internet software (OE) and no one knows I'm using it unless I tell
them.
>
> A different architecture is needed.
>
> Win95 and Win98 with both run virtual DOS machines.
> They work just as well as real DOS machines to run NOS as an
> interface/gateway etc. Just takes a second ethernet controller.
I like the use of ethrax25 for a client packet station. All it takes is a
serial port, a KISS TNC and the ethrax25 software and you can run
all your windows tcpip (internet) software on packet. You can make
the windows aps as simple or complex as you like. Stuff like
Oulook Express, Internet Explorer and Netscape are easier to set up
for this than they are for typical dial up internet use.
I did it a bit different to that. I used a nul modem cable and linked it to
a KISS port on my BPQ/JNOS computer. JNOS can act as an IP router and
a way of getting mail to/from the BBS network onto the local tcpip network.
I could have have done it on one computer, but I like to have FBB and JNOS
running on their own computer and not on the one I use for running new
(read sus) software.
> This machine is running that configuration. Ethernet controller cost me
> $7 at Frys a few months back. Now I don't have the problem of
> "all applications must be bound into the NOS memory image."
> All the usual Windows applictions work over ham radio tcp/ip
> AND over ham radio BBS links.
Same here, but I don't need as many card slots and using serial ports
works out a bit cheaper (but a lot slower) for me. Finding spare card slots
are my biggest problem.
>
> Your comment applies to Unix solutions as well: very few hams
> are interested in running Unix, other than a few nerds.
>
> To get hams to use tcp/ip there needs to be a better solution than either
> of these. It must be simple to install and simple to configure and simple
> to use. It must run in Windows. SNOS is an experiment in that direction.
I'd like to see an interface option like ethrax25 for SNOS. The code is GPL
and freely available. What I really want is JNOS with an interface to the
windows tcpip stack. Then it would be sort of like Wingate and Mailtraq
rolled into one, but with all the packet interface options.
>
> Are there any other solutions available?
Guess you knew I was going to say ethrax25.
To my way of thinking it offers the easiest way of getting windows
end user client tcpip software onto the packet tcpip network.
All you have to do is install the driver, hook up your KISS mode TNC
and config your software (that you're already using on the internet).
I've had a quick look at AGW, but only being able to use
the tcpip side of it for 45 minute (without registering it) has put me
off doing tests with it. Maybe one day.
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
>
--
Shane Deering VK3BVP
Packet VK3BVP@VK3BVP.#SEV.VIC.AUS.OC
http://www.qsl.net/vk3bvp/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:51:36 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q3r6h$tan$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <e5zw5.482$Cq6.36341@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > I think you just hit on the REAL reason Amateur packet TCP/IP has
> gone
> > > dormant - the lack of applications.
> >
> > "... lack of applications ..." ???
> >
> > Ya gotta be kidding!
>
> Not at all.
>
> > Anything that runs over tcp/ip works!
>
> What an insight you have!
>
> The PROBLEM is, at 1200bps they don't work very well. Most all
> applications have all been written to work at ethernet speeds.
1200 bps? Are you stuck in 1983 or something?
Let's look at the RFCs. When the main application protocols were designed,
the target was existing dialup connections. e.g. smtp/pop3/nntp. Those
connections
were just moving from 300 baud links to the faster 1200 baud links, 1200 baud
modems for home use were just becoming available (at $350 each), inter-
computer
links still mostly at Bell 202 or 64k leased line speeds.
Time frame is middle to late 1970's.
Guess why all those protocols are text based, are required to run
over 7 bit connections, and have mostly very compact command
definitions. They would run just fine over PACTOR-II links.
That's news and mail.
> NOBODY
> wants to sit around and wait for things to happen. The trick is to
> come up with applications that are useful at 1200bps. That's what I'm
> working on.
So what do you have in mind, that isn't news and mail or it's equivalent?
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:37:37 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q3r6h$tan$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > I think you just hit on the REAL reason Amateur packet TCP/IP has
> gone
> > > dormant - the lack of applications.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with all of the stated opinions as to why
amateur tcpip never "flew"... Everybody's got opinions... Here's mine:
Amateur tcpip never "flew" because of the hostile, anti-ham attitudes and
actions consistently displayed by amateur tcpip buffs, over the years. The
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_255G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
