| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 16.06.04 11:02l 783 Lines 29445 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3476-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 10, 6/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<JK1ZRW<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<
ZL3VML
Sent: 040616/0732Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:25939 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3476-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:15:49 -0700
X-Message-Number: 113
>sounds like OPENtrack might be the way to go on 802.11...
>that makes it a $60 per repeater instead of $600 each.
And it's certainly been designed with that in mind - UDP broadcasts
accomplish exactly that, and also take care of your Part 97 ID requirements.
>AND it is just so dumb to want to put something as forward
>looking as OPENtrack claims to be on a 1200 baud
>channel in the first place!
1200 baud AFSK on 2 meters has a definite niche, as shown by APRS.
Propagation is good, radios are cheap, it's easy to modulate and demodulate
with simple and cheap hardware, and you can kludge things together with
bailing wire and duct tape if necessary.
>I think what so many newcommers are not understanding
>is WHAT APRS is. A tactical real-time netork to get
>useful data to the MOBILE user at 1200 baud.
Sure. We've got the same goals here. Only I don't confine my definition of
mobile to 'Kenwood TM-D700.'
>If HAM RADIO is going to grow to fullfil the TRUE NEED
>of mobile computing, it CANNOT DO THIS on a 1200
>baud channel that is already saturated..
If it's mobile computing you want, go get a 3G cellphone. We're not trying
to do that. We're trying to squeeze maximum utility from cheap equipment
and limited spectrum. As for saturation, we're back to the two cars-one
driver thing again.
>the mobile computing requirements, not NOW, and
>NOT in the future. YET WE DO NEED THIS CAPABILITY.
>
>THUS WE MUST GROW IT elsewhere at 9600 baud
>at least or rum straight to 1 Megabit using CHEAP 802.11
Sure. Not my department, though...
http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:26:11 -0400
X-Message-Number: 114
At 05:50 PM 6/10/2004, Kurt O. Jauss wrote:
> Wait.... You won't move OT to a new frequency but want me to move my
>weather station? Wow!!!! I run a weather station and an IGATE so I need
>two radios and 2 computers and 2 TNC's and... If you want to run OT (
>Not APRS!!!! ) then you need to find a new frequency. PERIOD! nuf said.
Actually I believe Xastir (amongst others) can handle 2 TNCs with 1
computer.. But trust me, I feel your pain on that thought..
If the weather is just right you may get weather reports direct from
stations you might not otherwise.. So it creates an undue burden on the
DIGI operators.. It wouldn't be likely here really where we're lucky to
have infrastructure at all in some regions (such as the Northeast Corner).
--Droo, K1XVM
>Scott Miller wrote:
>
>>>Except in situations where there's noone listening on the input freq to
>>>dump to the national network.
>>
>>That's why I'm proposing to start with the weather stations and other fixed
>>telemetry sites. You know where they are, and you can coordinate use of the
>>alternate frequency. Users listening on 144.39 generally won't notice the
>>difference.
>>
>>Scott
>>N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:44:33 -0400
X-Message-Number: 115
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:37:37 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>If OpenTrac [went to] another frequency, it'd have to share many of
>>the same digi locations as APRS and would cause interference to
>>APRS still.
>
>If I were OPENtrack,
Wow, now THAT is a scary thought! For some reason a vision of the car that
the Beverly Hillbillies used in the show opening just pop'ed in my head.
Clearly, too many hours sitting in MCR of WXON, WGPR TV-62 and WKBD-TV50.
Glad I moved on from that career!!
>I'd choose a different band like 440 MHz then
>the two could co-exist.
No withstanding the fact it has been demonstrated "in the wild" that they
co-exist just fine on 144.39? That all these uproar on the SIG for the last
7 days is over one balloon flight? And that there are less then 100
opentrackers in operation?
Priceless.
>Or better yet, it sounds like OPENtrack
>might be the way to go on 802.11... that makes it a $60 per repeater
>instead of $600 each.
Yeah, that 1500 foot range real time AVL system really is going to be quite
useful. I can see the compelling reason for the 11megabit throughput for 40
byte positional reports.
BTW, speaking of 802.11b, we are doing something with it. See James 802.11b
locator:
http://db.aprsworld.net/datamart/802.11-search.php
and my sidebar on the subject in QST:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/0304028.pdf
But 2.4ghz propagation, with 22mhz wide signals is distinctly different then
narrow band VHF. It (WiFi) has a very distinctive place in amateur radio,
just not a conventional real time AVL system.
>AND it is just so dumb to want to put something as forward looking
>as OPENtrack claims to be on a 1200 baud channel in the first place!
Yeah, those free path loss equations and folks like Shannon are kinda dumb,
aren't they?
Bob, I want to take this time to thank you for promoting OpenTrak better then
anyone has, to date. As I understand it, interest in it has dramatically
increased since you began your tirade. And with your newest efforts to
"cleanse" the APRS-WG SPEC of useless 1 foot granularity protocols such as
COMPRESSED FORMAT, I know we can count on you long in the future to be one of
its best promoters.
Keep up the good work.
73
Jeff wb8wka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:14:44 -0400
X-Message-Number: 116
I'm not saying it's a bad idea.. I'm just saying that you have to convince
people to make use of it... I think beating people that use excessive paths
would be a better start. I still see some now and then for fixed station.
I'm not suggesting that because here in Maine it wouldn't be likely to be
implemented for a long while, that noone else should. But I'm sure other
people are of a similar idea that if you don't have DIGIs listening, then
you're just catering to air.. Which is different than if it was direct on
the 144.39.
If the D700 let you TNC both sides of the radio, then it'd be LESS of an
issue for me. But unfortunately that's not the case.. Maybe the Alinco
dualbander with the enhanced TNC does.
But I like Scott just fine.
--Droo, K1XVM
At 06:17 PM 6/10/2004, James Jefferson wrote:
>As short of summary as possible:
>Input frequency: not 144.39
>Output frequency: 144.39
>
>Action :Fixed stations transmit to local digipeater the pops them onto the
>144.39.
>
>Result: Less hidden transmitter problem and 50% less channel usage because
>the
>digi will transmitting the objects.
>
>Analogy: MIC-E repeater grabbing MIC-E bursts from voice repeater and putting
>them on 144.39.
>
>Conclusion: you still see all the stations from the digi and you have more
>channel capacity.
>
>Just because N1VG suggested it does not automatically make it wrong. This
>is a
>fundamental level 1 issue. I have not seen anybody make any comments about
>its validity at level 1, instead they just knee-jerk react and say that it is
>bad without even thinking that they loose nothing and gain a whole bunch.
>
>-Jim KB0THN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:21:44 -0400
X-Message-Number: 117
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:13:40 -0400, Steve Dimse wrote:
>On 6/10/04 at 3:36 PM Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> sent:
>
>>So, now we have 40,000 automobiles on Route 439, right? Nope, we
>>don't because, each automobile needs a driver (ham) and for each
>>OpenTrak auto put on the road, that means a APRS automobile had to
>>be parked in the garage. So the net increase is zero.
>>
>I disagree with some of tour assumptions...
No problem.
>New drivers are coming on the the road all the time.
And drivers also leave the road. In the cellular industry they call this
churn.
>A lot of effort
>is being expended in some areas to make room for these new drivers.
>Two years from now, there will be more than 20k drivers...not 40k,
>but 25 or 30k is certainly possible.
Certainly possible. But if you look at marketing/economic models, with that
growth rate, the market is approaching saturation. Growth has slowed
substantially.
>If opentrack completely replaces APRS, then the total number of
>drivers on the road would be the same as in the pure APRS system at
>any given point in time.
Or if 50% convert, or if 25% convert. The math still holds.
>This is not a likely scenario though, as
>this would mean the 38% of US hams with Kenwood investments would
>need to abaondon them.
Or upgrade them. I really think you and others are being too hard on Kenwood
here. They are people just like you and me, and if their customers demand
something, they will pay attention. A Kenwood stakeholder really should
approach them, before declaring them obsolete.
In any case, if converted OpenTrak drivers where on a different highway, the
Kenwoods still wouldn't see them, so your suggestion of QSY'ing still doesn't
solve the "38% solution". It would happen in either case.
>However, in a shared system there there may
>be the same number of drivers, but the cars may get larger...
Your right, thanks for reminding me. I think, what was that, comment field
extension of APRS? That is a car that is pulling a trailer.
>Imagine if the road had two lanes with a very pronounced crown...you
>could drive on the right, and see the scenery off the right side of
>the road, or drive in the left lane and see the scenery on the
>left...but if you drove in the middle, taking up both lanes, you
>could see all the scenery.
Yeap, and you'd also get a traffic ticket. This is exactly why I suggested
maybe Scott remove the simultaneous dual protocol option at some point. There
has to be an element of common sense here., and not straddling two lanes is
one of them. Maybe Scott can make the protocol selection and either or
choice, and as Bob suggested, delete the compressed APRS format HEX file from
his site.
>Some people might be content to see half
>the view, but a lot of people will want to see both sides, and to be
>seen by both sides.
XASTIR at one point had a conversion from OpenTrak to APRS-IS compliant
packets. Locally the increased precision is useful, but long range, on
APRS-IS, it is of less value, so that might be a solution. Did it for MIC-E,
I'm sure it can happen again, and with Bob's desire to deprecate APRS
compressed format, maybe OpenTrak can fill the void there?
>This amounts to a lot more traffic on a road already bumper-to-
>bumper in many areas...
Of course, it needs to be done on a case by case basis, as the RF network is
a local thing anyways. I was only looking at the aggregate.
I guess bottom line, I don't have a solution for you. And honestly, I
shouldn't have to. You don't owe me anything, and I don't owe you anything,
other then not to get in each others space. And that was my sole point, that
from a layer one perspective, that is very unlikely to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a proposed replacement for D700
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 118
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>By "dabble", Bob means 322,218 lines of code... According
>>to the utility "wc" which just counted them for me.
>Bob: Thanks! (I once guessed the lines of code near 30k lines
>Bob: of code. Could there be a typo in your number above?
I ran "wc" against the files I downloaded from your site. That counts
white space, comments, etc. It doesn't try to count just executable lines
of code.
By comparison, Xastir is less than 120,000 lines of C-code. It's kept me
busy for what, five/six years? and I'm only one of twelve developers. The
initial developer is not with the project anymore, but he put in a lot of
time also and we're greatful to him for starting the ball rolling and
keeping it going for quite a while.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: APRStt is it set in stone yet?
From: "Doug Younker" <dougy@ruraltel.net@ruraltel.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:24:58 -0500
X-Message-Number: 119
Hi,
As a person who suffers cognative difficulties due to brain injury, I
sometimes see a problem where others won't. I have
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/aprstt.html open in a browser window and
I see confusion about to happen. None of my older amateur transceiver tt
pads do not have the keys label with the alphabet, my newest a Yasue 1500M
isn't either so I'm looking at the pad one a cordless phone. Seeing we use
the keypad mostly to input numbers wouldn't it have made more sense to have
one punch to mean the number instead of punching the number four times to
send the number. Bob uses the number five in his example and the five key
is labeled 5jkl. In my mind in makes more sense to have one punch to send
5, two punches to send J, three punches to send K, four punches to send L
Unless APRStt VERSION 01 is irretrievably set in stone, I suggest rethinking
the button press sequencing. Thanks
73
Doug, N0LKK
dougy@ruraltel.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:27:58 -0400
X-Message-Number: 120
Reality check
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:14:10 -0400, Steve Dimse wrote:
>I just hope before opentrack reaches this point I'll have continuous
>internet connectivity in my truck so I will not need to use the rf
>APRS network, it could be a mess...
Week ago, 11+ hour balloon flight running OpenTrak, 400,000 sq mile coverage,
60,000+ packets generated due to excessive digi path. One reported protocol
issue reported in Virginia
Priceless
http://maps.aprsworld.net/datamart/track.phtml?call=KC8UCH-11&hours=300
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 121
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jeff King wrote:
>That is how I remember it as well. But did you ever market that tracker to
>the general ham population? AFAICT, OpenTracker (which also supports APRS
>compressed format) is the only tracker being marketed to support this.
> (If TT3 does, it is not on the web page as such).
No, I didn't. You wouldn't have wanted it. This was back in the days when
there wasn't an OpenTracker, wasn't a TinyTrak, and the only way to get on
the air for a mobile was either with an expensive Kenwood or with a much
newer TNC than I had.
What I did was hook up an HC11 board (MIT Handyboard) to a PK-88 and a GPS,
then used the HC11 to parse out the sentences, control the TNC, and make
packets. It worked. It also allowed me to play with Mic-E and Base-91
Compression easily. Along the way I resurrected a dead HC11 cross-compiler
for Linux and ported it to gcc-2.8.1. The end result was a suitcase-sized
APRS tracker, but I did it with zero costs incurred, which was my goal at
the time. Definitely not marketable.
--
Curt, WE7U 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: Compressed Positions
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:00:23 -0400
X-Message-Number: 122
RB> You seem to have no clue. READ MY LIPS!
RB> I have NO OBJECTION TO UPDATING THE SPEC!
RB> Where on earth have you been...
Ive been here, following this thread, where the constant cries of "No, we
can't do that, it will break the Kenwoods.." and "You are obsoleting 38%
percent of the userbase by proposing changes to the spec!"
Ever reply to any comment about updating the spec has been met with "You
Opentrack programmers.. blah blah blah"
I can post links to the relevent messages..
RB> No, it clearly shows that you have no clue what the
RB> issues are, and are just jumping on a bandwagon
RB> that you have no idea where it is going...
Yeah yeah, more personal stabs.. Doesn't it get old insulting everyone??
The issues are clear Bob.. YOU are the one IGNORING them.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:08:46 -0400
X-Message-Number: 123
There is enough propaganda and garbage being spewed by Bob to go around..
We can all share :)
Thursday, June 10, 2004, 4:10:43 PM, you wrote:
SM> Whoa, slow down Danny. You don't want Jeff thinking you're trying to take
SM> over his spot as resident Bob-heckler, do you? =]
SM> Scott
SM> N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [Possible Spam]Re: Compressed Positions
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:21:52 -0700
X-Message-Number: 124
----- Original Message -----
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
>3) Having precision to 1 foot without Datum is pointless
I disagree. It is known that if a datum is not supplied, it is assumed to
be WGS84 per the spec. If a group uses another datum for their own use,
then the 1 foot precision is still maintained in context. In the latter
case, if a disinterested party is looking at the position, then your
statement is true, but only in that case.
Score 10 points for Pete! In another sig with the same sort of discussion,
I proclaimed that if the people could not correctly set up there system to
use the datum 'they' needed, no software in the world is going to fix that.
It's still going to be hosed up and this 'fix' will do nothing to improve
anything.
Jim WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MIM Module source code released.
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:30:43 -0400
X-Message-Number: 125
The source code for the MIM module has now been released to encourage
further production of this small TNC APRS transmitter on a chip. This is
the same chip used in the Mic-E project and the protocol was later used in
the D7 and D700 radios.
http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/mim2.html
The MIM module was developed by WB4APR, N3MIM, and N3XLM and used in many
Balloon and small satellite projects over the years.
It provides these TNC transmit functions:
* Beacon Text
* GPS Position data
* 5 channels of analog telemetry in APRS format
* up to 8 bits of parallel bit data
* full implementation of the MIC-E format
* CW ID for balloons
One of these modules is sufficient to provide all the telemetry as used on
PCsat, PCSAT2, ANDE and RAFT1 satellte missions. THus, they are IDEAL for
small satellites such as CUBEsats pioneered at Stanford.
By releasing the Source Code, we hope this will encourage further
production of these excellent telemetry modules for TINY satellites.
de WB4APR, N3XLM and N3MIM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:37:23 -0400
X-Message-Number: 126
Problem is posession.. APRS is BOBs.. 144.39 is BOBs.. I'm sure if "hooking
a GPS to a to an encoding device and transmitting the position over a
radio" was patented by Bob he would be suing the cr*p out of Scott right
now. Kind of like Microsoft, but without the whole "leg to stand on"
thing.
The more this goes on, the more the defense of the users sounds like "MINE,
MINE, MINE!" and "Go play with YOURS over THERE!!"
I'm especially fond of all the "newcomer" jabs too. I'm waiting for "no
code scum" and "appliance operator".
Figure i'll sit back and UNWIND listening to 75 meters for a while.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Protocol - A Modest Proposal
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:40:27 -0400
X-Message-Number: 127
Welcome to re-inventing the world 1.0. This Idea has been in APRS for
about 10 years. Everyone knows it is better, yet NO ONE DOES IT. You dont
need me, or anyone else, JUST DO IT. There are all kinds of things that can
be done. Just read my fixing 144.39 page:
http://www.ew.usna.edu/~bruninga/aprs/fix14439.html
What we need is people to JUST GO DO IT, not just talk about it..
Bob
>>>James Jefferson <jj@aprsworld.net> 6/10/04 6:17:07 PM >>>
As short of summary as possible:
Input frequency: not 144.39
Output frequency: 144.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: compressed posits on APRS
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:42:14 -0700
X-Message-Number: 128
A group of doctors, years ago, decided there are elements that trigger
migrane headaches. One of them was the compressed posits on APRS. Their
remedy was and is to avoid the triggers as best you can to reduce the
numbers of headaches.
Recently another study took place by another group of doctors and they
agreed there are elements that trigger migrane headaches and pointed out
compressed posits on APRS. They also prove the original study did NOTHING
to reduce the severity of migrane headaches and the original study above,
was NOT a cure.
Their remedy is to expose the patient to the triggers that cause the
migranes so that the patient builds a tolerance to the triggers, one being
compressed posits on APRS, thus reducing migranes over time....and it's
working!
So if all this BS (that actually stands for something) is giving you migrane
headaches, you NEED to run compressed posits.
If you run UI-View under Setup, Station Setup, just check compressed beacon
and there ya go! It's just as easy in Xastir too! Move forward...not
backwards!
Free your mind, the rest will follow!
Jim, WA6OFT
If there are bugs as has been claimed, let's find them and help fix them.
the only way we can find them is if everyone runs compressed posits. Lets
see the bugs....and let's fix them!!!
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRStt is it set in stone yet?
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:49:19 -0400
X-Message-Number: 129
Sorry, when you are *spelling* things, it does not make sense to then add
an extra key stroke to *every* letter. The cell phones do it the same way
we chose for APRStt. It is good to go with common usage, and not create
uncommon methods for common usage... Bob
>>>"Doug Younker" <dougy@ruraltel.net@ruraltel.net> 6/10/04 7:24:58 PM >>>
Hi,
As a person who suffers cognative difficulties due to brain injury, I
sometimes see a problem where others won't. I have
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/aprstt.html open in a browser window and
I see confusion about to happen. None of my older amateur transceiver tt
pads do not have the keys label with the alphabet, my newest a Yasue 1500M
isn't either so I'm looking at the pad one a cordless phone. Seeing we use
the keypad mostly to input numbers wouldn't it have made more sense to have
one punch to mean the number instead of punching the number four times to
send the number. Bob uses the number five in his example and the five key
is labeled 5jkl. In my mind in makes more sense to have one punch to send
5, two punches to send J, three punches to send K, four punches to send L
Unless APRStt VERSION 01 is irretrievably set in stone, I suggest
rethinking the button press sequencing. Thanks
73
Doug, N0LKK
dougy@ruraltel.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Limiting the future of Mobile Computing!
From: "DG2JW" <dg2jw@privateasylum.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:52:50 +0300
X-Message-Number: 130
Have a good evening Danny.
Tomorrow is Thursday isn't it?
73's
Julian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: compressed posits on APRS
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:05:31 -0700
X-Message-Number: 131
>If you run UI-View under Setup, Station Setup, just check compressed beacon
>and there ya go! It's just as easy in Xastir too! Move forward...not
>backwards!
In the OpenTracker config program, click Web, and download the APRS
Compressed Format firmware. This version will be rolled up into the main
firmware when I get a chance - it'll require adding another checkbox.
Come to think of it, I think I'll add another checkbox or two to control
output of at least one of the I/O pins based on config profile. That way,
you can change frequencies with your Pocket Tracker or trigger some external
event based on the profile parameters.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Compressed Positions
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:06:30 -0400
X-Message-Number: 132
>>>Danny <danny@messano.net> 6/10/04 8:00:23 PM >>>
RB> You seem to have no clue. READ MY LIPS!
RB> I have NO OBJECTION TO UPDATING THE SPEC!
RB> Where on earth have you been...
>Ive been here, following this thread, where the constant
>cries of "No, we can't do that, it will break the
>Kenwoods.." and "You are obsoleting 38% percent of
>the userbase by proposing changes to the spec!"
>
>Ever reply to any comment about updating the spec
>has been met with "You Opentrack programmers..
>blah blah blah"
Because NOT ONE SINGLE SUGGESTION has been made as to WHAT to add to the
spec. ALL I hear is the same BS, about "WE MUST ADD TO THE SPEC" yet, I
have not seen ONE SINGLE SUGGESTION AS TO WHAT TO ADD TO
IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ONLY thing that has been specifically identified that APRS cannot do
that OPENTrack wants to do is 1 centimeter resolution. My response to that
was to add 7" resolution in the FULLY BACKWARDS compatible !DAO! proposal.
(see, we do listen and we do respond)...
We WILL NOT amend the spec for 1 centimer resolution.
Now, if you have any specific additions that you would like considered,
then propose them and each one will be evaluated on its own merrit. As
they ALWAYS are.
But stop bellyaching about lack of channging the spec UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY
PROPOSE SOMETHING!
RB> No, it clearly shows that you have no clue what the
RB> issues are, and are just jumping on a bandwagon
RB> that you have no idea where it is going...
>The issues are clear Bob.. YOU are the one IGNORING them.
Again, Please identify SPECIFICALLY what things an end user needs that
cannot currently be delivered to him within the existing spec, and we will
consider them. So far I have not seen ANYTHING but programmer
bellyaching...
Bob, WB4APR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:09:24 -0700
X-Message-Number: 133
From: "Wes Johnston" <wes@johnston.net>
>There has also been concern that there is no room for OT packets in the
>already overcrowded APRS channel. Thing is, when I do get OT on the air, I
>will not be using APRS packets. I like the car analogy.. I can't drive two
>cars at once. Running dual mode trackers like the balloon will have to be
>forbidden.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out if there is not room for
an open tracker, there is no more room for APRS trackers either! I hope
most folks are smart enough to see this BS! We'll have to tell everyone to
NOT buy those Kenwoods or the TT3's, no more digi's because there is no more
room for any new trackers of any kind!
Or, they would have to start a new national frequency because existing APRS
as it is, is just too full to support them.
Which really is not a bad idea!
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: question about possession of an object.
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:22:34 -0700
X-Message-Number: 134
>It would take a revision to the spec to allow the functionality
>you're describing.
And, is it really a big issue to be concerned about? The data, they must
understand (even their own) is provisional and subject to change...without
notice. I never hear of anyone messing with objects.
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
