| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.12.03 09:36l 242 Lines 9483 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2502-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 15, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 031218/0721Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14873 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2502-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: TNC Digipeater
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:51:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 10
For a hardware way, do the X1J trick, except use a switch on the high address
line. Take a 27512, burn a dedicated KISS in the upper half, burn TAPR in the
lower half. Then you just turn the switch to go to the different modes (with
power off).
I think Paccomm even had a TNC out like this that could switch between the
DED software and the TAPR software using this trick.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 12/15/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: TNC Digipeater
From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 11
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>For a hardware way, do the X1J trick, except use a switch on the high address
>line. Take a 27512, burn a dedicated KISS in the upper half, burn TAPR in the
>lower half. Then you just turn the switch to go to the different modes (with
>power off).
>
>Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.
The only time you'd need the switch is if you wanted to turn off the use of
the extra features without having to touch the software config. That's a
pain.
I don't know if the switch would work. X1J already takes a bigger eprom
then standard in the TAPR-2 TNCs. I think it was a 27C512 instead of the
27C256. On some TNCs it's necessary to run a jumper to one pin of the
EPROM.
Bill,
WA7NWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: TNC Digipeater
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:02:09 -0500
X-Message-Number: 12
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:35:06 -0800 (PST), Bill Vodall - WA7NWP wrote:
>I'd install X1J node software in the TNC. It provides the basic
>KISS mode functionality AND gives you 3 or 4 aliases for standard
>digipeating.
That is the best way, I forgot about this (even though 4 of my netrom nodes
where setup exactly as bill suggested!!).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Key Chain Jump drives
From: "Eric Cuthbert" <ecuthbert@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:43:57 -0500
X-Message-Number: 13
Bob,
You need a driver for win98. all newer OS it will be recognised. Go the the
manufacture web site and download the needed driver. And yes, every win98
machine you plug it into will need a jump drive driver for it to work.
Cheers es -=73=- Eric va3fn/va3ewc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: TNC Digipeater
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:51:06 -0500
X-Message-Number: 14
You misunderstood, my only reference to the "X1J trick" was using a 27c512
with the high bit switching, BUT do it manually with a switch and use
standard software, just one version of the software offset by 32K. What I
suggested was exactly how Paccomm offered two software versions with their
TNC's, so I know what I suggested would work.
None-the-less, I think your other posting was the best way to do it.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 12/15/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Key Chain Jump drives
From: "Stephen H. Smith" <WA8LMF2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:47 -0800
X-Message-Number: 15
Bob Bruninga wrote on 12/15/2003, 11:08 AM:
>98 laptop and it worked!
>
>2) So, being cheap, I went out and bought a 64Meg jump drive and it
>didn't
>work. Said my laptop needed a driver.
>
>3) My cheap 64M is a version 1.1. But the one the other guy used was
>probably a version 2.0 jump drive. I guess someone had previously loaded
>a 2.0 jump driveer on my laptop (I get them used, legacy unknown)...
>
>QUESTION: So that is the question. Do 1.1 jump drives need a different
>driver from 2.0 jump drives? If so, having this 1.1 is practically
>useless if I have to also carry around a driver to load on every PC
>that I
>want to use it on...
>
>Bob
1) These devices are electically identical to standard Compact Flash
memory cards (as used in digital cameras) inserted into a USB-interfaced
card reader. The only difference is that the reader and the memory card
are combined into one inseparable unit.
2) None of these devices existed when Win98 was born; thus there is no
native built-in driver support for these devices.
3) Every brand and model of these USB keychain drives requires a
different vendor-provided driver for Win98 / Win98SE.
4) Virtually all of them are recognized completely automatically, with
no supplementary drivers required, by Win2K / Win XP. These systems
treat PCMCIA cards, USB flash memory and external USB or FireWire hard
disks all the same as generic mass storage devices.
4) Yes, you need to carry around a CD-ROM with your particular device's
driver if you want to use it on other people's machines running Win98.
You won't need it for Win 2K or XP. After the first time install, the
driver should come into play automatically the next time you visit their
machine.
Note 1: These devices won't work at all in:
a) any system without USB ports (obviously)
b) any system running Windows earlier than Win98 or DOS since these
systems don't support USB at all. [ Yes Win95B OSR2 supposed kludged in
a messy support of USB but it is so minimal as to be virtually useless.]
Note 2:
INSTALL THESE THINGS IN OTHER PEOPLES' WIN98 MACHINES AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
You are causing alien drivers to be added to someone else's machine,
thereby unavoidably meddling with, and changing their Windows
installation. Third-pary driver installs can overwrite existing shared
components of Windows (with supposedly new and improved versions) that
may cause other drivers and apps presently on the machine to become
flaky. At the least, you may have to reboot their machine to cause the
newly-installed driver to become active. Badly-written or buggy drivers
can cause unwanted side effects that are nearly impossible to undo
unless you are a really hard-core Windows techie. {I.E. the "Don't try
this at home" syndrome...)
There is little or no risk using these devices with Win 2K or Win XP
since the drivers required are already part of Windows (you aren't
adding any unknown variables to the system).
Bottom Line: If you really want to use these devices or equivalent
devices such as digital cameras and external hard disks safely, give up
on Win98 and stick to Win2K and XP machines.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Open source licensing
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:29:32 -0800
X-Message-Number: 16
I'm getting ready to make my first release of the OpenTracker firmware, and
I'd like some community input on the license it should be distributed under.
The OpenTRAC decoder reference implementation is distributed under the
Modified BSD license, which basically just requires attribution. It can be
modified and redistributed for any purpose so long as you give credit where
it's due.
But for the tracker firmware and its associated schematics and PCB layouts,
I'd like to add an additional restriction against commercial, for-profit
use. You're free to modify the code all you want, build your own boards,
distribute kits at cost to your ham club, get a tattoo of the PCB, or
whatever, I just don't want anyone going into business selling the units for
a profit, or building them into AVL systems for their own business use. At
least, not without my consent.
First, does this sound reasonable to everyone? And second, can anyone
suggest a good license? The Creative Commons Public License
(Attribution-NonCommercial) sounds like basically what I want, but it
doesn't seem really software-oriented. It *would* protect my source code
against being performed in public for profit, though. =]
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Key Chain Jump drives
From: "Brian Riley (maillist)" <n1bq_list@wulfden.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:37:38 -0500
X-Message-Number: 17
Win98 and WinME are funny about these drives. I have found that half the
time it takes it without question and half the time it needs a driver, you
let it go through its machinations and fail to install the driver, then it
show up on "My Computer" anyway!!!!! Did you just quit when it was looking
for the driver or did you let it go through and then check "My Computer"
????
On 12/15/03 2:08 PM, "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu> wrote:
>Can an Expert on Key-chain type Jump Drives educate me:
>
>1) Someone surprised me by plugging in his jump drive to my Windows
>98 laptop and it worked!
>
>2) So, being cheap, I went out and bought a 64Meg jump drive and it didn't
>work. Said my laptop needed a driver.
>
>3) My cheap 64M is a version 1.1. But the one the other guy used was
>probably a version 2.0 jump drive. I guess someone had previously loaded
>a2.0 jump driveer on my laptop (I get them used, legacy unknown)...
>
>QUESTION: So that is the question. Do 1.1 jump drives need a different
>driver from 2.0 jump drives? If so, having this 1.1 is practically
>useless if I have to also carry around a driver to load on every PC that I
>want to use it on...
>
>Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
