| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.00 23:31l 197 Lines 7281 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_253E
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/253E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE6XAR<OE3XPR<OM0PBM<OM0PBB<SR9ZAA<EC1L<
EA7URC<PE1NMB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000920/1907Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:16290 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_253E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 00 16:38:50 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_253E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> Internet-backboned "cellular, frequency re-use" system: Blow-hards
> like yourself can't set up 500w ERP hilltop stations and "blow away"
> everyone in your county, AND all the surrounding counties to boot!
> Besides, with the Internet as a backbone, you don't NEED high-power,
> high-level nodes.
What does this have to do with MURS in particular? Nothing at all. You might
be surprised to find out how many modified VHF amateur radios are being used
on
the VHF and UHF business bands - without power limits.
> 2) Like it or not, people WANT commercial content. I don't see what
> you are complaining about now; first you were bitching about hams using
> the Internet as a backbone, because of all that "commercial" content.
> Now the FCC has provided us with a solution, you are bitching about
> that.
The FCC has long permitted commercial data, in the Part 90 service (for
example).
Just fill out a license and buy type-accepted gear. It hasn't set the world
on
fire. MURS will not, either. It is not a substitute for amateur radio.
> Face the facts, Hank - the world has changed.
Hank might have some zany ideas, all that Pacific Northwest moisture seems to
have
gone to his head sometimes :-), but I believe he's right on about this topic.
Stewart, you're excited about MURS. Have you ever listened to those
frequencies?
I don't think you'll be as excited after all the voice users start jamming
your data
network.
Dana K6JQ
dana@source.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:06:35 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address
"Dana H. Myers" <dana@source.net> wrote in message
news:39C2D89F.DEED8AB7@source.net...
> horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
<murs mumblings elided>
> > Face the facts, Hank - the world has changed.
Um ... not really.
A long perspective will eventually lead you to this conclusion as well.
> Hank might have some zany ideas, all that Pacific Northwest moisture seems
to
have
> gone to his head sometimes :-), but I believe he's right on about this
topic.
"... might have some ..."
Dana!
"... has many ..." if you please.
(Else I have failed and "my work here is done".)
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:52:32 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: TCP/IP Address
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote:
><horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8puats$1qf$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <ss59bl58h3t29@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Steve Sampson \(K5OKC\)" <ssampson@nospam.radio-link.net> wrote:
>> > I did come up with a pretty neat application. The National Weather
>> > Service had a NOS system and you could FTP weather data from
>> > all the remote sensors all over the state. I just scooped this every
>> > hour and then sucked it into Excel every month to make some
>> > graphical charts. Pretty neat to analyze your illness against
>> > barometric pressure, or lawn height versus rain :-)
>> 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!
>Anything that runs over tcp/ip works!
Not in those days, Hank!
"NOS" was just the name of a certain version of "NET" that had a modified
internal structure so that the interface between "applications" and
"kernel" more resembled the BSD socket interface, but it was never
separated into a kernel and applications at the distribution (executable)
level. All the applications had to be compiled and linked with the kernel.
The result was a very large number of different "NOS" versions, each
extended in some direction to include applications the particular
maintainer liked, and with a stability reflecting the programming quality
of that particular maintainer. You know, being sloppy with memory
allocation or pointer handling just made the program leak memory or crash
for other reasons, killing your entire station.
It took until 1992 for freely available Unix-like systems to come on the
market (I installed my first Linux system in december 1992), and THAT was
something that would have been nice to have in the early NET/NOS days.
(the first NET version was released in 1985)
Now you could independently develop and run applications in separate
processes, and have them crash independently. Plus existing applications
could be used with packet radio without having to adapt them into the NOS
environment. This was a big win, but it was too late.
Most die-hard NOS users would not part with their system, learn Unix/Linux,
buy a better (at least 386) system to run it on, etc.
(I am not counting the happy few that had an old 3B2 from work, to have a
decent user population one needs to use hardware that anyone can get)
Of course it became worse when Windows 95 finally appeared and all the hams
went using that OS, for which usable interfaces between IP and packet radio
did not appear for several years. The only "solution" was a separate box
connected to a shack ethernet and running some router software (NOS, for
example). This was just a too complicated solution when one could also run
a packet terminal program interfacing with a TNC directly connected to the
Windows box. The BBS user did not see any advantage of a network protocol
anyway, as his connection is point-to-point over a local link.
The really attractive applications only got widespread with the
introduction of Internet in the general consumer market (around 1997, 1998)
and by then the amateur packet network was already losing its most active
proponents.
So, it is not fair to say there was never a lack of applications and than
anything that runs over TCP/IP works. It does now, but it did'nt back
then!
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:39:12 -0400
From: "Carlos Portela" <cportela@simple-sw.com>
Subject: WTB: Windows software for an SCS PTC-IIe TNC
Hi All,
I just bought this unit and installed the software that came with it. The
included software (PlusTerm) doesn't seem to be great but it probably works
for most people. However, in my case, I need to run the software from an
IBM ThinkPad 600X which sets the COM port to 5 and PlusTerm says that this
is an invalid port.
There must be a good Windows program out there (FREE or reasonably priced)
to control this great box. From what I hear this is a very good MPC that is
not well represented by the software bundled with it.
Thank you in advance!
Carlos
W4EDB
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #253
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
