| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 22.07.97 22:12l 157 Lines 7521 Bytes #-10283 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_54B
Read: GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/54B
Path: DB0RGB<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0MW<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0RWI<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<
PI8WFL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970721/1659Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:18800 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA38784 ; Mon, 21 Jul 97 16:35:52 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.64/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00003714 ; Mon, 21 Jul 97 17:51:08 MET
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 97 08:22:20 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_54B>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/54B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> debate, I agree with you. But I'm not sure you're making the point you
> think you are. I have a question for you, why isn't there one ?
>
I'll speak my piece on this later on. For now, I'll comment on your
observations, Terry.
> My own observations suggest the following (sweeping generalisation
alert):
>
> 1> tcpip is of interest to computing oriented hams rather than radio
> oriented hams.
I take it then that "smoke signal oriented hams" will use smoke signals and
pretend it's Ham Radio..
CB Radio oriented hams will of course use the CB and pretend it's Ham
Radio...
And only the "Radio oriented Hams" don't have to PRETEND. Those sneaky guys
actually USE radios!
Seriously now Terry, where do you get this idea that "orientation" has
anything to do with the fact that Radios are what hams "do". It's perfecty
fine to do something else of course, but it really is stupid to pretend
these other things are "Amateur Radio". This includes the telephone of
course.
> 2> computing oriented hams tend not to be full calls, rather they tend
> to be limited (I think you call it technician class in the US?) class
> licenses.
Perhaps among the ones involved in amateur TCP/IP. Remember that compared
to the overall Amateur Radio community, or even compared to the mainstream
packet community, amateur TCP/IP comprises a tiny minority. Computer
literacy is not the oddity among hams that it used to be. A serious HF
DX'er or contester ( for example ) in this day 'n age is considered to be
at a severe disadvantage if he has no access to a computer for logging, DX
Cluster use, antenna or circuit design, you name it.
The real RF nuts are probably better aquainted with computer science than
most TCP/IP folks, to be honest. They have a much wider range of knowlege.
I'm not one of those, by the way. I'm an appliance operator. I think it's
the "power button" which makes the radio work. You could fill the library
of congress with what I don't know about radios. I am not proud of it as a
ham, but that doesn't change the facts.
> 3> The radio oriented hams interested in packet radio, while having some
> interest in computing, have a limited range of skill in computing.
Again, I believe you are confusing specialization with general knowlege.
Example: If you critically compare amateur TCP/IP software such as JNOS or
TNOS with the software in general use by the "Radio oriented Ham Radio
operators", you will find that JNOS and TNOS look really bad.
Ever tried to maintain a database of 2000+ messages with *NOS? Ever try to
have six or seven hams connect to and use a *NOS station at the same time?
These are things which more sophisticated software takes in stride, when
set up and operated by fairly average hams..
You want your networking software very usable by average hams, because the
bright ones are generally too lazy, flakey, irresponsible and easily bored
to do a good job at stewardship of a network resource. An average ham would
not always be tinkering with the software trying to "improve" it, which
allows average hams to achieve much higher levels of "up time" and general
reliability. This is another reason the mainstream packet guys have global
RF connectivity, and amateur TCP/IP doesn't. No joke!
Look at how difficult and complicated the initial setup of *NOS is. Do you
really call that "good software"?
If amateur TCP/IP were a specialty only pursued by a few hobbyists, then
the primitive, hacked-up software might be excusable. When you state
pretentions of more widespread utilization of amateur TCP/IP though, it
makes *NOS seem rather backward and primitive to the modern computer users
who will be looking at it.
You can push that "I'm cool because I can set up *NOS" brag only for so
long... After a while, it starts to look more like " He's a FOOL to bother
to set up *NOS". -- There's GOTTA be something better, in this day and age,
and average hams who use Internet browsers and FTP software can no longer
be fooled by the story that *NOS is so hard to set up because it is so
"advanced".. Know what I mean? That fiction is no longer as plausable as it
was five years ago. Everybody knows better now, even kids.
Most hams have not had to "baby" software like that for over a decade now,
and have no desire to go back to those bad old days. Hank Oredson is right
when he suggests that *NOS be dropped and a set of drivers for standard
(Win95, OS/2, DOS) TCP/IP software be developed for Amateur TCP/IP.
Stop pretending to be Packet bulletin boards and REALLY do TCP/IP as it is
done TODAY.
Chunk *NOS in the bit bucket, reserving it's use for the nostalgic,
backward types.
The point: The radio-oriented hams have been too clever to pass the same
old hacked and re-hacked 1970's style software around all this time, and as
a result they use much more sophisticated software than is currently
available to amateur TCP/IP. ( From a standpoint of basic functionality,
not to mention a wealth of special features and servers not imagined yet
for *NOS. The most advanced radio-networking component of *NOS, the
FBB-style compressed message forwarding protocol, is copied (rather crudely
and poorly) from more sophisticated "radio-oriented" software for which it
was originally developed.)
In fact, if you prefer JNOS or TNOS over Phil's original NOS software, this
is SOLELY because of features ported over to Phil's NOS from
"radio-oriented" software. Think about it. It was all developed there, and
it has kept developing there since those 'ports to *NOS were made, several
years back. Unfortunately, most of these features came across to *NOS in a
crippled, hacked-up form and do not function as well as they did on the
original "radio-oriented" software NOS attempts to mimic with them.
Maybe you should take a more serious look at "radio-oriented" software as
it is today, on the other hand, if you find JNOS or TNOS to be
significantly better than regular NOS. Those "creeping feature" ports were
made some years ago, and are now obsolete.
> The end result of this, I believe, is exactly what we see today.
> The computer weenies whining because the radio weenies won't use
> decent protocols or won't experiment with better protocols. The radio
> weenies whining that the computer weenies don't have a 'network'.
> The computer weenies saying "you don't know what a network is".
> The radio weenies saying "I can get my mail anywhere in the world
> completely by radio". The computer weenies saying "yes, thats exactly
> what we mean when we say you don't know what a network is" and this
> horrible dichotomy continuing to be perpetuated by fruitless
> discussion.
Not at all! As soon as the computer weenies come up with a RADIO network
as well, then they will be in a position to preach "networking" to hams in
a meaningful fashion. Until then...
REAL Radio networking "talks" and bullshit "walks" in the Amateur Packet
Radio community.
Remember: Amateur Radio operators have no mission to pursue "networking" in
a general sense. We already have the Internet and many others to cover that
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_54C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
