| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:20l 206 Lines 7707 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_256E
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/256E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE6XAR<OE3XPR<OM0PBM<OM0PBB<SR9ZAA<
PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/1849Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16245 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_256E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 00 20:17:31 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_256E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
card was too expensive), and there would be too much risk in having the
required PCB (at least 4, probably 6 layers) made in sensible batches, and
not selling all of them.
Or having problems with the availability of the chip (very common problem
with Motorola).
But later I have seen a German design that was essentially the same thing.
I don't know if they have made it into real availability.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:19:35 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10009181957230.28694-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Charles Brabham wrote:
> > 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
> > constant foundationless vapor-hype, coupled with the almost total lack
of
> > accomplishment from the amateur tcpip community went over about like
feces
> > in the punch bowl. The constant insults and accusations directed against
the
> > general Ham community didn't go over too well, either.
> >
> > That's why the great majority of Hams wouldn't touch amateur tcpip with
a
> > ten-foot pole. It might (or might not) be great, but that doesn't really
> > matter after the way amateur tcpip buffs have alienated the general Ham
> > population over the years. Nobody wants to be associated with them, no
> > matter what they may or may not have to offer.
> >
> > They pissed in the well, and nobody was impressed.
>
> You could have put that more simply:
>
> TCP/IP over amateur radio never caught on because to properly set up a
network
> requires COOPERATION by the participants - a trait that amateur radio
licensees
> generally lack.
>
Thousands of Hams cooperated to build the AX25 packet network and HF
forwarding nets that the tcpip goons showed such intolerance about and
actively worked to undercut. - So your "theory" does not hold water.
You are just indulging in some of the very behavior I described...
"The constant insults and accusations directed against the general Ham
community didn't go over too well, either."
I guess that sort of behavior is so deeply ingrained that it has become a
"knee jerk" or just plain "jerk" reaction by tcpip buffs such as yourself.
Thank you for the direct verification of my opinion. It's nice to be proved
right.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:19:13 +1000
From: "Shane Deering" <vk3bvp@crosswinds.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:p8qx5.20247$6f1.986318@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > . 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.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Could you explain in a bit more
> > > detail what that interface would be / do?
I'm suggesting that SNOS should be able to talk directly to the Windows
TCPIP stack rather than having to go out one NIC and back in via another
one.
Just like all the internet software I know of does.
> > > As far as I'm aware, SNOS
> > > and etherax25 have nothing at all in common, they do different things.
That's right, more or less.
> > > You could, perhaps, use etherax25 to connect your Winsock over
> > > ham radio to another machine running SNOS ... and use a serial port
> > > and TNC instead of that second ethernet controller :-)
Yes. For a user (client) all that's needed is ethrax25 and a serial port
and
they are surfing the packet radio net in a matter of minutes and a few
reboots.
It doesn't have to be SNOS, it could be *NOS for private mail and bulletins
that have been through rewrite and alias (so that bulls end up like mailing
list mail is on the internet) or even to a server like I'm running here.
> >
> > I have to go out in a minute so it won't be detailed.
> > I thought that SNOS used BPQEITHER to talk to the packet network via
> > another computer that has normal packet interfaces. Why not add a normal
> > packet
> > interface to SNOS.
>
> I think you should look at the web pages before you "think" too many
> wrong things. SNOS has ax.25, NET/ROM, tcp/ip, can talk to TNCs
> on serial ports, supports HAL P38 and PCI4000 controllers
I have actually downloaded SNOS a couple of times. It seems to offer more
now than when I last looked at it.
I'm sure in the past it wouldn't run without bpqether and there seems to be
more features now. If I had a couple of spare card slots and NICs I would
be temped to give it another look. If it talked directly to the Windows
tcpip
stack and to BPQ via a loopback port I'd be running it now.
But for now I get more features with less hardware with what I'm running.
>
> > Of course they have nothing in common. The idea of using ethrax25 is as
> > interface
> > option like bpqeither. To be used as well as or instead of it with SNOS.
> > If you have eithrax25 you don't need to connect to another SNOS
computer,you
> > can connect to any *NOS computer over packet.
> > I just thought it would be a good interface to have as well as
bpqeither.
>
> SNOS does all that.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Not what SNOS is about ...
OK, then how do end users get their mail and bulls from your SNOS server.
Or does everyone have to use SNOS to be able to use, say, outlook express
to get their mail.
I tend to split packet (or internet for that matter) into two types- server
and
client. SNOS would be a good server if you had their hardware to run it.
But I don't see it as a client solution.
> > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > As far as I was aware, etherax25 allows you to stuff tcp/ip
> > > out over a TNC. No services, nntp <-> bulletin translation, etc.
> >
> > Good isn't it. Why tie yourself down to one bit of packet software.
> > I use Mailtraq which does that and a lot more.
> >
> > > So it doesn't solve the most important issue: maintaining
compatibility
> > > with the existing packet network applications. SNOS my experiment
> > > to do this: provide the bridge between the existing BBS network
> > > protocols (e.g. forwarding) and the tcp/ip protocols (e.g. nntp
> > > distribution).
> > JNOS<>Mailtraq does that too, but you aren't tied to using them.
And mailing lists and you can get your mail with a browser if you were
silly enough. The remote logging is handy. It's all compatable with the
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_256F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
