| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 16.04.04 15:43l 230 Lines 9208 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3150-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 13, 4/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040416/1256Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:22440 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3150-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: IGate/Server SysOps: Check your Configs
From: "Phil Pacier, AD6NH" <ad6nh@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:25:40
X-Message-Number: 26
On 04/13/04, ""Dave Anderson" <dandersn@citicom.com>" wrote:
>>Idon't know where you got that, but it's just an untrue statement. A
>
>Your -OWN- words, Phil.
I already apologized for mis-reading Greg's post. No need to run it into
the ground. However...
>At any rate, apparently, as usual, a technical issue that -needs- addressed
>has been totally dwarfed by this debate.
>
>I know i'm over it. Many who have contacted me privately are over it.
>
>If you can't discuss the issue Greg brought up to clear up the duplicate
>connect issues then please take your comments elsewhere.
The issue had to do with educating the end-users about connecting. Greg
brought up a great point - no multiple bi-directional connections are
necessary anywhere ever! This is great advice! However, educating the
end-users about connecting also includes the best places to connect
depending on how the server architecture is set up. Now that I have
re-read the post that Greg made, he is in agreement! Most, if not many
users do not need to connect to full feeds! That is 80% of my argument,
and the other 20% has to do with the Core and Tier 2 architecture. In my
view it is relevant. What is off-topic is your rant about me wanting to
kill the core. What is also off topic is whether or not you are changing
your mind about splitting full feed and filtered feed servers.
If you cannot reply to posts without making untrue accusations, please take
your comments elsewhere! I can't believe this has turned into what it
has.
73
Phil - AD6NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CAP and APRS
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 27
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Curt, WE7U wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>
>>Is there enough interest to make it worth starting an APRS SAR mailing list?
>>Iknow there are a number of us here actively involved in SAR in one way or
>>another.
>
>There are some already:
>
>1) Turnkey_APRS list off wetnet.net
>2) A list which the guy who wrote the SAR-APRS QST articles started
>3) The SARCOMM list. Not much APRS-related stuff on there, but I
>suppose there could be.
>4) I think there's at least one other list that I've joined lately,
>but darned if I can remember it right now. Jim?
#4 was an APRS Hardware mailing list, not specifically SAR-related.
A quick check on Google Groups also found this one: California
Digital EMCOMM. Looks like that one is for other digital modes as
well, but we'd need one that was intended to cover a larger area.
We could descend on the SARCOMM list, as it looks like that is
within the charter. It has 452 members though. If the APRS traffic
got significant on there, I could imagine people that were only
interested in voice comms would leave (not good).
#1 would be fine to use. I started that one back in 2000. It's not
getting any use.
Are there other possibilities?
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: IGate/Server SysOps: Check your Configs
From: "Dave Anderson" <dandersn@citicom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:41:36 -0400
X-Message-Number: 28
>If you cannot reply to posts without making untrue accusations, please take
>your comments elsewhere! I can't believe this has turned into what it
>has.
All I did was read your own words, Phil. I dont' see how that's considered
a untrue accusation. If you misread Greg, and "changed" your thoughts, then
this is a non issue. The problem is that these words echo your feelings,
and I have countless emails and other posts that show that "feeling".
As far as it turning into what it has - everytime a core sysop posts
anything - no matter how trivial - you turn it into this. The reason it's
still going on is that I am tired and fedup with it.
Seeya,
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: IGate/Server SysOps: Check your Configs
From: "Phil Pacier, AD6NH" <ad6nh@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:47:24
X-Message-Number: 29
On 04/13/04, ""Dave Anderson" <dandersn@citicom.com>" wrote:
>>If you cannot reply to posts without making untrue accusations, please take
>>your comments elsewhere! I can't believe this has turned into what it
>>has.
>
>All I did was read your own words, Phil. I dont' see how that's considered
>auntrue accusation. If you misread Greg, and "changed" your thoughts, then
>this is a non issue. The problem is that these words echo your feelings,
>and I have countless emails and other posts that show that "feeling".
Ah, now I must respond to yet another frivolous charge on the public sig,
that of "changing" my thoughts. Because I mis-read the posts, that does
not change my thoughts. My thoughts are and have ALWYAS been:
1. Multiple bi-directional feeds are not and never will again be necessary
2. Most, if not many users to not need to connect to full feeds.
3. The core should provide full feeds, and Tier 2 should provide filtered
feeds.
Show me where I have deviated from any of these three points, even when I
mis-read the original post. I don't believe I have "changed" any thoughts.
My feeling has NEVER been to kill the core. I challenge you to post all
your emails and other posts if you wish. You will never find me once
saying "kill the core" or anything like that.
>As far as it turning into what it has - everytime a core sysop posts
>anything - no matter how trivial - you turn it into this. The reason it's
>still going on is that I am tired and fedup with it.
Only because of the passion of some of the core sysops to insist that they
can handle the entire APRS-IS on their own. That is the only reason this
keeps turning into this kind of discussion. Dave, you have been the one
making the accusations and charges in this post, save for one - when I
started wondering what happened to your idea about separating filtered and
non-filtered ports on different servers. That is the only charge I made
and it was a true statement. Few if any of your charges against me have
been true or substantiated.
73
Phil - AD6NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: IGate/Server SysOps: Check your Configs
From: "Dave Anderson" <dandersn@citicom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:08:11 -0400
X-Message-Number: 30
Phil,
Let's just let this drop before it gets much worse.
Seeya,
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CAP and APRS
From: John Zaruba Jr <aa2bn@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:18:28 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31
I'm interested.
I gave a talk on APRS at the NJ WIng Communications Conference, and the
crowd was very receptive. There are some infrastructure issues that
need to be worked out, however.
73,
John Zaruba Jr. 2Lt CAP
Ground Team Leader / Assistant Comm Officer
Cumberland Composite Squadron NJ WIng
AA2BN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CAP and APRS
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:35:24 -0700
X-Message-Number: 32
Hi Curt!
We sure could use some more SAR types on FireNet! I'd like to see CAP data
on FireNet....and someone might just be working on that as I type this!
And, we are not limited to just APRS there. The Garmin Rino protocol has
sparked interest, for example. We now have 9 of them in our SAR team.
Tracking protocol is a real important issue and many good thoughts and
suggestions have come from the FireNet folks. As a matter of fact, I am
currently playing with NMEA (RMC) packets with the new TinyTraker chips
and, except for the packet length, I am very happy with the results. I
sure hope Byon considers and implements a compressed posit version VERY
soon! OpenTracker is going to give him a run for his money! Off
tangent.....but I might add that I like the fact that if I click on a NMEA
tracker, my window pops up and I see the APRS coordinate data and I also
see the NMEA RMC coordinate data as well. That was an added bonus I was
not thinking about....but I like it. I am VERY happy to see the OpenTracker
come to be. I'll be ordering one very soon to test for man-tracking use. I
think ultimately, the OpenTracker, with the APRS compressed posits mode and
later (when client software will support it) will be the answer for
man-tracking I am looking for in ham radio. The OpenTracker needs to
develop into a canned, ready-to-go unit to really shine....one that detects
other transmitters on the air to keep the operator legal!
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
