| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.02.97 12:43l 188 Lines 7939 Bytes #-10707 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_24B
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/24B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<DB0ULM<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<
DB0ACC<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970227/0830Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49701 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30096 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 07:43:57 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001764 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:17:43 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001751 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:06:39 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009194 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:06:37 MET
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:03:27 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_24B>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/24B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
along
> and further draw away more experimenters for the the amateur ranks. With
> the explosion of the popularity of the Internet, it would seem wise to
> somehow leverage it to advantage, rather than shun it.
>
> Louis Mamakos
> wa3ymh
When I see "experimentors" make a worthwhile contribution to the amateur
radio network, I'll be impressed.
Most of the current crop are no better than Greg Jones of TAPR, who wants
to turn amateur packet radio into a parasitic infestation of the Internet,
or Phil Karn who says that all that has been accomplished by hams with
amateur packet radio is "a waste of spectrum". We don't need people like
that in amateur packet radio. We need people who care about amateur radio
and their fellow hams. We need people who are impressed with what can be
done WITH RADIOS, not with what the commercial telecommunications outfits
can offer.
We DON'T need another crop of self-styled "networking experts" who respond
to the challenge of amateur radio by insisting on using the telephone
instead.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Packet Radio : N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
E-Mail : n5pvl@texoma.com
Web : http://www.texoma.com/~n5pvl
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:36:13 -0500
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@UU.NET>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
> We already have entirely too many "hams" who are more impressed with
> LandLine networking than Radio networking.. That's why "gateways" exist.
>
> Show us "advanced networking" which actually uses RADIOS, and as hams we'll
> be impressed. Gateways are not "advanced nertworking", by any stretch of
> the imagination.
We don't seem to have very much in the way of interesting RF-based link
hardware available, do we? So why should I, with my expertise in network
protocols, design and architecture be painted "the bad guy" for taking
advantage of inexpensive, superior technology? Will you have this same
opinion if I should happen to use inexpensive and better performing
Part 15 900MHz radios? It's not *amateur* radio..
> We don't need more computer weenies who are too brain-dead to get the
> essential point of amateur radio. ( Using RADIOS, in case you TOO have a
> problem catching on. )
I was a ham before I was a computer weenie. I've built and used TNC-1 and
TNC-2 based hardware, and brought up the first packet-radio "wormhole"
over a (horrors!) commerical geosync satellite link I happend to have
available. Do you forgive me because it used RF? It got the "amateur
packet network" connected between the Washington DC and SF Bay area. But
I guess it was to politically incorrect to justify what was learned from
that experience. Too impure.
> > There's an incredible amount of "Not Invented Here" syndrome in the
> amateur
> > packet networking protocols, uniquely coupled with the bizzare
> mis-application
> > of technology is quite remarkable. (The adaptation of point-to-point
> > LAPB to a multipoint, collision domain RF environment is truly an
> inspired
> > April Fool's prank.) It's not that I'm against doing interesting
> experiments,
> > but when the stuff escapes from the lab...
> >
>
> Semantic content of the above: Null.
Ok: hams have this tendency to completely ignore the fine work done by
other folks, and have this need to piss on technology so it has the right
odor before they'll use it. No one with a background in network protocol
design would believe that a point-to-point protocol, optimized for relatively
low latency and low-loss links would work well in a relatively lossy,
RF-based collision domain. Yet that's the "standard" that we've ended up
with today: AX.25.
> When I see "experimentors" make a worthwhile contribution to the amateur
> radio network, I'll be impressed.
I cannot understand how you can denigrate Phil Karn based upon his
consideriable worthwhile contribution and still make that statement. I
suppose it's because you just don't agree with his opinion, and that it's
at add with the purity of the future you'd like to see.
> Most of the current crop are no better than Greg Jones of TAPR, who wants
> to turn amateur packet radio into a parasitic infestation of the Internet,
> or Phil Karn who says that all that has been accomplished by hams with
> amateur packet radio is "a waste of spectrum". We don't need people like
> that in amateur packet radio. We need people who care about amateur radio
> and their fellow hams. We need people who are impressed with what can be
> done WITH RADIOS, not with what the commercial telecommunications outfits
> can offer.
> We DON'T need another crop of self-styled "networking experts" who respond
> to the challenge of amateur radio by insisting on using the telephone
> instead.
Feel free to go ahead an implement then. Build radios. Write software.
Knock yourself out; you clearly don't need help offered from others with
expertise you might be able to use.
Louis Mamakos
wa3ymh
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:20:26 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
> > We already have entirely too many "hams" who are more impressed with
> > LandLine networking than Radio networking.. That's why "gateways"
exist.
> >
> > Show us "advanced networking" which actually uses RADIOS, and as hams
we'll
> > be impressed. Gateways are not "advanced networking", by any stretch of
> > the imagination.
>
> We don't seem to have very much in the way of interesting RF-based link
> hardware available, do we? So why should I, with my expertise in network
> protocols, design and architecture be painted "the bad guy" for taking
> advantage of inexpensive, superior technology? Will you have this same
> opinion if I should happen to use inexpensive and better performing
> Part 15 900MHz radios? It's not *amateur* radio..
Do whatever you like best. If it's not amateur radio, though, don't try to
push it as amateur radio. -- Get it?
If your non-amateur XXXXX causes damage to the amatuer radio digital net as
gateways have done, then hams will not like what you are doing and will
complain.
-- Is that hard to follow?
>
> > We don't need more computer weenies who are too brain-dead to get the
> > essential point of amateur radio. ( Using RADIOS, in case you TOO have
a
> > problem catching on. )
>
> I was a ham before I was a computer weenie. I've built and used TNC-1
and
> TNC-2 based hardware, and brought up the first packet-radio "wormhole"
> over a (horrors!) commerical geosync satellite link I happend to have
> available. Do you forgive me because it used RF? It got the "amateur
> packet network" connected between the Washington DC and SF Bay area. But
> I guess it was to politically incorrect to justify what was learned from
> that experience. Too impure.
>
If you used a non-ham system to move traffic intended for the amateur radio
network, you were damaging the ham network, not making things better.
> Ok: hams have this tendency to completely ignore the fine work done by
> other folks, and have this need to piss on technology so it has the right
> odor before they'll use it. No one with a background in network protocol
> design would believe that a point-to-point protocol, optimized for
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_24C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
