| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 28.02.99 01:51l 183 Lines 5865 Bytes #-9942 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_44
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/44
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0GE<DB0IZ<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990227/2214Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:30840 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_44
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA14735 ; Sat, 27 Feb 99 21:53:48 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00012609 ; Sat, 27 Feb 99 22:27:14 MET
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 99 22:23:49 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_44>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/44
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Packet-Radio Digest Sat, 27 Feb 99 Volume 99 : Issue 44
Today's Topics:
BPQ
Internet Secrets
Why a TNC? (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Packet-Radio@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Packet-Radio-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Packet-Radio:99/44
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:01:19 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: BPQ
Rob Dover wrote in message ...
>If Flexnet would implement a KISS driver I might try that but until then I
>will stick with BPQ.
There is a KISS driver for FlexNet, but it is only used for
computer-computer links, since KISS is not efficient enough for use with
modern networking software.
So - since KISS is now obsolete, it looks like you will be stuck with BPQ
(also obsolete) for quite a while.
--- Or you could sell your Kantronics TNC (also obsolete) and use the money
to buy the cheaper, better-performing modems that are available. This, in
turn would allow you to use modern software and not be stuck using the
latest packet software from the 80's.
That's my advice... Sell it.
But it's all up to you. There's certainly nothing wrong with nostalgia, and
though BPQ is obsolete and no longer supported or developed, still it works
good enough for casual use. Not everybody is interested in high performance,
or in keeping up with the latest developments in packet. The main thing is
to have fun, IMHO.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 99 01:35:27 GMT
From: Cliffy@westman.wave.CA
Subject: Internet Secrets
Learn Secrets to Internet
-Find out how to watch videos and listen
to radio stations from all over the world
-Tour the ins & outs of the World Wide Web
-Learn on line secrets to maximize your on-line time
-Learn how to access the internet for free
-Learn about web sites where you can download
1000's of free software programs & games
In Canada call 1-900-561-0070 extension #1708
In the United States call 1-900-740-1515 extension #1248
Just $2.99 per minute
Must be 18 years of age or older
Procall Co. (602) 954-5420
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:44:33 -0700
From: W6RCecilA <w6rca@ibm.net>
Subject: Why a TNC?
Alan - VE3NNM wrote:
> There's nothing in *MY* post that evaluates TNCs or anything else as
> useless. Perhaps there was in Cecil's ORIGINAL post, perhaps not - How
> about going back to read it and find out? You can reply to his post
> directly, and address your response to the correct individual! I'm sure
> he'd respond. Who knows, maybe after you've made HALF of the constructive
> input to this newsgroup as W6RCA has, your comments might carry HALF the
> weight.
The original poster said he was a programmer, didn't have a TNC, and
wondered what to do. I advised him to advance the state of the amateur
radio art instead of designing a new TNC and I said TNCs are obsolete.
Nothing wrong with being obsolete. 486-based PCs are obsolete but a
lot are still running. When I say "obsolete", I am speaking from an
development engineering standpoint. To the best of my knowledge,
no engineers are developing new hardware-only, op-amp filter, TNC
designs. There are much better ways of accomplishing the TNC
function nowadays for anyone willing to roll their own like
the original poster.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:48:16 GMT
From: rmcconne.NOSPAM@lightlink.com (Robert McConnell)
Subject: Why a TNC?
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:46:52 +0100, anders.lageras@usa.net (Anders
Lageras) wrote:
>A few years ago when the computers was not as good as to day was tncs
>needed. A computer could not handle a packet driver better or as good as
>the one a tnc could handle.
>But to day are the computers used for packet faster, they can handle a
>packet driver much better than the packet driver a ordinary tnc can
>handle. The cpu of a tnc is to slow for the packet drivers of today.
Unless you happen to be fighting one of the so called operating
systems from a certain major supplier in Redmond WA. If you have one
of these bug ridden piles of garbage, you will still need to have a
TNC for reliable communications no matter how fast your CPU thinks it
is.
On the other hand, if you use something useful, like some form of
Unix, as your base system, you could probably operate quite well
without the TNC.
Bob McConnell
N2SPP
>.
------------------------------
End of Packet-Radio Digest V99 #44
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: packet-radio@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: praga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
