| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 18:55l 176 Lines 6874 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171A
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<
PI8GCB<PI8WFL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1346Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41051 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17803 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 12:54:17 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014699 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:32:35 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:29 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171A>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Packet-Radio Digest Sat, 24 Jul 99 Volume 99 : Issue 171
Today's Topics:
Kenwood TH-D7 (or TH-7D!)
Linuxnet and xfbb? (5 msgs)
Programs for Baycom Modem
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:99/171
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:46:33 -0700
From: "Walter Dunckel" <wdunckel@best.com>
Subject: Kenwood TH-D7 (or TH-7D!)
The TH-D7 is a great radio and you will not be dissapointed. It does send
and receive APRS messages, or E-mail. These types of messages can be entered
on the keypad of the radio .... with some effort. The TH-D7 does not let you
operate in what would be considered packet mode, without the use of a
laptop. It is designed specificaly for APRS, rather than packet as a
stand-alone station. With the addition of a laptop, winCE, or Palm Pilot
device you will have a packet ready station.
The european version can be easily modified to operate on all channels that
can be received. The US version is not much more difficult.
These mods, as well as some uses for the radio can be found on my website
at:
http://www.radiohound.com
Walter Dunckel
KD6VYV
Neil Toombes wrote in message
>So, I am currently looking for an handheld 2m/70cm radio. The new Kenowwd
TH-D7
>(or the other way, TH-7D) looks quite a useful piece of kit. Anyone out
there
>have any experiences of it? I guess Iwill mainly use the "phone" side of
the
>radio as I already have packet gear but I guess the built in TNC will have
some
>use.
>Some questions I have are:-
>a) I am planning to visit the USA (California) next year and it would be
>usefull to be able to send packet messages back home via the packet
network.
>Can I use the keypad on the Kenwood to type in the messages and send? I
really
>dont want to have to take the laptop with me aswell.
>b) I believe that I can use the radio to monitor the packet cluster. Does
this
>use its own display for this?
>c) Any comments on the audio side of the radio for both TX and RX.
>d) Does anyone know if it can be easily widebanded? A UK version will only
>cover the UK portion of the bands (144 to 146 MHz) but the USA has another
2MHz
>tacked on to the end. From my previous visits to the USA as a 2m listener
I
>know that there is quite alot of activity on this last 2 MHz.
>
>Hope someone can help me. If you have answers tot hese wuetions or any
other
>comments on the radio, please email me at NToombes@aol.com. Your views will
be
>much appreciated, good or bad!!
>
>Regards
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:21:59 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Linuxnet and xfbb?
Kirk Job Sluder wrote in message ...
>>
>> Sorry, Bubba, but the old Commodore C-64 had LINUX's text interface
beaten
>> all to hell twenty years ago. I used a UNIX machine 15 years ago, and
firing
>> up LINUX takes me right back to that time. - I've gone a long way since
>> then, and do not have patience with 1970's tech here in the late 90's.
>
>I suggest that if you judge an operating system by the bells and whistles
>attached to the interface, that you would be much happier with Windows 98.
It's true that I judge an operating system for it's basic functionality.
Perhaps you are so used to UNIX/LINUX that you think of basic functionality
as a "bell 'n whistle", but most of the rest of us consider it as basic as
ordering an icemaker with your refridgerator, or air-conditioning with an
automobile.
Like with "X-Windoze", for example: A full one-third of all the icons in
the X-Windoze "Start" menu led precisely nowhere. Click them, then wait, and
wait a bit more because nothing is going to happen. I got fooled by this
several times, because the ones that DO work typically take so long to
respond. It makes it hard to tell the nonfunctional ones from the ones that
work, but like REALLY SLOW.
- Just for the record; Has ANYBODY had something like this happen with a new
Win95/98 install? I never have.
>
>Quite simply, Unix and Linux was not designed to have a nifty user
>interface (although one can certainly install KDE, CDE, GNOME, Windowmaker,
>Afterstep or E as a user interface.) Instead Unix and Linux were designed
>to be extremely stable multi-user systems capable of squeaking the maximum
>performance out of minimal hardware.
Well, if that's what they were after, they better get back to the drawing
board. LINUX is SLOW. A real dog. - And it regularly froze up when in
"X-Windoze". - Not exactly what I would call "extremely stable".
It takes up WAY too much room on the HD, it takes up WAY too much time to
load up and run, then it takes WAY too much time to load 'n run programs,
then it takes WAY too long to get out of.
This is in addition to the fact that it takes WAY too long to learn that
archaic command set, taken straight out of the 1970's. Why should Hams take
a giant step backward, just to use difficult, poorly performing software?
> Linux is also a modular system
>which means that the core operating system comes only with a command-line
>interface (and that interface is its self a program separate from the core
>OS.) If one wishes to use a graphical user interface, one can choose from
>a dozen window managers, about a half-dozen system administration tools,
>more than two dozen email clients, and several word processing programs,
>all of which are mostly independent from each other.
- And few if any of which can compare to the freebee stuff given away with
Win95/98.
I like modular systems, but only ones that perform well. FlexNet would be an
example of a modular system that provides significantly better performance
than the non-modular stuff it replaces.
LINUX is modular, but it's performance is not impressive. It's pretty sucky,
in fact.
>>
>> Try to get a life. There's lots more out there than cheapo operating
To be continued in digest: pr_99_171B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
