RTTY
John Ward.
PK232,preferably freeware or shareware.
Thanks,
John de G0WQA.
Arthur H. Wertz
RTTY/Amtor/Pactor/Packet/CW
ftp://ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/packet/lanlink/
--
Art Wertz N5AEN
artw...@express-news.net
http://www.qsl.net/~n5aen
Charles Brabham
The malaise which has affected U.S. Amateur Packet Radio over the last few
years has manifested itself in several ways. One glaringly obvious problem
is that "running down" our current network in public has become so
popular and acceptable in recent years among the "movers and shakers" of
Amateur Packet Radio networking.
First the advocates of high-speed, then the devotees of amateur TCP/IP have
lined up to sing an unbroken chorus of whining, complaining negativism, all
aimed at the Amateur Packet Radio network and it's users. This has been
going on for several years now. You don't have to be a motivational
phychologist to know that when people hear their own "leaders" regularly
disparaging and denigrating their efforts, they will tend to lose interest
and lose heart. Sure enough, the quality of our "leadership" has fallen
somewhat, and the packet radio community in the U.S. suffers to this day.
The depth of this malaise can also be seen in the pathetic, desperate
attempt among amateur TCP/IP devotees to legitimize "radioless ham radio".
These people have discovered that TCP/IP can't hack it as a wide-scale
Amateur Radio networking protocol, but they will not let it die a natural,
honorable death..
In fact, they are perfectly willing to use the telephone (Internet) for the
bulk of their communications and PRETEND it's amateur radio, just so long
as they can go on using "amateur TCP/IP"...
Weird, pathetic, and twisted, but true! "Radioless Ham Radio"!?! ;-)
It gets worse...
A sub-clique of these same "hams" are deliberately using Packet/Internet
gateways to move Amateur Packet Radio traffic over the Internet instead of
over ham radio links. This practice of "Internet Forwarding" serves to
"route around" and replace the radio links of our digital network's
"backbone" with telephone links needed and wanted only by amateur TCP/IP.
The stupid thing about this is that given that these "hams" MUST use the
telephone for their "networking system", there still is no rational
justification for their vandalism of the existing Amateur Packet Radio
network in order to do so.
It's not like Amateur Packet Radio would compete with them for telephone
access... No, the competition they REALLY fear is in simple legitimacy.
The amateur TCP/IP "amateur telephone" network will never be impressive to
hams as long as there is a genuine RADIO-based, global digital network to
compare it to. Even LandLine Lids realize that "My telephone is faster than
your radio" is not an impressive bragging point among hams. Compared to a
real amateur radio network such as we still have, amateur TCP/IP with it's
utter, abject dependence upon the telephone is laughable. It's supporters
are painfully aware of this fact. -- And what is their reaction to this?
These people ( I won't call them hams again, to avoid confusion ) intend to
see to it that the existing independent amateur radio network is undercut
and dismantled, so forcing hams into an utter dependence upon the telephone
and amateur TCP/IP. They are quite aware that hams would NEVER voluntarily
do any of these things, so they attempt to FORCE us by working to destroy
the packet radio network we have built. They attempt to destroy it from
within.
Amateur TCP/IP devotees constantly run down the packet radio net, say the
BBS forwarding network is no good and that the average packet user is a
dope.
Then, these same people insist on being a "part" of that same BBS forwarding
network.?.!.? Then, it turns out that their "amateur TCP/IP BBS" stations
use telephone links instead of radios, which cause existing ham radio links
to die off while ensuring that new radio links do not come online...
Get it?
Their goal is to eventually leave packet ops NO alternative to amateur
TCP/IP
and "radioless ham radio", and this represents the first really serious
attack upon Amateur Radio in it's history. The heart of Amateur Radio -
Communication by Radio - is being seriously attacked.
If you examine the rhetoric of "Internet Forwarders", you will hear many
references to "advanced technology", and the "new links" they provide..
To understand where they are coming from, simply replace those phrases with
"the telephone"... This is no exaggeration!
That's ALL amateur TCP/IP has to offer; Without the telephone, it's a dead
duck. Not lame; Dead.
There IS NO global amateur TCP/IP Radio network. None at all. These people
want to tear down all that we have proudly done with radios, HF, H-S
VHF/UHF,
AMSAT, ect, and have NOTHING to offer in return except utter dependence on
the telephone for the bulk of our communications.
They kinda missed the general point of Ham Radio, if you get my drift..
It's not just that we use radios.. We use radios and we don't deliberately
do things to lessen the enjoyment of other hams. In other words, we at least
pretend to be gentlemen, sincerely devoted to furthering the cause of
Amateur Radio.
The idea of deliberately destroying the existing global amateur radio
digital
network, to replace it with telephone links is not my idea of advancing
amateur radio, folks.
The idea of using the telephone to "route around" the dedicated hams who
have moved our messages with radios so that their efforts and expertise are
no longer wanted or appreciated does not strike me as gentlemanly conduct,
either. It's a deliberate action which most assuredly has lessened the
enjoyment of many really great hams. Most of these displaced hams are
BBS SYSOPs, by the way... Routed around with telephone links, and rudely
cut out of the BBS message forwarding network by thoughtless anti-ham-radio
LandLine Lids whose final aim is to destroy the Packet Radio BBS network
altogether.
That's right; The pioneers of the Amateur Packet Radio network who have done
the very most to bring about it's amazing development and worldwide growth
are now being rudely displaced by a sub-clique of anti-ham TCP/IP Lids with
telephones. Disgusting.
Several suggestions for eliminating the "LandLine Lid" problem have been put
forward. The most popular idea is to simply cut them out of our forwarding
links by refusing to communicate with them. I don't feel this will prove to
be effective. It won't really eliminate the problem, and it will do nothing
to prevent future problems. The temptation will tend to increase rather than
decrease as Internet access becomes more commonplace... Let's nip it in the
bud right now.
My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
against this specific problem, such as several other countries already have
in place. Where Packet/Internet gateways are simply illegal, they have no
LandLine Lid problem of course, and their Amateur Packet Radio networks have
continued to advance and grow while ours has been mired in this "radioless
ham radio", amateur TCP/IP mess which has actually REVERSED our growth.
If we demand and obtain similar legal protection, the Amateur Packet Radio
network in the U.S. will never again be menaced or endangered by LandLine
Lids of any description, TCP/IP or otherwise.
I think it should be fairly obvious that a Radio-Only rule for "*** primary
routing and transport of amateur radio network traffic ***" would tend to
push us in the desired direction - that of addressing our problems by
developing new, innovative ways to utilize RADIOS.
Also, by phrasing the regulation (roughly) in that manner, Packet/Internet
gateways would NOT be outlawed, and could still provide a highly beneficial
interface and data exchange point between the two networks. They would only
be restrained from using the telephone links to transport messages intended
for the Amateur Packet Radio network. (Internet Forwarding)
This would instantly transform Packet/Internet gateways from the parasitic
liability they are today into an especially important ASSET to the Amateur
Packet Radio network, with unlimited potential. You don't hear about these
kind of applications right now because they do not fit in with the agenda
of our present "leadership". Eliminate Internet Forwarding, and the
Packet/Internet gateway will have a chance to mature and develop as an
Amateur Radio application, and of course then there will still be an Amateur
Packet Radio network for them to interact with and be a part of.
Yes, you heard right; I'm saying that Amateur Telephone is just as big a
drag on amateur TCP/IP as it is on mainstream packet. If amateur TCP/IP is
EVER to mature and gain any status as an amateur packet radio application,
then "Amateur Telephone" will have to be firmly placed aside and left
behind.
We NEED that pressure to solve our problems by being more clever in our use
of radios, if we are to see rapid advancement.
As a BBS SYSOP, my suggestion to you is that we take rapid, effective steps
to regain our network from these persons. I also would like to suggest that
BBS SYSOPs have contributed much, much more to Amateur Packet Radio than all
the world's "packet experts" and amateur TCP/IP devotees combined. We, more
than any other group are responsible for Amateur Packet Radio's amazingly
rapid growth and worldwide utility as an independent, all-ham radio
messaging network.
The point: Don't take any crud off of LandLine Lid parasites who don't even
HAVE a network.
Don't take any more of being "run down", don't take any more whining
complaints, don't take any more vandalism of OUR network!
Comments, fellow Hams and SYSOPs? Don't you think it's about time the HAMS
on this network pulled together a bit, so we can get past this problem and
resume building and improving our Amateur Radio digital network?
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Charles Brabham
Steve Sampson
You sent this message a year ago. Don't you have any new material?
Bob Lewis
download on the QRZ page.
Charles Brabham
Steve Sampson wrote in message ...
>Bark, Bark, Bark!
>
>You sent this message a year ago. Don't you have any new material?
Yes, but since what I wrote a year ago needed only minor editing to be
brought up to date, I saw no need to "re-invent the wheel". Although the
same old loudmouths are here as usual, the much larger group which makes up
the rest of the population here is in flux, with folks coming and going all
the time.
If, for some reason, I feel that the information in that message needs to be
shared again at some time in the future, I'll probably go right ahead and do
so. You'll probably go back and cut 'n paste your same old tired
omplaints. - So what's new?
Anything new in your area, Steve?
Have the Hams in your area started to modernize yet, and put up a few
FlexNet digis? There's really no excuse for using old-style static-parameter
stuff if you really want to see your local network perform better. DAMA
access allows everybody, even those guys with HT's to efficiently utilize
packet. As for routing, FlexNet uses the link to the destination which is
*currently* the fastest, not one which is manually entered into static
routing parameters by a SYSOP. I think that if you read the Intros and think
it over, you'll be wondering why you've been wasting your time running
nostalgia software and putting up with lousy performance when you don't have
to.
K0...@arrl.org
> My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
> against this specific problem, such as several other countries already have
> in place.
If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
survive.
73, de Hans, K0HB
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JACK CLARKE
I didn't see this message a year ago.
I think you head the nail on the head, Charles. I've seen all
the arguing on here for several months. I don't wish to get
invloved in the arguing which usually results in name calling.
I agree with everything you said. I admit guilt in using the
Internet Gateways; but I don't argue that it is cheating. It is
cheating! No question.
I've been using packet for about 3 years now. At first, I tried
send messages using the "all radio" packet system. It regularly
took about a week to get a message from Phoenix to San Diego,
a distance of 400 miles. So, I turned to using Gateways.
It's too bad that we can't get a little more efficient!!! The other
thing that "bugs" me is zillions of useless messages going through
the Packet Forwarding System. I don't want to read about a radio
for sale in South Africa. I don't even want it to show up on the
BBS is Phoenix.
Perhaps if the sysops would cut out sending those useless bulletins,
they could concentrate on providing "efficient" handling of messages.
That's all. You probably won't hear from me again. I hope I
didn't start any more trouble here.
73,
Jack VE3EED/W7
Chandler, AZ
--
Steve Sampson
software from Kantronics. It's fine for 1.2 kbps and 9.6 kbps.
Mostly keyboard chat. The BBS freq is too busy forwarding to get
in to use it. Mostly stuff from Brazil and Africa anyway. Don't need
to waste any money on that.
Charles Brabham wrote
Charles Brabham
K0...@arrl.org wrote in message <74pdnu$269$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>> My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
>> against this specific problem, such as several other countries already
have
>> in place.
>
>going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
>survive.
In a general sense Amateur Radio depends upon protective legislation in
order to exist... I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Could you expand on
it a bit?
Pasquale
i d'ont know if it is freeware or shareware
Pasquale
Pasquale wrote:
> try rckrtty
> i d'ont know if it is freeware or shareware
at http://www.qsl.net/dl4rck/index.html
Kalevi Hautaniemi
: Steve Sampson wrote in message ...
: >Bark, Bark, Bark!
: >
: >You sent this message a year ago. Don't you have any new material?
: Yes, but since what I wrote a year ago needed only minor editing to be
: brought up to date, I saw no need to "re-invent the wheel". Although the
: same old loudmouths are here as usual, the much larger group which makes up
: the rest of the population here is in flux, with folks coming and going all
: the time.
I'll be happy to call myself as 'Telecommunication Amateur' instead of
that good old 'Radio Amateur', if needed. If we only could get our
legislation to cover that 'Telecommunication', too...
Kalevi
--
Kalevi J Hautaniemi, Kovajankatu 5, 33530 Tampere, FINLAND.
**** http://oh3tr.ele.tut.fi/~oh3fg/ **** On air: OH3FG, KO4BC ****
tel:+358-3-364-7446 mobile:+358-50-590-2243 or +358-50-033-5447
John Wiley
: >If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
: >going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
: >survive.
: In a general sense Amateur Radio depends upon protective legislation in
: order to exist... I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Could you expand on
: it a bit?
Yes, it does Charles... In a VERY general sense... I tend to agree with
the prior poster, in as much as I don't think you are ever going to *GET*
legislative protection for packet radio... I would suggest finding
a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a legislative
clamp on their activities... There has to be a better way, and if I
think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
an easy problem to solve...)
Best Regards,
-jw
Anders Lagerås
(K0...@arrl.org) says...
> Charles Brabham wrote:
> > My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
> > against this specific problem, such as several other countries already have
> > in place.
>
> going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
> survive.
There are many companies etc who would do much to get their dirty hand on
many of the ham frequencies.
--
73 de SM7UZI Anders Lagerås
Charles Brabham
John Wiley wrote in message <74r542$3...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
>
>: >If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
>: >going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
>: >survive.
>
>
>: order to exist... I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Could you expand
on
>: it a bit?
>
>Yes, it does Charles... In a VERY general sense... I tend to agree with
>the prior poster, in as much as I don't think you are ever going to *GET*
>legislative protection for packet radio...
They got it in Europe.. You know; The only place on the planet where the Ham
digital net has continued to grow and develop the last ten years? It
happens.
>I would suggest finding
>a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
>are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a legislative
>clamp on their activities...
I've never seen much point in trying to "woo" Lids. You've seen the sort of
pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
no-brain LandLine Lids.
> There has to be a better way, and if I
>think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
>into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
>an easy problem to solve...)
No, actually there isn't a better way. I go by RESULTS, and the only places
on the entire planet which have produced RESULTS in the last decade have
been a few countries in Europe which have either outlawed or severely
restricted the use of Internet/Packet gateways. The facts are - the facts.
Sorry, but the "facts" do not support your assertion that there is a "better
way". When and if you really come up with something, as opposed to just
blowing more hot air, be sure and let me know.
Charles Brabham
Kalevi Hautaniemi wrote in message <74ql55$f...@tampere.tampere.fi>...
>Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
>
>: Steve Sampson wrote in message ...
>: >Bark, Bark, Bark!
>: >
>: >You sent this message a year ago. Don't you have any new material?
>
>
>: Yes, but since what I wrote a year ago needed only minor editing to be
>: brought up to date, I saw no need to "re-invent the wheel". Although the
>: same old loudmouths are here as usual, the much larger group which makes
up
>: the rest of the population here is in flux, with folks coming and going
all
>: the time.
>
>
>I'll be happy to call myself as 'Telecommunication Amateur' instead of
>that good old 'Radio Amateur', if needed. If we only could get our
>legislation to cover that 'Telecommunication', too...
I guess we'd call it "Amateur Radio-Telephone" then, huh?
It's amazing how many people miss the point that Hams use Radio. To them,
the radio, the telephone, the signal-flags; It's all "communication" to them
and they just can't see why anyone would want to differentiate between one
form of communication and another.
Part of it is simple stupidity, and in other cases it's just plain old
malice toward their fellow Hams. Other cases, of course, are devotees of the
old tcpip stuff who lack the character neccessary to understand or care that
what they are doing is destructive and hurts their fellow Hams. In fact, the
term "fellow Hams" tends to make them uncomfortable or hostile.
They all (LandLine Lids) suck.
Jones
>pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
>no-brain LandLine Lids.
A different attitude might "woo' more packet converts. So far it sounds like
75 meters....
John Wiley
: John Wiley wrote in message <74r542$3...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
: >
: >
: >Yes, it does Charles... In a VERY general sense... I tend to agree with
: >the prior poster, in as much as I don't think you are ever going to *GET*
: >legislative protection for packet radio...
: They got it in Europe.. You know; The only place on the planet where the Ham
: digital net has continued to grow and develop the last ten years? It
: happens.
A pretty simplistic view of the problem Charles... (Im not being an
ass, Im just being forthright...) Which countries in Europe?
Is their legislative structure (not to mention available communication
infrastructure) vastly different than ours? It's just not this simple...
If you're serious about finding a solution to your problem, you need
to take these factors (along with a few others) into account...
: >I would suggest finding
: >a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
: >are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a legislative
: >clamp on their activities...
: I've never seen much point in trying to "woo" Lids. You've seen the sort of
: pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
: no-brain LandLine Lids.
Yeah... Short memory... I was one of the "scum" last week... Notice that
Im still trying to participate, and that Im looking for answers...
: > There has to be a better way, and if I
: >think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
: >into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
: >an easy problem to solve...)
: No, actually there isn't a better way. I go by RESULTS, and the only places
: on the entire planet which have produced RESULTS in the last decade have
: been a few countries in Europe which have either outlawed or severely
: restricted the use of Internet/Packet gateways. The facts are - the facts.
Really? Which countries? Don't you think you're being a little restrictive
here in making a statement like this? Do you have any actual references/
data to back this claim up? I'd like to see it... (Im not being an ass
Charles... If you've got it, trot it out, and let's do something constructive
with it aside from namecalling...)
: Sorry, but the "facts" do not support your assertion that there is a "better
: way". When and if you really come up with something, as opposed to just
: blowing more hot air, be sure and let me know.
Heh. Always close with an insult eh Charles... I won't dignify this with
a response... It's childish... Fortunately, I believe in "entering with
form, followed by exiting with form"... This kind of nonsense and posturing
doesn't solve any kind of problem... Since Im interested at this stage
of the game (being a newcomer to this forum), in determining whether or
not the problem you are carping about even exists... (IOW, Im gathering
facts) I'll continue to view you as a resource... (BTW, I can come up
with PLENTY of cases where the "facts" didn't support solutions to problems
which eventually were found... Modern rocket powered flight for instance...)
Kindly afford me the luxury of being an "engineer" and trying to exercise
a little structured problem solving here vs. simply trying to polarize
people into a forced and short lived solution...
So... Data please...
-jw
John Wiley
: In article <74pdnu$269$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org
: > > My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
: > > against this specific problem, such as several other countries already have
: > > in place.
: > going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
: > survive.
: There are many companies etc who would do much to get their dirty hand on
: many of the ham frequencies.
: --
Yes, but the restrictions Charles proposes are MUCH different than the
frequency restrictions currently in place... It puts the FCC in the
chair with respect to what I *DO* with information... I don't think I'm
really very comfortable with that prospect... Opens a whole ball of
rather foul smelling wax when the FCC starts coming into my lab and
saying "You can't connect this piece of hardware to this piece of
hardware and move information between them"... I don't like it...
Best Regards,
-jw
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> Charles Brabham wrote:
>
> > My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective legislation
> > against this specific problem, such as several other countries already have
> > in place.
>
> going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
> survive.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Funny thing, the pro-code-testers seem to think such a Federal subsidy
is important and necessary for morse-cw's survival. (subsidy in the
form of a pass/fail test to access HF)
Rick T.
David
Charles Brabham wrote:
> I've never seen much point in trying to "woo" Lids. You've seen the sort of
> pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
> no-brain LandLine Lids.
>
>
> 73 DE Charles Brabham,
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Charles, anyone who disagrees with you, is "pond-scum" and a "low-character,
no-brain LandLine Lid". I have been on packet for over 10 years and you are the
worst advertisement for it I know. I have never used the internet for packet and
never plan to. But your methods to get folks to see your point need a LOT of
work. If I were new to packet, you would have already made up my mind that
packet wasn't worth the effort. However I will continue on packet and promote
it.
David - W4DSM
Charles Brabham
David wrote in message <3671A4A3...@hamnet1inc.net>...
>
>
>
>Charles, anyone who disagrees with you, is "pond-scum" and a
"low-character,
>no-brain LandLine Lid".
Not really. - Just the LandLine Lids, Lockout Lids, and others who have
ruined the enjoyment of hundreds of other hams with their activities.
> I have been on packet for over 10 years and you are the
>worst advertisement for it I know. I have never used the internet for
packet and
>never plan to. But your methods to get folks to see your point need a LOT
of
>work. If I were new to packet, you would have already made up my mind that
>packet wasn't worth the effort. However I will continue on packet and
promote
>it.
I'm not interested in changing the minds of clueless LandLine Lids. - I just
want to see limits put on the damage they are can do.
bowman
John Wiley wrote:
>
> Yes, but the restrictions Charles proposes are MUCH different than the
> frequency restrictions currently in place... It puts the FCC in the
> chair with respect to what I *DO* with information... I don't think I'm
> really very comfortable with that prospect...
Fortunately, the FCC seems to be getting rather weary of the ARRL and
hams in general. With the possible exception of auctioning off UHF/VHF
bandwidth, I think they have very little interest in amateur activities.
Charles Brabham
John Wiley wrote in message <74rt14$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Anders Lagerås (anders....@usa.net) wrote:
>: In article <74pdnu$269$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org
>: (K0...@arrl.org) says...
>: > Charles Brabham wrote:
legislation
>: > > against this specific problem, such as several other countries
already have
>: > > in place.
>: > If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
>: > going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
>: > survive.
>: There are many companies etc who would do much to get their dirty hand on
>: many of the ham frequencies.
>: --
>
>frequency restrictions currently in place...
That's correct. In fact, my proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with
frequency restrictions.
>It puts the FCC in the
>chair with respect to what I *DO* with information... I don't think I'm
>really very comfortable with that prospect...
It would prevent you from undercutting efforts by Hams to use Radio to
communicate, but would not in any way prevent you from useful,
non-destructive activities involving Packet/Internet gateways.
I don't advocate outlawing gateways because they are too useful. That's
where I differ from the guys in Europe.
Sorry to hear you're so uncomfortable with that.
>Opens a whole ball of
>rather foul smelling wax when the FCC starts coming into my lab and
>saying "You can't connect this piece of hardware to this piece of
>hardware and move information between them"... I don't like it...
You don't know what you are talking about. Too bad you are so comfortable
with THAT.
Try reading my proposal again. Then again. Sooner or later you'll soak up
enough so that your future postings will have some relevance to what was
actually proposed.
Or maybe not.
Charles Brabham
John Wiley wrote in message <74rsq8$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
>
>: John Wiley wrote in message <74r542$3...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>: >Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: >Yes, it does Charles... In a VERY general sense... I tend to agree with
>: >the prior poster, in as much as I don't think you are ever going to
*GET*
>: >legislative protection for packet radio...
>
>: They got it in Europe.. You know; The only place on the planet where the
Ham
>: digital net has continued to grow and develop the last ten years? It
>: happens.
>
>A pretty simplistic view of the problem Charles... (Im not being an
>ass, Im just being forthright...) Which countries in Europe?
Look it up for yourself. I do research for myself, and sometimes for
friends, and never for people who are not likely to accept the info I come
up with anyway. My advice to you is to first get ten years or more
experience operating packet so that you will know what you are looking at,
then take a good look at the FlexNet network in Europe. Compare it to what
is going on here.
>Is their legislative structure (not to mention available communication
>infrastructure) vastly different than ours? It's just not this simple...
>If you're serious about finding a solution to your problem, you need
>to take these factors (along with a few others) into account...
I have of course taken those factors into account. As a new comer to this
discussion, you would do well to keep your ears open and your mouth shut. -
You'll learn a lot more that way.
While you're at it, you can start showing a bit more respect for those who
DO know what they are talking about.
Your ignorance is your problem, and fixing it is your responsibility, not
mine. If I took on the task of educating every clueless jerk who pestered me
here, it would rapidly become a full-time job. I have much better things to
do. - Like helping out people who really WANT to learn, and who display the
type of character and decency that really makes a Ham.
>
>: >I would suggest finding
>: >a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
>: >are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a
legislative
>: >clamp on their activities...
>
>: I've never seen much point in trying to "woo" Lids. You've seen the sort
of
>: pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
>: no-brain LandLine Lids.
>
>Yeah... Short memory... I was one of the "scum" last week... Notice that
>Im still trying to participate, and that Im looking for answers...
Still looking to make smart-assed comments, stir up trouble, and make an ass
of yourself by pestering and denigrating the people who ARE qualified to
discuss the matter. Proud of yourself, are you?
>
>: > There has to be a better way, and if I
>: >think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
>: >into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
>: >an easy problem to solve...)
>
>: No, actually there isn't a better way. I go by RESULTS, and the only
places
>: on the entire planet which have produced RESULTS in the last decade have
>: been a few countries in Europe which have either outlawed or severely
>: restricted the use of Internet/Packet gateways. The facts are - the
facts.
>
>Really? Which countries? Don't you think you're being a little
restrictive
>here in making a statement like this?
Sorry if you find working with the facts to be too restrictive.
>Do you have any actual references/
>data to back this claim up? I'd like to see it... (Im not being an ass
>Charles... If you've got it, trot it out, and let's do something
constructive
>with it aside from namecalling...)
It's called the FlexNet network. It covers most of Europe. Kinda hard to
miss.
>
>: Sorry, but the "facts" do not support your assertion that there is a
"better
>: way". When and if you really come up with something, as opposed to just
>: blowing more hot air, be sure and let me know.
>
>Heh. Always close with an insult eh Charles... I won't dignify this with
>a response... It's childish... Fortunately, I believe in "entering with
>form, followed by exiting with form"... This kind of nonsense and posturing
>doesn't solve any kind of problem...
Sorry that you see a call for solutions which are supported by the facts as
"nonsense and posturing". Don't feel bad though, as lots of other LandLine
Lids appear to have the same problem.
>Since Im interested at this stage
>of the game (being a newcomer to this forum), in determining whether or
>not the problem you are carping about even exists... (IOW, Im gathering
>facts) I'll continue to view you as a resource... (BTW, I can come up
>with PLENTY of cases where the "facts" didn't support solutions to problems
>which eventually were found... Modern rocket powered flight for
instance...)
Yes, pretend that you are seriously considering the matter. That's fine.
>Kindly afford me the luxury of being an "engineer" and trying to exercise
>a little structured problem solving here vs. simply trying to polarize
>people into a forced and short lived solution...
Well, hopefully someday you'll figure out what you're talking about.
Charles Brabham
bowman wrote in message <3671C1E9...@montana.com>...
>
>
>Fortunately, the FCC seems to be getting rather weary of the ARRL and
>hams in general. With the possible exception of auctioning off UHF/VHF
>bandwidth, I think they have very little interest in amateur activities.
My recent experience has been quite different. The FCC have shuffled the
enforcement of Ham-related stuff off onto a new division, and these folks
appear to be quite serious about what they are doing. Your comment would
have been fairly accurate a few months ago, but not today. Things have
changed.
If the FCC showed less interest in doing their duty by the Ham population,
only persons who intend to flaunt or break the rules, and screw their fellow
Hams would see the situation as "fortunate".
Fortunately, it is exactly this sort of scum the FCC have become so vigorous
lately about "cleaning up".
Steve Sampson
Charles Brabham wrote
>
>Other cases, of course, are devotees of the
>old tcpip stuff who lack the character neccessary to understand or care
that
>what they are doing is destructive and hurts their fellow Hams.
1) TCP/IP is a network protocol.
2) Network protocols do not require "character."
3) Hams using any network protocol do not require anyones approval.
4) Ham radio is a hobby.
5) Ham radio should serve the community with solutions that are reasonable.
I could go on; but, suffice to say, that any person who steps up to the
soap-box and proclaims that they are the end-all of Ham radio purity,
deserves our finest raspberry.
Masataka Noda
protect your 56K modem than some thousand bps packet.
worth while.
<<<<<<===========--M--A--S--A--T--A--K--A----N--O--D--A--============>>>>>>
De 11 Dec 1998 13:01:54 GMT,
<74r542$3...@portal.gmu.edu>,
j...@mobius.gmu.edu (John Wiley)
a écrit dans le message (Re: Packet Hackers)...
====================
>Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
>
>: >If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
>: >going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
>: >survive.
>
>
>: In a general sense Amateur Radio depends upon protective legislation in
>: order to exist... I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Could you expand on
>: it a bit?
>
>Yes, it does Charles... In a VERY general sense... I tend to agree with
>the prior poster, in as much as I don't think you are ever going to *GET*
>legislative protection for packet radio... I would suggest finding
>a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
>are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a legislative
>clamp on their activities... There has to be a better way, and if I
>think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
>into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
>an easy problem to solve...)
>
>Best Regards,
>
>-jw
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
M a s a t a k a N o d a, Montréal, Québec, Canada. N° d' ICQ: 15115035
Infinite Communications® (TM): Il y a un coeur®. Il y a un esprit®. Il y a une voie®.
Étudient @ d'Université McGill (environnement)
Indicatif d'appel de radioamateur: VA2QRU & VE7JPN & JP2CKG
Membre d'internationale aucun code Morse pour services radioamateur - NCI2014
CÉ : hu...@radiotelephone.net.PAS_DE_SPAM (SVP enlever/please remove .PAS_DE_SPAM)
URL: http://www.radiotelephone.net /masataka.htm (moi !!)
|| 24L ---------------------------------------------------- 06R ||
Pilote Avion Privé (jour & nuit): St-Hubert & Dorval INTL (dupuis 1998)
---:|| 24R --------------------------------------------------- 06L ||:
Dave Heil
>
> John Wiley wrote in message <74rt14$5...@portal.gmu.edu>...
> >Anders Lagerås (anders....@usa.net) wrote:
> >: In article <74pdnu$269$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org
> >: (K0...@arrl.org) says...
> >: > Charles Brabham wrote:
> >: > > My personal leaning is toward a formal request for protective
> legislation
> >: > > against this specific problem, such as several other countries
> already have
> >: > > in place.
> >: >
> >: > going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
> >: > survive.
It doesn't seem to matter, Charles, what the topic of discussion is
here.
You've started a thread which doesn't involve the code testing issue and
you proceed with the "I'm an expert and you are an idiot" routine with
those who don't agree with you. Is this the way you run your e-mail
list or did it die from lack of interest?
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Charles Brabham
Steve Sampson wrote in message <6vmc2.197$GH.3...@news.goodnet.com>...
>
>Charles Brabham wrote
>>
>>Other cases, of course, are devotees of the
>>old tcpip stuff who lack the character neccessary to understand or care
>that
>>what they are doing is destructive and hurts their fellow Hams.
>
>1) TCP/IP is a network protocol.
The one currently used by Hams which is, in almost every instance, directly
connected with the "Amateur Telephone" sub-cult. You know; The advocates of
"Radioless Ham Radio", where you use the Internet or wirelines and then
pretend that what you are doing there is "Ham Radio".
>2) Network protocols do not require "character."
Obviously. I have noticed a general lack of character among many of the
amateur tcpip devotees I've run across, though. Not all are jerks, of
course, but it does appear that a significant number of them are. As a
group, the amateur tcpip devotees have stood out among the various
derivative groups of Amateur Radio for their isolated, insulated,
self-centered, geeky, "to heck with Joe Ham" attitude.
No other group is so exclusive and anal-retentive, and of course no other
group has gone to the extreme of suggesting that Hams use the Internet for
the bulk of their communications, and "pretend" it's Ham Radio, despite the
fact that it edges out Hams trying to communicate with Radio in favor of
geeks using the telephone.. All of the other groups of Hams are too
intelligent and connected with their fellow Hams to suggest doing something
that stupid and low.
>3) Hams using any network protocol do not require anyones approval.
That's right. You will discover though, that if your style of operating
lessens the enjoyment of a significant number of your fellow Hams, the
approval of others can become very, very important to you.
Run roughshod over your fellow Hams long enough, and you will see - well,
take a look at amateur tcpip. Most hams simply do not want to be associated
with the whining, socially retarded clowns who go around trying to convince
Hams that tcpip is so great that as Hams, they should give up using radios
for the bulk of thier communication so that they can use it. Sorry, Steve;
tcpip is not that great. It's the latest thing from the 70's, and is just
plain sucky over the radio. It doesn't cut it where it counts; On the air.
>4) Ham radio is a hobby.
Exactly. It's a hobby for those who choose to communicate by Radio. When you
take the radio out of the act of communicating via Amateur Radio, you take
away from Hams who want to communicate by Radio. Not only are doing
something which is rather stupid, but also you are doing something which is
extremely inconsiderate.
Digital Ham Radio, like "Packet Radio", is a subset of the Amateur Radio
hobby you mention above. This means that in Packet Radio as in "digital Ham
Radio", the "Amateur Radio" part comes first.
Amateur tcpip devotees try to pass off the idea that "Amateur Radio" is a
useless subset of the "Digital Communications Hobbyist" hobby, and so the
use of Amateur Radio of course has no precedence in thier thinking. They are
not, in other words, really Hams. They either do not know or do not care
what it means to be a Ham; The end result is a "LandLine Lid".
>5) Ham radio should serve the community with solutions that are reasonable.
Yes it should. It should serve the community with solution that involve the
use of Ham Radio.
Everybody already knows how to use the Internet, Steve.
>
>I could go on; but, suffice to say, that any person who steps up to the
>soap-box and proclaims that they are the end-all of Ham radio purity,
>deserves our finest raspberry.
I don't know anybody who has done that. I will add though, that any LandLine
Lid deserves far more than a "raspberry" from their fellow Hams. The usual
measures for dealing with a Lid all apply.
Charles Brabham
Dave Heil wrote in message <36727D...@cats-net.com>...
>
>It doesn't seem to matter, Charles, what the topic of discussion is
>here.
That's a matter of personal taste. If it doesn't matter to you, you probably
should just not read it at all.
>You've started a thread which doesn't involve the code testing issue and
>you proceed with the "I'm an expert and you are an idiot" routine with
>those who don't agree with you.
Only with the idiots lacking expertise. More than one of them admits to not
even being a Ham. I guess they are just here to do the "troll 'n SPAM" thing
for thier LandLine Lid buddies. I get to see a lot of that.
> Is this the way you run your e-mail
>list or did it die from lack of interest?
"My list" is doing just as it is intended. You wouldn't know about that
though, as it's a "no bozo" list.
>Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Is that a Ham callsign or (as I suspect) a CB call? You by no means would
not be the first CB'er to crawl out of the woodwork to defend Amateur
Telephone. I get to see a lot of that.
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
"Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> Dave Heil wrote in message <36727D...@cats-net.com>...
[...]
> >You've started a thread which doesn't involve the code testing issue and
> >you proceed with the "I'm an expert and you are an idiot" routine with
> >those who don't agree with you.
>
> Only with the idiots lacking expertise. More than one of them admits to not
> even being a Ham. I guess they are just here to do the "troll 'n SPAM" thing
> for thier LandLine Lid buddies. I get to see a lot of that.
You're going to see what you want to see, Charles, that's for certain.
If someone disagrees with you, even mildly, you toss 'em into the 'LLL'
bucket without actually knowing what they really do with radio. It seems
that you have a *very* simplistic model, summarized as:
1) If someone doesn't agree with Charles Brabham, they must be an idiot.
2) If someone is an idiot, they must be an LLL.
3) If someone doesn't have a callsign, they do not know about communications.
I find it amusing, but not very surprising, that your apparent model
doesn't actually determine who idiots are by actual inspection. Most
people actually try to figure out if someone actually knows that they're
talking about, but you've streamlined that process considerably; say
one thing that Charles Brabham doesn't agree with and *bam* you're in
the "idiot, LLL, troll, pond-scum" bucket. That saves you from being
compelled to engage in anything remotely like an intelligent discussion.
Not only this is economical for you, it also shields your ego from the
trauma of learning, changing and adapting.
Of course, I'm an engineer, and not shrink, so all of the above is IMHO,
of course.
> > Is this the way you run your e-mail
> >list or did it die from lack of interest?
>
> "My list" is doing just as it is intended. You wouldn't know about that
> though, as it's a "no bozo" list.
If the irony of this statement is not already overwhelmingly apparent, it
is about to become so...
> >Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>
> Is that a Ham callsign or (as I suspect) a CB call? You by no means would
> not be the first CB'er to crawl out of the woodwork to defend Amateur
> Telephone. I get to see a lot of that.
I assert that most of the "problem" you see is really in your head, because
you're applying too-simple a model. Here you go, displaying gross ignorance
of common amateur radio knowledge; not only is K8MN a valid American Extra
callsign, 5H3 is the international pre-fix for Tanzania. But, true to model,
faced with something you don't understand, you immediately launch into an
attack, rather than taking the time to learn. This kind of behavior
speaks volumes about you, Charles, and goes a long towards destroying
any semblance of technical credibility.
--
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
Steve Sampson
the same as it was when Grandfather had these big rigs with built-in
heaters, and smelled like something in the oven.
You long for the days when you sat on his lap and he did all the work.
The number one reason that Hams should be experimenting with
technology (and technology is more than equipment, it is total
solutions) is that we are sitting on Billions of dollars in spectrum.
If you can tell us, that if we follow your leadership, that we will gain
spectrum, and not lose spectrum, then nows the time to state your
case using arguments in Engineering and Capitalist terms.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we are headed for
secondary use or actual loss of this spectrum. We can lose what we
have in an WARC-Instant. Ham radio spectrum can be gone by the
year 2000. We have to show our Governments that what we are doing
requires the spectrum we are given. Did I complain when the FCC
took our spectrum? No. What the commercial experimenters did
(remember, these are "The People" too) was offer me a better solution
than Hams could, at a lower price. Now I use old Ham spectrum in ways
that I never could, because some Hams said we had to do it in CW or
they wouldn't let us use the spectrum. The FCC solved that, they pulled
the rug, and the CW people went somewhere else to destroy the hobby.
Is the solution to this threat, that we have radio-only solutions? Should
we limit our protocols to layer 2, and have wars over layer 3 and 4 of
these protocols?
I do not support that. Radio purity is a losing move in this game.
I've been an advocate and Ham experimenter in digital networking
over radio. I've experimented with digital voice (vocoders), and I've
been involved in TCP/IP over radio. I also was an user of BBS type
systems until mid 1990. At that time the BBS system collapsed onto
itself. There is nowhere to go with that technology. Current Hams
don't want to interface to a computer that uses anything from the 70's
for technology. Anyone who looks at the BBS interface and sees a
good thing, hasn't heard of client/server solutions. Just as we don't
use punched paper-tape anymore, we shouldn't have to connect
manually to transport data.
I've had people say, that unless you had an HF rig, you weren't a real
Ham. I've heard them say, that unless you could do CW at 35 WPM,
you weren't a real Ham. I've also heard them say, that unless you
were an Extra Class, that you aren't a real Ham. I've been through a few
Psychology classes in College, and I can tell you, that this will not work
100% of the time. It is easy to get Americans indoctrinated, and
submissive. One has to only look at the Democratic party, and their
appled techniques of working the elderly, and movie star votes, as
compared to the Republicans working with Capitalists.
On the one hand, the Democrats have great success, while the
Republicans can't get their shit together. Here's the deal: you have
to have a voting block of "sheep" to win. Capitalists, like Engineers
can't be tamed using the same technology/arguments as someone
who fears loss of Government handouts.
If you are dealing with Engineers, or Capitalists, then telling them that
they can't hook a radio up to Public Infrastructure, is likely to piss them
off, and they'll do it anyway. What you need is a bunch of drooling,
oxygen sucking on a hose people, who are just short of death, with their
hand on Government subsidies, welfare checks, and senior discounts.
Only then will you get the support you want, in limiting Ham radio to
your dream of 1985 status-quo.
Steve
N5OWK
Charles Brabham wrote
>
[snip]
Glen Quarnstrom
[ham radio discussion snipped]
>One has to only look at the Democratic party, and their
>appled techniques of working the elderly, and movie star votes, as
>compared to the Republicans working with Capitalists.
Well, there goes your whole argument.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
WB7DOW
Steve Sampson
Glen Quarnstrom wrote
Dave Heil
>
> Is that a Ham callsign or (as I suspect) a CB call? You by no means would
> not be the first CB'er to crawl out of the woodwork to defend Amateur
> Telephone. I get to see a lot of that.
allocations table and use it.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Arthur H. Wertz
--
Art Wertz N5AEN
artw...@express-news.net
http://www.qsl.net/~n5aen
Arthur H. Wertz
Glen Quarnstrom
Are you planning on entering the next Olympic Conclusion-Jumping
competition?
Charles Brabham
Dave Heil wrote in message <367353...@cats-net.com>...
I remember you now; the dude in Tanzania? It seems like I remember someone
else recently making the same mistake, thinking you were a CB'er. You
probably get quite a bit of that, don't you?
Charles Brabham
Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <74vgol$1qb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>If Charles had made even the slightest effort, he would have discovered
>the ARRL DX Bulletin for October 8, 1998 contains the following note:
>
>> TANZANIA, 5H. Dave, K8MN, is QRV as 5H3US on 160 to 6 meters. He will
>> be here for the next three years. QSL via WA8JOC.
>
>However, since Charles refuses to be bothered with the facts in packet
>radio, it comes as no surprise at all that he refuses to be bothered
>with facts elsewhere.
Oh, I see... You expect all Hams to memorize every obscure reference in
QST... OK, which issue features my Web Page?
If you have no intelligent arguement regarding the issue I raised with
"Packet Hacker", maybe you should back off and give the more serious people
a chance. All you appear to be interested in are character attacks,
flame-baiting, ect.
Grow up or buzz off.
W6RCecilA
> If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
> going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
> survive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you support legislative protection
(as it exists presently) for Morse code?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://people.delphi.com/CecilMoore
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
"Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <74vgol$1qb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >
> >If Charles had made even the slightest effort, he would have discovered
> >the ARRL DX Bulletin for October 8, 1998 contains the following note:
> >
> >> TANZANIA, 5H. Dave, K8MN, is QRV as 5H3US on 160 to 6 meters. He will
> >> be here for the next three years. QSL via WA8JOC.
> >
> >However, since Charles refuses to be bothered with the facts in packet
> >radio, it comes as no surprise at all that he refuses to be bothered
> >with facts elsewhere.
>
> Oh, I see... You expect all Hams to memorize every obscure reference in
> QST... OK, which issue features my Web Page?
No, Charles, I do not. I expect all hams to understand callsigns, since
they're universally applied by international treaty and such knowledge
is required in the licensing process.
I also expect all hams to have the emotional and intellectual maturity to
check facts before flaming.
You've grossly failed on both counts in this example.
By the way, it took less that 30 seconds with http://www.hotbot.com/
to find out that 5H3US was indeed K8MN living in Tanzania. Not only
do you not understand amateur radio callsigns, you're apparently not
very adept at using easily-available Internet resources. If this
alone wasn't enough, you also have a propensity to flame that which
you don't understand. *That's* the breaking point, dude.
> If you have no intelligent arguement regarding the issue I raised with
> "Packet Hacker", maybe you should back off and give the more serious people
> a chance. All you appear to be interested in are character attacks,
> flame-baiting, ect.
I've already agreed with you, in public, that reliance on non-radio
networking reduces one incentive to develop competent radio networking.
Nonetheless, use of non-radio WAN connectivity does in fact foster the
development of local radio networking communities where there otherwise
would be none, something you consistently ignore. In other words,
"Amateur Telephone" has an up-side you fail to address in your diatribes.
Note carefully that the very term you often use "Land Line Lid" is
nothing more than a character attack, so please reserve your naive
hypocrisy for someone else.
You particularly attack the use of TCP/IP among radio amateurs, for
a variety of political reasons. Perhaps the biggest "problem" with
TCP/IP is that it has become the most widely deployed non-proprietary
protocol in the world today, due to unprecendented interoperability.
In the real world, interoperability is high goal, because it allows
maximum flexibility. The fact that amateurs can easily internetwork
using IP is a testament to the strength of this protocol, and not
something to condemn. This does not make IP technically superior,
perhaps, but it does explain why it is as popular as it is.
In other words, the "issue" you repeatedly bleat about in public
is not nearly as simple as you'd like to portray it. Indeed, the
"issue" you bleat of is mostly your bleating, which is why it
attracts few reasoned responses. Responding to emotional diatribe
with reason rarely leads to resolution, in my experience.
> Grow up or buzz off.
Right, this is your standard response to anyone that dares to
disagree or criticize you. Frankly, you've worked to earn criticism,
and ignoring it won't change that. I won't be buzzing off, you'll
have to understand.
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote in message <367353...@cats-net.com>...
> >Charles Brabham wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Heil wrote in message <36727D...@cats-net.com>...
> >
> >> >Dave 5H3US, K8MN
> >>
> >> Is that a Ham callsign or (as I suspect) a CB call? You by no means would
> >> not be the first CB'er to crawl out of the woodwork to defend Amateur
> >> Telephone. I get to see a lot of that.
> >
> >I'll quote this one again simply to revel in your ignorance. Get an ITU
> >allocations table and use it.
>
> I remember you now; the dude in Tanzania? It seems like I remember someone
> else recently making the same mistake, thinking you were a CB'er. You
> probably get quite a bit of that, don't you?
>
Charles,
With each new posting you reveal yourself as a fool--and an unpleasant
fool.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Charles Brabham
W6RCecilA wrote in message <3673ED...@ibm.net>...
>K0...@arrl.org wrote:
>> If packet radio needs legislative protection to exist, (can you imagine
>> going to congress with such a request) it probably doesn't deserve to
>> survive.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you support legislative protection
>(as it exists presently) for Morse code?
That was my point as well. Amateur Radio exists only due to "protective
legislation", although I see the term "enabling legislation" to be just as
accurate in describing the effect.
It is my hope that the legislation or rulemaking I am proposing will
*enable* the Ham Digital Net in the USA to overcome it's current slump and
start developing again. To understand what I am proposing, please pay
careful attention to the following:
I propose that Packet/Internet gateways be restricted from being set up to
use one network to move traffic intended for the other. I am not suggesting
that the two networks be prevented from exchanging information, or that
gateways be outlawed altogether as has been done elsewhere.
This will serve to outlaw "Internet Forwarding", which has severely crippled
and depleted the once vigorous Amateur Packet Radio infrastructure in the
USA, and will also prevent inevitable problems with inappropriate material
such as advertisements, business communications, and pornography finding
their way into the Amateur Radio Digital Net if traffic intended for the
Internet is allowed to be regularly routed over Amateur Radio links.
This will NOT prevent Hams from using a Packet/Internet gateway for passing
APRS data, for example, TO the Internet for use by special web sites, or
from downloading "massaged data" FROM the same Internet web site to
distribute locally via Packet Radio.
Hams would also use gateways to:
Exchange weather/skywarn data with the NWS, FEMA, ect.
Access Callbook data, download software, Read PART97, and a number of other
things which cannot be described because the idea of making web-sites
especially tailored for use as an interface to Packet Radio is still in it's
infancy. Only a select group of APRS guys and a few digicam experimenters
have tinkered with it, so far. The logical first choice, APRS/SkyWarn, is
also just barely getting started. This is the "bleeding edge", for those who
are into being in on the ground floor of something big.
My point: Do as we have been doing, and we can expect the results we have
been getting. Do as I say, and not only will the Digital Net in the USA
revive and grow again, but the Packet/Internet gateway will be a vital,
integral part of that growth.
All I am asking is that the action which has been identified as being
detrimental to our interests be restricted or ruled out. -- I am not
interested in throwing the baby out with the bath water, eliminating the
good as well as the bad to be found in this new tool, the Packet/Internet
gateway.
Charles Brabham
Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <7510ac$5nr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>I've already agreed with you, in public, that reliance on non-radio
>networking reduces one incentive to develop competent radio networking.
The most important incentive of all: "Learning how to use and advance the
use of Radio".
>Nonetheless, use of non-radio WAN connectivity does in fact foster the
>development of local radio networking communities where there otherwise
>would be none, something you consistently ignore. In other words,
>"Amateur Telephone" has an up-side you fail to address in your diatribes.
I do not address that "fact" because it is not a fact. In *fact*, the
widespread reduction of infrastructure the non-radio WAN connectivity
"solution" has saddled us with, in combination with the defeatist attitude
behind the entire concept of "Radioless Ham Radio" has served to dishearten
and disgust so many Hams here in the USA that the Packet network here is in
serious danger of collapse. Nodes are dropping like flies in some parts of
the country, after having been "routed around" by Non-Ham links such as the
Internet and "wormholes".
To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
gateways have been restricted. It's that simple. Amateur Packet Radio is a
subset of Amateur Radio, and not the other way around. The "Radio" part is
not optional. That's why for Hams, using Radio is the best bet,
*particularly* if, as Hams, doing so faces us with an interesting and
difficult challenge. Hams who are protected from the negative side of
Packet/Internet gateways have faced their challenges as Hams should - With
Radio. They did not give up and use the Telephone as has happened in the
USA. They have great results to show for it.
>
>Note carefully that the very term you often use "Land Line Lid" is
>nothing more than a character attack, so please reserve your naive
>hypocrisy for someone else.
It's an accurate description of a new, unusual type of Lid which Hams have
not had to deal with before.
The LandLine Lids are responsible for their own character development, or
lack thereof.
>
>You particularly attack the use of TCP/IP among radio amateurs, for
>a variety of political reasons.
I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
To heck with politics... I look at performance and on that scale, tcpip sits
at dead last for Hams..
>Perhaps the biggest "problem" with
>TCP/IP is that it has become the most widely deployed non-proprietary
>protocol in the world today, due to unprecendented interoperability.
Is that why it is absolutely useless for use by Hams for wide-scale
networking with Radio?
Is that why it has to be "propped up" with the telephone?
FlexNet doesn't have to be propped up with the Telephone.
>In the real world, interoperability is high goal, because it allows
>maximum flexibility. The fact that amateurs can easily internetwork
>using IP is a testament to the strength of this protocol, and not
>something to condemn.
Amateur TCPIP is great for exchanging data and information between the Ham
Digital Net and the Internet. That's as far as interoperability really needs
to go, in this case.
Beyond that, TCPIP has proved to be a poor performer for Hams, particularly
difficult to set up and operate properly. I suggest we keep amateur tcpip
for linking up to the Internet, but forget using it for much of anything
else. It's too backward in design and poor in performance, when compared to
what Hams have developed for themselves - in those places where protective,
enabling legislation ensures that they face the challenges of Ham Radio
instead of trying to weasel their way around them with the Telephone.
It's not surprising that the Hams in Europe who stuck with using Radios
ended up being years ahead of those in the USA who gave up on radio, threw
up their hands, and turned to the telephone for the bulk of their
communications. Personally, I find this situation to be embarassing. I'd
like to see it rectified as soon as possible.
> This does not make IP technically superior,
>perhaps, but it does explain why it is as popular as it is.
For use by Hams for communicating globally by Radio, it is technically
inferior to most, if not all of the other Packet networking systems
available. The BBS "store 'n forward" system is widely derided by TCPIP
devotees, for example, but you know what? It works, globally, using nothing
but Ham Radio. What works can be improved.
>
>In other words, the "issue" you repeatedly bleat about in public
>is not nearly as simple as you'd like to portray it.
You've got to be joking. Maybe you should take a cruise by my web page.
Carl R. Stevenson
Hash: SHA1
Charles Brabham wrote in message <7515h7$3...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>Maybe you should take a cruise by my web page.
One thing of note from your web page, Charles ... the name of "your"
group ... P.E.S.T. ... fits you to a T.
- --
Carl - wa6vse
wa6...@fast.net
http://www.users.fast.net/~wa6vse
NCI #1052
Join No Code International!
Hams for the 21st century.
Support the modernization of ham radio and help
to assure its survival into the 21st century!
http://www.nocode.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQA/AwUBNnQp5Je+N6+q84HiEQLanwCfQKA/7NIASWpHt0w/jx1BkXc56SkAoNhx
6gmMV11Teao+fL43JNpD2ZF8
=vNPG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jones
>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
For as long as I can remember, ham radio traffic handling in earlier modes
(SSB, CW and AM) was often completed by using a telephone. And sometimes
even snail mail. This is not a new concept to rely on commercial services
hooked to ham radio. Another example is of course the phone patch and
autopatch, again telephone based. So what's the big deal on using the
telephone with PACKET?
And why shouldn't PACKET (or a PACKET network) be left to sink or swim on
it's own merits? If it can't compete with the internet, or being hooked to
it, no matter what method any ham dreams up, so be it. Ham radio in general
is also feeling some negative effects of the internet competition. But ham
radio, like a free market, will still be better off with minimal regulation,
not more...
W6RCecilA
> And why shouldn't PACKET (or a PACKET network) be left to sink or swim on
> it's own merits? If it can't compete with the internet, or being hooked to
> it, no matter what method any ham dreams up, so be it.
Just wondering why you don't have this same attitude toward CW. Why
cannot Morse code "be left to sink or swin on its own merits?"
Jones
>cannot Morse code "be left to sink or swin on its own merits?"
It can. I'm on record in several posts that I really don't care how it all
comes out. And I've predicted several times that the code test requirement
will eventually be eliminated. That's just a prediction though, not because
I'm pushing for it.
You have to be a CW self tested ham (ARRL's ridiculous definition) just to
talk to me, so you see in a way the test will continue...
(But even though I'm on the fence, I like to take jabs at some of the
assertions on both sides.)
ma...@pixar.com
> Not really. - Just the LandLine Lids, Lockout Lids, and others who have
> ruined the enjoyment of hundreds of other hams with their activities.
Honestly Charles, grow up. If these people are really ruining packet radio
for you, perhaps you should consider a different way to spend your leisure
time. If this argument doesn't work on you, perhaps you consider what a
negative view you spread of amateur radio (and packet operation in
particular). Have you ever wondered how many (hundreds?) of other hams you
may have ruined with your continuous negativity?
Mark
ma...@pixar.com
> Oh, I see... You expect all Hams to memorize every obscure reference in
> QST... OK, which issue features my Web Page?
Charles, face it. You opened your mouth, stuck your foot in, and chewed in
right up to the knee. While I was unaware that Mr. Heil was operating from
Tanzania, I did have some suspicion that the alternate call listed was indeed
a foreign callsign, probably a rare one. By opening your mouth to slander
someone without checking basic facts, well, I guess we all pretty much
expected as much from you now...
> Grow up or buzz off.
Wise words. Too bad you haven't heeded them.
Mark
> 73 DE Charles Brabham,
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jim
>Charles,
>With each new posting you reveal yourself as a fool--and an unpleasant
>fool.
>Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Hey Dave, tnx for the contact in the contest, OM. Was surprised to hear
you this morning on 10 meters. Least I hope it 'twas you and not a cheap
immitation.....
Don't waste too much keyboard time on Charlie, he's hopeless.....
73, Jim H2D
JamesBond
this as
a bystander:-
1. If you want Packet to survive why dont you try to improve the
packet infrastructure ??? ( set up more high speed 64 KB + backbones at UHF and
higher frequencies)
2. Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it available through
with free source code like GNU or free software foundation like arrangement to
everyone. (instead you see crappy and inefficient protocols like FSK being sold
as propreitary software without source code.
Case in point is RITTY, (this implementaion of crappy FSK protocol seems to be
excellent but,
no Source code is provided, plus, the writer has encrypted the runtime code.
(It self decrypts at runtime and does its trick. )
Now, contrast this to the situation where the writer would have provided source
code
under GNU like arrangement, everyone would have been able to look at the DSP
source
code and learn how to improve the software, and improve their general skills to
write
such software and develop better protocols, and in general advance the state of
packet radio.)
3.AGAIN, Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it available
through with free source code instead just pissing around.
A good example is KA9Q. Do you see him cribbing about Land Line LIDS ??? NO.
Because he is busy writing 1200 BAUD QPSK modem for HF. ANd, he will make the
source code
available to everyone.
4. You great radios are nothing but which provide (noisy) channels for use in
communications over a shared invisible media called the ether. The most
efficient use of this media is when you use it
to for datacomm. Every other form of communication can be sent over as
datacomm. Voice can be coded using 2400 BITS per sec using the CELP algorithms.
Datacomm is what it is about.
Learn about channel coding, FECC, DSP, and how to write software to use these
channels for datacomm.
HINT: Buy the DSP56002EVM or DSP56307EVM kits and start writing some good DSP
code,
instead of whining. BUY some good digital communications books like "Bernard
Sklars" book.
W6RCecilA wrote:
> Jones wrote:
> > And why shouldn't PACKET (or a PACKET network) be left to sink or swim on
> > it's own merits? If it can't compete with the internet, or being hooked to
> > it, no matter what method any ham dreams up, so be it.
>
> Just wondering why you don't have this same attitude toward CW. Why
> cannot Morse code "be left to sink or swin on its own merits?"
John Wiley
: >
: >A pretty simplistic view of the problem Charles... (Im not being an
: >ass, Im just being forthright...) Which countries in Europe?
: Look it up for yourself. I do research for myself, and sometimes for
: friends, and never for people who are not likely to accept the info I come
: up with anyway. My advice to you is to first get ten years or more
: experience operating packet so that you will know what you are looking at,
: then take a good look at the FlexNet network in Europe. Compare it to what
: is going on here.
Charles, Im giving you an opportunity to provide the information to the
group as a whole... I'd say that you perhaps have a valid argument if
we were exchanging this argument via email... I would think you would
welcome this opportunity to publically share what I would assume to be
relevant information with myself and others that are concerned...
I strongly question your motives in this case... I smell a rice bowl
being held VERY VERY closely for any number of reasons...
: >Is their legislative structure (not to mention available communication
: >infrastructure) vastly different than ours? It's just not this simple...
: >If you're serious about finding a solution to your problem, you need
: >to take these factors (along with a few others) into account...
: I have of course taken those factors into account. As a new comer to this
: discussion, you would do well to keep your ears open and your mouth shut. -
: You'll learn a lot more that way.
It is not readily apparent to me that you have. Also, I will choose my
own learning style. Thanks for the advice, but I see VERY fit to question
you with regard to this. If your "truth" can't stand the light of day,
Charles, might I suggest you keep it in a dark room...
: While you're at it, you can start showing a bit more respect for those who
: DO know what they are talking about.
Something I might suggest to you, Charles. My respect is earned. Most people's
respect is earned, not given freely. I do not WANT the respect of people
that give it as freely as you might be suggesting here. You want my respect,
big guy, earn it... (apparently you do, as you're chastising me for not
providing it here...) I make it a point, in my "doin's" Charles, to never
bow to anyone that professes himself an "expert", especially prior to his
actually PROVING it... Bowing to such a person diminishes me *AND* him...
(I also refuse to turn my back to someone that gives me any form of respect
without me having made an effort to earn it... It's just not wise...)
: Your ignorance is your problem, and fixing it is your responsibility, not
: mine. If I took on the task of educating every clueless jerk who pestered me
: here, it would rapidly become a full-time job. I have much better things to
: do. - Like helping out people who really WANT to learn, and who display the
: type of character and decency that really makes a Ham.
An attack on my character from a man who has never met me. Interesting.
Like wind through gauze, Charles. I would like to reiterate, that I am
far from being a "clueless jerk", but that I am indeed someone that is
making a contribution to the digital communication community, Charles...
May I ask, what have YOU done, besides run a BBS?? You don't appear to
have actually done anything with respect to making a technical contribution
to "FlexNet"... Is this the case?
: >
: >: >I would suggest finding
: >: >a way to make "all RF" packet somewhat more attractive to the crowd you
: >: >are trying to woo vs. attempting to alienate them and place a
: legislative
: >: >clamp on their activities...
: >
: >: I've never seen much point in trying to "woo" Lids. You've seen the sort
: of
: >: pond-scum which has been trying to pester me here. Typical low-character,
: >: no-brain LandLine Lids.
: >
: >Yeah... Short memory... I was one of the "scum" last week... Notice that
: >Im still trying to participate, and that Im looking for answers...
: Still looking to make smart-assed comments, stir up trouble, and make an ass
: of yourself by pestering and denigrating the people who ARE qualified to
: discuss the matter. Proud of yourself, are you?
Well... Since I did none of the above, even under minor duress from you,
I would say, yes, I have managed to deal pretty well thus far. (You might
want to go back and thumbnail the number of times youve threated me, called
me names, etc... It's pretty impressive so far Charles... )
: >
: >: > There has to be a better way, and if I
: >: >think of it, I'll let you know (before your head explodes and you launch
: >: >into a spate of playground drivel, that's me acknowledging that it ain't
: >: >an easy problem to solve...)
: >
Well... Just call me John "Kalman Filter" Wiley...
: >: No, actually there isn't a better way. I go by RESULTS, and the only
: places
: >: on the entire planet which have produced RESULTS in the last decade have
: >: been a few countries in Europe which have either outlawed or severely
: >: restricted the use of Internet/Packet gateways. The facts are - the
: facts.
: >
: >Really? Which countries? Don't you think you're being a little
: restrictive
: >here in making a statement like this?
: Sorry if you find working with the facts to be too restrictive.
I see no facts, Charles... Sorry... If there are a "few" countries, how
long does it take you to type the names in?? I'd like to know who they
are... Im showing a genuine interest here, and you're crapping all over
the place, blowing smoke, and avoiding actually providing any real "facts"...
: >Do you have any actual references/
: >data to back this claim up? I'd like to see it... (Im not being an ass
: >Charles... If you've got it, trot it out, and let's do something
: constructive
: >with it aside from namecalling...)
: It's called the FlexNet network. It covers most of Europe. Kinda hard to
: miss.
OK... Now, which of the countries in "most of Europe" offer legislative
protection to packet radio?
: >
: >: Sorry, but the "facts" do not support your assertion that there is a
: "better
: >: way". When and if you really come up with something, as opposed to just
: >: blowing more hot air, be sure and let me know.
: >
: >Heh. Always close with an insult eh Charles... I won't dignify this with
: >a response... It's childish... Fortunately, I believe in "entering with
: >form, followed by exiting with form"... This kind of nonsense and posturing
: >doesn't solve any kind of problem...
: Sorry that you see a call for solutions which are supported by the facts as
: "nonsense and posturing". Don't feel bad though, as lots of other LandLine
: Lids appear to have the same problem.
1) I am not a "Landline Lid"... (Im not a Ham... I don't run a "gateway"...)
2) The "nonsense and posturing" statement refers to your behavior, Charles,
not your "call for solutions"...
3) Im answering your "call for solutions" as professionally as I possibly can
especially given that your responses demonstrate a strange lack of
professionalism, "character", and "decency"... Are these
characteristics only extended to a subset of people you encounter
Charles? If so, the Japanese have coined a special name for that...
It is not considered a "nice" name... It's one thing to talk a good
game about "character" "decency" or "honor" Charles... It's entirely
another to apply them... Not being one to give a man advice about
the path he walks, that's all I'll say about it...
: >Since Im interested at this stage
: >of the game (being a newcomer to this forum), in determining whether or
: >not the problem you are carping about even exists... (IOW, Im gathering
: >facts) I'll continue to view you as a resource... (BTW, I can come up
: >with PLENTY of cases where the "facts" didn't support solutions to problems
: >which eventually were found... Modern rocket powered flight for
: instance...)
: Yes, pretend that you are seriously considering the matter. That's fine.
Oh... OK... I'll do that, and you continue to pretend you're trying to
solve the problem... (That's called posturing... Anytime, now, you're going
to realize that I am genuinely interested in examining the problem...)
: >Kindly afford me the luxury of being an "engineer" and trying to exercise
: >a little structured problem solving here vs. simply trying to polarize
: >people into a forced and short lived solution...
: Well, hopefully someday you'll figure out what you're talking about.
Heh... Yeah... Someday... You're right, Charles... However (and you'll find
this kind of amusing I think), my system of spiritual beliefs finds this to
be one of the greatest compliments you can GIVE ME... (Short of it being said
that Im a good "Uke"... Which is an honor Im also striving for...)
I wouldn't even claim that I know what IM talking about WRT digital
communication. I do know a little about it, but I get farther and farther
away from being an "expert" every day... It's a very large field...
Very rich... Just love engineering though...
Love building things... It's neat... Very nice to have
a parallel vocation and avocation... I consider myself very lucky... Thanks
for finally showing a little personal concern about me... It's refreshing...
Best Regards and Happy Holidays Charles,
-jw
Dave Heil
Jim,
It was really me--just before we lost the band here in East Africa. You
were much stronger than the lone California station (K7BV) I managed to
work. Final tally here 1580 QSOs for 980K.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Charles Brabham
John Wiley wrote in message <753fu6$4...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>1) I am not a "Landline Lid"... (Im not a Ham... I don't run a
"gateway"...)
Oh I forgot. I keep forgetting your name, and thinking that you are somebody
who is qualified or has a genuine interest in the discussion. Troll off,
buddy. Take a few cheap shots now, as your I.D. has gone into the filter
here, and I won't be seeing them... Bye bye.
Charles Brabham
Jones wrote in message <7525lk$9h6$1...@news.orbitworld.net>...
>>I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
>>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
>>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
>
>For as long as I can remember, ham radio traffic handling in earlier modes
>(SSB, CW and AM) was often completed by using a telephone.
That's correct, if you are talking about NTS. Amateur Radio is used in that
context much as it works with MARS, in that a limited form of communication
is offered to non-hams, under circumstances where the normal means of
communication are not functional, or are unavailable for some reason.
Amateur Radio provides the primary means of communication in both of those
cases, with the messages being delivered as closely as possible via Amateur
Radio, before non-Ham means of communication are used to complete the final
delivery. Since NTS and MARS traffic is often directed to non-Hams, it is
not practical to attempt to send each message entirely via Amateur Radio.
Hams generally use Radio when communicating with Hams. I thought everybody
knew that.
If you are trying to imply that non-Ham means of communication are used for
anything but a very minor percentage of the total distance those messages
travel, then you are full of farina.
The NTS system has been a credit to Amateur Radio for years, providing
health 'n welfare communications during times of disaster, and maintaining a
reliable "backbone group" of experienced Ham Radio communicators who are
available to assist in many ways, whenever needed.
Do NOT compare what these fine Hams have done for Ham Radio with the
vandalistic antics of the "LandLine Lid" community, who have "routed around"
and undermined the efforts of countless Hams who were trying their best to
communicate by Radio for years now. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> And sometimes
>even snail mail. This is not a new concept to rely on commercial services
>hooked to ham radio. Another example is of course the phone patch and
>autopatch, again telephone based. So what's the big deal on using the
>telephone with PACKET?
The "big deal" is that it has turned out to be extremely detrimental to the
maintainence and development of an Amateur Radio digital network... But you
don't really care about Hams using Radio to communicate, do you?
>And why shouldn't PACKET (or a PACKET network) be left to sink or swim on
>it's own merits?
"To hell with Packet." Yes, your interest is obvious. You have
demonstrated how much you care about Hams and Ham Radio.
>If it can't compete with the internet, or being hooked to
>it, no matter what method any ham dreams up, so be it.
If using the Internet instead of Amateur Packet Radio (within the Packet
net) kills off Packet, then those thousands of Hams DESERVE to be left with
no alternative to the Internet... Thanks for demonstrating the reason why I
regularly expect advocates of "Amateur Telephone" to be of low character.
You'd make a good "LandLine Lid" poster boy with the anti-Ham attitudes you
so readily display.
Since the Internet is not an Amateur Radio network, using Ham Radio for it's
communications, there is no way it can "compete" with the Ham Radio digital
net. The two networks are entirely different in almost every respect, having
very little in common. Both do different things which the other cannot do.
Both are different things that the other cannot be.
Some people who formerly were interested in Packet have moved on to the
Internet, and others have stayed. Still more have become interested in
Amateur Packet Radio in the USA, found out it was really just a parasite
hanging off of the Internet's butt, and then lost interest in Ham Radio
altogether. Can you blame them?
Hams have gotten together to pool the funds, sweat and expertise needed to
set up and operate a Packet node or BBS and improve the US Packet net, only
to find that thier traffic is being siphoned away by Non-Ham links provided
by LandLine Lids. Without the traffic, they soon shut down and are not
replaced. The state of Texas, for example, is currently in a state of chaos
because of the short-sighted use of Non-Ham means of communication. Their
"plug" got pulled, and now they find that they have nothing. Prior to the
utilization of those Non-Ham links, I was able to connect over 600 miles of
existing, operating Ham RADIO Packet networking. Now all of that is gone,
"routed around" and superceded by the TexNet clowns, and now that their plug
has been pulled they have left Texas Hams with - absolutely nothing.
Anybody can use the Internet, and the non-Ham access is light-years ahead of
anything Amateur Radio can legally offer. That's the facts of life, like
them or not. It's not going to change anytime soon, due to the uncontrolled
nature of the info to be found on the Internet. Hams have standards of
decency, and it's extremely unlikely that they will give them up for
something so common and cheap as Internet access.
>Ham radio in general
>is also feeling some negative effects of the internet competition. But ham
>radio, like a free market, will still be better off with minimal
regulation,
>not more...
That turned out not to be the case. It sounds good, but unfortunately the
facts do not support your "less regs is better" approach. (Anarchy won't cut
it with Ham Radio, sorry.)
For example, the restrictions against the use of Non-Ham means of
communcation to move Ham Radio traffic in Europe forced those Hams to seek
and find solutions involving Radio, while US Hams with no such legal
protection found their efforts being short-circuited and "routed around" by
Lids with cheap Non-Ham links through the Internet or from commercial
communications outfits.
They are always so gratified and surprised that the commercial mmunications
outfits will provide them "free" fibre-optic links or internet access. If I
were a telco and wanted freqs currently used by Hams, I'd be glad to do
anything which would get the Hams off of those valuable freqs, including
offering non-Ham "connectivity" to those who are weak-minded enough to think
that by accepting such offers, they are "advancing" digital Amateur Radio.
John Wiley
: John Wiley wrote in message <753fu6$4...@portal.gmu.edu>...
: >1) I am not a "Landline Lid"... (Im not a Ham... I don't run a
: "gateway"...)
: Oh I forgot. I keep forgetting your name, and thinking that you are somebody
: who is qualified or has a genuine interest in the discussion. Troll off,
: buddy. Take a few cheap shots now, as your I.D. has gone into the filter
: here, and I won't be seeing them... Bye bye.
That's OK Charles... If I really want you to see what IM posting,
I'll be sure to create myself a new account... :-)
You are probably one of the most thickheaded individuals I've ever
met... Qualified... Yes... I am... Genuine interest... Yes... I
have... It amazes me that you can judge my "qualifications" without
ever having seen them... Now... It's time for me to hop up on
my soapbox, Charles...
Admittedly, I took offense at your "must be a ham to participate
here" nonsense... I have been quite honestly trying to get useful
information from you regarding your "call to action" for the last
two days, and have been met with nothing but abusive, threatening,
and downright annoying responses...
Frankly (and I find this to be rather unfortunate), if your cause
is worth working on, I think you've probably lost more than *ONE*
person over the last few days (as Im sure others would like the same
information I've requested), not a few of which I am sure HAVE
Amateur Licenses... You don't even *TALK* a good game regarding
"character", or "upstanding" behavior Charles... Go get yourself a
decent dictionary, and start by looking those words up... I don't
think those words mean what you think they do...
Best Regards...
-jw
Jones
>knew that.
I'm glad you used the word *generally*. Judging from the length and
frequency of some of the posts and posters, the internet is catching up...
>"To hell with Packet." Yes, your interest is obvious. You have
>demonstrated how much you care about Hams and Ham Radio.
I tried Packet, and your right, I didn't care for it. But that has nothing
to do with my feelings for hams or ham radio. Spock would say "illogical".
But I think Cecil has a good point here. Why should any mode have any
protection? CW will really take a hit when the test goes away, but is a
government regulation fair to save CW any more than it is fair to have
government regulation to save Packet? If you're really pro-code test and
pro-packet regulation that does seem *illogical*.
>If using the Internet instead of Amateur Packet Radio (within the Packet
>net) kills off Packet, then those thousands of Hams DESERVE to be left with
>no alternative to the Internet... Thanks for demonstrating the reason why I
>regularly expect advocates of "Amateur Telephone" to be of low character.
>You'd make a good "LandLine Lid" poster boy with the anti-Ham attitudes you
>so readily display.
Ah name calling rears it's ugly head. Don't have an argument? Then name call
to cloud the issue. It's not just Packet the Internet might hurt, but all of
ham radio. If nobody comes to the ham radio party because the Internet party
is more fun then so be it. But please lets not have the government regulate
to support parts or even the whole hobby. (Minimal control regulations
excepted of course.)
>Some people who formerly were interested in Packet have moved on to the
>Internet, and others have stayed. Still more have become interested in
>Amateur Packet Radio in the USA, found out it was really just a parasite
>hanging off of the Internet's butt, and then lost interest in Ham Radio
>altogether. Can you blame them?
>73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Nope. It's called free choice. Thank God we have it...
Derek Jackson
>After reading all this debate about packet, land-lines and trolls, I have
to say
>this as a bystander:-
>
>1. If you want Packet to survive why dont you try to improve the
>packet infrastructure ???
anything that's newer than about 10 years old. Witness things like CW, RTTY,
1200bd packet etc.
>2. Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it available
through
>with free source code like GNU or free software foundation like arrangement
to
>everyone. (instead you see crappy and inefficient protocols like FSK being
sold
>as propreitary software without source code.
Yes your about right there - better packet software. There's discussion on
here about how crap TCP/IP is when layered onto AX25, but AX25 is crap
anyway! Why on earth can't there be a seperate protocol for 'networking'
that doesn't botch onto AX25? - and why not make it a 'two-way' protocol so
when mail-forwarding the return ACK packets can be followed by data in the
same transmission. That would help reduce traffic by about 10%.
>3.AGAIN, Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it
available
>through with free source code instead just pissing around.
>A good example is KA9Q. Do you see him cribbing about Land Line LIDS ???
NO.
>Because he is busy writing 1200 BAUD QPSK modem for HF.
why QPSK? Is that really necessary for 1200bd on HF?
Dj.
Derek Jackson
>use of Radio".
- like advancing from with boring old plain-text 1200baud AX25? Isn't that
why TCP/IP became popular?
>
>To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
>gateways have been restricted. It's that simple.
Really? Where exactly is this?
>I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
TCP/IP could 'hack it' - the network can't because its so out of date.
>
>To heck with politics... I look at performance and on that scale, tcpip
sits
>at dead last for Hams..
- just beind straight AX25 that is..
>>Perhaps the biggest "problem" with
>>TCP/IP is that it has become the most widely deployed non-proprietary
>>protocol in the world today, due to unprecendented interoperability.
>
>Is that why it is absolutely useless for use by Hams for wide-scale
>networking with Radio?
No - it because Hams couldn't be bothered to come up with a better system
and decided to botch TCP/IP on top of AX25.
>
>Is that why it has to be "propped up" with the telephone?
No - that's because the Packet network is so slow and old to cope.
>
>FlexNet doesn't have to be propped up with the Telephone.
>
Good God man! Flexnet is only a self-adjusting PacLen/MaxFrame system!
You make it sound like the solution to all the worlds problems:
Tired, listless? - Try FlexNet!
Money Problems? - Try FlexNet!
...
>
>> This does not make IP technically superior,
>>perhaps, but it does explain why it is as popular as it is.
>
>For use by Hams for communicating globally by Radio, it is technically
>inferior to most, if not all of the other Packet networking systems
>available. The BBS "store 'n forward" system is widely derided by TCPIP
>devotees, for example, but you know what? It works, globally, using nothing
>but Ham Radio. What works can be improved.
Is that the 'store and forward' system that takes a week for your message to
travel to the next city?
>Maybe you should take a cruise by my web page.
>
I hope that's not on Packet or I'll be here until the next century waiting
for it..
1200baud - 1960's technology for the moden Ham..
Anders Lagerås
(n...@email.for.spammers) says...
> >The most important incentive of all: "Learning how to use and advance the
> >use of Radio".
> >
> why TCP/IP became popular?
packet network is using ax25.
To use a protocol like flexnet or the new better net/rom works better,
there are enough overhead data sent already.
To use tcp/ip is good when you want to connect different kind of
networks. It makes the network transparent to the user.
But it also requires high speed to be useful and it adds overhead data to
the packets.
> >To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
> >gateways have been restricted. It's that simple.
>
> Really? Where exactly is this?
In Europe I guess!
> >I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
> >(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
> >insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
> >wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
>
> TCP/IP could 'hack it' - the network can't because its so out of date.
What?
Tcp/ip will not improve any thing.
> >>Perhaps the biggest "problem" with
> >>TCP/IP is that it has become the most widely deployed non-proprietary
> >>protocol in the world today, due to unprecendented interoperability.
> >
> >Is that why it is absolutely useless for use by Hams for wide-scale
> >networking with Radio?
>
> No - it because Hams couldn't be bothered to come up with a better system
> and decided to botch TCP/IP on top of AX25.
There are other protocols, now a days.
In the early days of packet was tcp/ip the only.
Now is tcp/ip packets routed with another protocol, like flexnet.
> >Is that why it has to be "propped up" with the telephone?
> No - that's because the Packet network is so slow and old to cope.
If you want high speeds isn't the telephone lines any alternative.
Modem connections can't offer you high speeds.
A good packet network can.
> Good God man! Flexnet is only a self-adjusting PacLen/MaxFrame system!
> You make it sound like the solution to all the worlds problems:
It is node, packet driver, protocol, networks and much more.
A good node that can be used together with tcp/ip.
The flexnet protocol is much better than net/rom protocol.
The kind of packet drivers and nodes that can handle highspeed packet.
And it is also cheap, the rmnc flexnet hardware is very cheap and good.
Since the rmnc isn't a pc based node is it suitable of unattended nodes.
It is also special designed for node work, with a multitasking that no pc
can offer.
> Tired, listless? - Try FlexNet!
> Money Problems? - Try FlexNet!
It is free.
> >> This does not make IP technically superior,
> >>perhaps, but it does explain why it is as popular as it is.
> >
> >For use by Hams for communicating globally by Radio, it is technically
> >inferior to most, if not all of the other Packet networking systems
> >available. The BBS "store 'n forward" system is widely derided by TCPIP
> >devotees, for example, but you know what? It works, globally, using nothing
> >but Ham Radio. What works can be improved.
>
> Is that the 'store and forward' system that takes a week for your message to
> travel to the next city?
It doesn't thanks to hf and satellitee links.
> 1200baud - 1960's technology for the moden Ham..
We don't want the packet network replaced by a dial up network i uccp
stile.
Dial up networks isn't really hightech!
And you can't get any thing other than the BBS "store 'n forward" system
work with that.
--
73 de SM7UZI Anders Lagerås
Charles Brabham
Derek Jackson wrote in message
<757ebv$sjd$7...@newsreader3.core.theplanet.net>...
>>use of Radio".
>
>why TCP/IP became popular?
I have not mentioned any preference for either plain-text or 1200 baud.
Your implication that only through tcpip can packet go any further than
"plain text and 1200 baud" is utterly moronic. Actually, a lot more of what
goes beyond "plain text and 1200 baud" in Packet today goes over ax25.
(FlexNet)
>>
>>To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
>>gateways have been restricted. It's that simple.
>
>Really? Where exactly is this?
Europe. The FlexNet network. Look into it, if you are really interested.
Don't expect me to do your research for you.
If you really do not know anything about packet beyond your piddly little
tcpip LAN, why put on airs as if you were some sort of "packet expert"? If
you want to talk about a global network, you're going to have to lose your
provincial attitude, and drop the chip off of your shoulder. Very few
knowlegable people will bother sharing meaningful information with
narrow-minded snots, too lazy and ignorant to look into things for
themselves.
>
>>I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
>>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP devotees
>>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
>
>TCP/IP could 'hack it' - the network can't because its so out of date.
Amateur tcpip has been around over ten years that I know of, it's devotees
always looking for someone else's network resources to freeload off of. You
denigrate the US mainstream packet net, saying it's "too slow", and "too out
of date". Let me give you a hint... There IS NO amateur tcpip packet radio
net at all, and never has been. - Because amateur tcpip devotees are big on
talk and mighty slim on results.
The mainstream packet net performs infinitely better than the non-existant
amateur tcpip digital rf net. That's a fact.
Amateur tcpip has had over a decade now to build that better, faster network
we have all heard of so many times. What you morons did instead was blow off
using radio to communicate, building a "virtual packet network" up from
Internet (telephone) links. You put so much into your simulated network that
you bult very little ACTUAL Radio network.
You look kind of stupid up there on your high-horse, denigrating the very
network you end up freeloading off of.
But that's one of the common LandLine Lid traits. Run down the work of other
Hams, while doing nothing themselves.
>>
>>To heck with politics... I look at performance and on that scale, tcpip
>sits
>>at dead last for Hams..
>
> - just beind straight AX25 that is..
Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. The "performance scale" that
counts for Hams is "how well does it work with Radio?"
Demonstrate the HF tcpip network which would exist is tcpip were at all
efficient for use with Radio.
>
>>>Perhaps the biggest "problem" with
>>>TCP/IP is that it has become the most widely deployed non-proprietary
>>>protocol in the world today, due to unprecendented interoperability.
>>
>>Is that why it is absolutely useless for use by Hams for wide-scale
>>networking with Radio?
>
>No - it because Hams couldn't be bothered to come up with a better system
>and decided to botch TCP/IP on top of AX25.
Actually, Hams have come up with a number of systems which, under the
conditions they are designed to work under, are years ahead of amateur tcpip
in their functionality for Hams. A few quick examples are CLOVER, PACTOR for
HF, FlexNet, XNet for VHF/UHF, Multicast for HF @WW distribution, and a
number of others. All of these will yield significantly better performance
than amateur tcpip. Heck, regular old AX25, which you love to denigrate,
allowed worldwide delivery of all-amateur radio E-mail through the BBS store
'n forward system. Amateur tcpip has never provided anything along those
lines at all.
Do not confuse the performance of the Internet with Amateur tcpip's
performance. Like it or not, they are two different things, and when you
communicate by Non-Ham means, what you are doing at that time is not "Ham
Radio".
>>
>>Is that why it has to be "propped up" with the telephone?
>
>No - that's because the Packet network is so slow and old to cope.
The Packet network which is infinitely faster and better than the one
amateur tcpip never built?
>>
>>FlexNet doesn't have to be propped up with the Telephone.
>>
>Good God man! Flexnet is only a self-adjusting PacLen/MaxFrame system!
It's more than that.
>You make it sound like the solution to all the worlds problems:
I don't know about that, but I do know that it's at least a decade ahead of
amateur tcpip. I also know that the world's biggest, fastest, most advanced
and most heavily used Packet Radio network was built under protection from
"Amateur Telephone", and that during that same time, the USA with no such
protection has seen it's Packet Radio network decay and decline instead of
growing.
Like it or not, there is a direct link between "Amateur Telephone" and the
decay of the US Packet Radio network. The same thing has happened in
Australia, and a few other places around the world. Only those places with
strict regulation of gateways have advanced and built up significant
high-speed infrastructure.
What you LandLine Lids tend to do is to TALK about high-speed infrastructure
while you use the Telephone. That's why you never built a network. That's
why we need to regulate the utilization of Internet/Packet gateways.
>>
>>> This does not make IP technically superior,
>>>perhaps, but it does explain why it is as popular as it is.
>>
>>For use by Hams for communicating globally by Radio, it is technically
>>inferior to most, if not all of the other Packet networking systems
>>available. The BBS "store 'n forward" system is widely derided by TCPIP
>>devotees, for example, but you know what? It works, globally, using
nothing
>>but Ham Radio. What works can be improved.
>
>Is that the 'store and forward' system that takes a week for your message
to
>travel to the next city?
I'm sure that there are cases where it has taken a week, which is of course
infinitely faster than the Packet Radio network amateur tcpip never built.
You LandLine Lids are so funny! Always out to denigrate and run down the
work of your fellow Hams, always ready to criticize the work of others, but
too shiftless and lazy to actually do things up to your own specs.
After over ten years, the crowning achievement of the amateur tcpip
community has been a software triumph.. - They managed to cobble on a few
hacked-up, incomplete and incompatable versions of a normal Packet BBS
program onto Phil Karn's NOS. Ten years, while other Hams were out busting
their butts and their wallets to BUILD the network those silly LandLine lids
have the gall to denigrate and run down.
Blowhard jerks.
Dave Heil
>
> Derek Jackson wrote in message
> <757ebv$sjd$7...@newsreader3.core.theplanet.net>...
> >
> >Charles Brabham wrote in message <7515h7$3...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >Really? Where exactly is this?
>
> Europe. The FlexNet network. Look into it, if you are really interested.
> Don't expect me to do your research for you.
>
> If you really do not know anything about packet beyond your piddly little
> tcpip LAN, why put on airs as if you were some sort of "packet expert"? If
> you want to talk about a global network, you're going to have to lose your
> provincial attitude, and drop the chip off of your shoulder. Very few
> knowlegable people will bother sharing meaningful information with
> narrow-minded snots, too lazy and ignorant to look into things for
> themselves.
>
> >Good God man! Flexnet is only a self-adjusting PacLen/MaxFrame system!
>
> It's more than that.
>
> >You make it sound like the solution to all the worlds problems:
>
> I don't know about that, but I do know that it's at least a decade ahead of
> amateur tcpip. I also know that the world's biggest, fastest, most advanced
> and most heavily used Packet Radio network was built under protection from
> "Amateur Telephone", and that during that same time, the USA with no such
> protection has seen it's Packet Radio network decay and decline instead of
> growing.
>
> Like it or not, there is a direct link between "Amateur Telephone" and the
> decay of the US Packet Radio network. The same thing has happened in
> Australia, and a few other places around the world. Only those places with
> strict regulation of gateways have advanced and built up significant
> high-speed infrastructure.
> What you LandLine Lids tend to do is to TALK about high-speed infrastructure
> while you use the Telephone. That's why you never built a network. That's
> why we need to regulate the utilization of Internet/Packet gateways.
> You LandLine Lids are so funny! Always out to denigrate and run down the
> work of your fellow Hams, always ready to criticize the work of others, but
> too shiftless and lazy to actually do things up to your own specs.
> After over ten years, the crowning achievement of the amateur tcpip
> community has been a software triumph.. - They managed to cobble on a few
> hacked-up, incomplete and incompatable versions of a normal Packet BBS
> program onto Phil Karn's NOS. Ten years, while other Hams were out busting
> their butts and their wallets to BUILD the network those silly LandLine lids
> have the gall to denigrate and run down.
>
> Blowhard jerks.
Okay, Charles, let me ask you why, during my last three years in Finland
I never saw any evidence of Flexnet? Finland is the land of Nokia with
more cellphone users and internet users, per capita, than anywhere else
in the world. The amateur packet system runs 1200 baud (2m) and 9600
baud (70cm). Where is all this Flexnet activity which you claim is
sweeping Europe? Let us know the specifics. You've talked the talk.
Now walk the walk.
Dave 5H3US (a real amateur radio call in Tanzania), K8MN (a real amateur
radio call in the United States)
Charles Brabham
Dave Heil wrote in message <3677F5...@cats-net.com>...
>
>Okay, Charles, let me ask you why, during my last three years in Finland
>I never saw any evidence of Flexnet?
That would be hard to answer, since I do not live in Finland. Although
Finland is a great place, I do not think that anybody confuses it with
central Europe, where of course most of the action is.
Try http://hes.iki.fi/clusse/ and ask the author of Clusse, the Finnish
freeware DX cluster. Clusse is set up to work with either 'BPQ or FlexNet,
which would imply that the author had access to FlexNet network. Ask and
find out, if it is interesting to you. I'm not interested enough to make it
worth my while to pester the author of Clusse. Maybe you are interested
enough.
>Finland is the land of Nokia with
>more cellphone users and internet users, per capita, than anywhere else
>in the world. The amateur packet system runs 1200 baud (2m) and 9600
>baud (70cm). Where is all this Flexnet activity which you claim is
>sweeping Europe? Let us know the specifics. You've talked the talk.
>Now walk the walk.
You can kiss my butt with that "walk the walk" horse-hockey. I am not
interested in serving as your personal errand boy to dig up any information
you may demand. My feeling is that if you "demand" certain info, then you
must be interested enough to get off your own can and dig it up.
Personally, I find it to be very informative that after choosing to "debate"
this matter for several days, you STILL have not shown enough gumption to
look into the facts for yourself. You are quite content to remain ignorant,
and petulently demand info from others while you sit on your dead can. I
think you just want to argue.
Don't waste my time again with information demands.
>
>Dave 5H3US (a real amateur radio call in Tanzania), K8MN (a real amateur
>radio call in the United States)
That's a good idea, placing identifiers by your callsigns. We wouldn't want
anybody to mistakenly believe you are a CB'er. That must be an ongoing
problem for you, I suppose.
Gary Coffman
>JamesBond wrote in message <36753CC2...@netcom.com>...
>>available through with free source code instead just pissing around.
>>A good example is KA9Q. Do you see him cribbing about Land Line LIDS ???
>>NO. Because he is busy writing 1200 BAUD QPSK modem for HF.
>
>why QPSK? Is that really necessary for 1200bd on HF?
It isn't really necessary, but it works *so* much better than
Bell 202 AFSK that there's no contest. Karn's implementation
works at an Eb/No of 4 dB. That's about 1 dB away from the
theoretical limit for this sort of coding. (By comparison, a
typical amateur Bell 202 AFSK system needs an Eb/No of
about 18 dB.)
Also, QPSK can fit in the same bandwidth as BPSK (it is
basically two BPSK signals orthogonally sharing the same
channel). That means you get twice the rate in the same
bandwidth *without* paying a SNR penalty. This is as close
to something for nothing as you can get with signal design.
Karn uses that extra capacity for FEC, so the recovered
BPS is only 1200 instead of 2400, but that's capacity well
spent because of the much lower error rate achieved.
(1 error in 100,000 bits at an Eb/No of 4 dB.)
Actually, he is using a varient of QPSK called SQPSK.
This has several benefits. 1) It is more robust against
skywave multipath. 2) There are no 180 degree transitions,
so the power envelope only has a 3 dB variation instead
of having a zero crossing at every transition. This means
that the PSD (Power Spectral Density) is well constrained
(sort of similar to MSK in this regard). In other words, the
guard band between channels can be greatly reduced, IE
it is a good spectrum sharing partner.
This is really nice work, and it will run on a 100 MHz 486
or Pentium with a sound card. No special DSP hardware
is required. This is *not* plug and play at this time. You
have to know what you're doing to implement it on your
computer system.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
John Mock
a non-commercial license, IE GNU style? If so, I'd be interested...
... Otherwise,
I have too much undocumented hardware in the orphanage already to consider
reverse engineering another failed product so I can fix it and put it to
work.
Gary, it doesn't have to be GNU-style to make the product feasible. I
got an orphan sound card running,which the LINUX community had abandoned
work on, 'cause supposedly suitable documentation wasn't available from
its card's manufacturer(s). But the ARIA folks had licensed an single
FTP site for redistribution of its Software Development Kit, associated
documentation, drivers, upgrades, etc. So given controlled distribution
and a license agreement suitable to both parties, this kind of approach
could be practical. As you note, we'll need enough source material to be
to burn a replacement PROM and make relevant changes to the associated
drivers. But as long as that site is operational, we don't have to
redistribute their material amongst ourselves; if the original software
base is consistently accessible (or otherwise frozen), then we need only
redistribute difference files, which for most practical purposes, would
be our own work and not anything that lawyers are going to get upset
about or even doing anything about.
As we try to get manufacturers to go back to the source distribution
policies of 20-30 years ago, we need to make the corporate property folks
confortable about doing this. Asking for a GNU copyright may make them hit
the ceiling, as in this case, the much of the same software may be part of
current products and could become part of the competition's software under
a GPL. I don't even have problems with a symmetric non-disclosure agreement
if it just involves for the costs of distribution and it permits me to share
my work (not theirs) with others. A slow(er) shift away from a binary-only
policy is much more likely to succeed with most organizations (and this one
may well be a lot more flexible).
-- KD6PAG ("Networking Old-Timer, RF newbie")
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote in message <3677F5...@cats-net.com>...
>
> >
> >Okay, Charles, let me ask you why, during my last three years in Finland
> >I never saw any evidence of Flexnet?
>
> That would be hard to answer, since I do not live in Finland. Although
> Finland is a great place, I do not think that anybody confuses it with
> central Europe, where of course most of the action is.
I don't believe I saw anything in any of your posts on the subject make
reference only to central Europe. You said "Europe". Finland is still
in Europe. I gathered that you don't live in Finland but then, you
don't live in any part of Europe. How'd you get to be an expert on
packet radio in Europe?
>
> Try http://hes.iki.fi/clusse/ and ask the author of Clusse, the Finnish
> freeware DX cluster. Clusse is set up to work with either 'BPQ or FlexNet,
> which would imply that the author had access to FlexNet network. Ask and
> find out, if it is interesting to you. I'm not interested enough to make it
> worth my while to pester the author of Clusse. Maybe you are interested
> enough.
> >Finland is the land of Nokia with
> >more cellphone users and internet users, per capita, than anywhere else
> >in the world. The amateur packet system runs 1200 baud (2m) and 9600
> >baud (70cm). Where is all this Flexnet activity which you claim is
> >sweeping Europe? Let us know the specifics. You've talked the talk.
> >Now walk the walk.
>
> You can kiss my butt with that "walk the walk" horse-hockey. I am not
> interested in serving as your personal errand boy to dig up any information
> you may demand. My feeling is that if you "demand" certain info, then you
> must be interested enough to get off your own can and dig it up.
You make claims and assertions yet you back none of them up with fact.
Why not? If you expect anyone to buy into your emotional rants, you
should be able to back 'em up with facts. That you haven't done so
would lead me to believe that you have no facts. Put up or clam up.
> Personally, I find it to be very informative that after choosing to "debate"
> this matter for several days, you STILL have not shown enough gumption to
> look into the facts for yourself. You are quite content to remain ignorant,
> and petulently demand info from others while you sit on your dead can. I
> think you just want to argue.
Charles, you have no more idea about my knowledge base or my
qualifications than you do about packet operation in Europe. You
quickly and rudely dismiss others who question statements you've made as
if they are factual. You've presented no material to back up your
claims.
> Don't waste my time again with information demands.
Something tells me that time is something you have plenty of, Charles.
>
> >Dave 5H3US (a real amateur radio call in Tanzania), K8MN (a real amateur
> >radio call in the United States)
>
> That's a good idea, placing identifiers by your callsigns. We wouldn't want
> anybody to mistakenly believe you are a CB'er. That must be an ongoing
> problem for you, I suppose.
Let's see....so far there have been two who didn't know that 5H3US was
an amateur call--Larry Klose and YOU. Larry at least asked what it was.
You, on the other hand, went about it by stuffing your brogan into your
yap.
You're still a loud fool, Charles.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Charles Brabham
Dave Heil wrote in message <367892...@cats-net.com>...
>Charles Brabham wrote:
>>
>> Dave Heil wrote in message <3677F5...@cats-net.com>...
>>
>> >
>> >Okay, Charles, let me ask you why, during my last three years in Finland
>> >I never saw any evidence of Flexnet?
>>
>> That would be hard to answer, since I do not live in Finland. Although
>> Finland is a great place, I do not think that anybody confuses it with
>> central Europe, where of course most of the action is.
>
>I don't believe I saw anything in any of your posts on the subject make
>reference only to central Europe. You said "Europe". Finland is still
>in Europe.
This is a good example of the stupidity which led me to open up a seperate
Ham-Policy list. It wasn't just that Code/NoCode was being ground into the
dirt, but it was being ground into the dirt by "debaters" who showed a lot
more interest in endlessly arguing than in a productive debate.
Sorry, but I was raised to consider debate as a tool for achieving a wider
understanding of the issue by all involved. - Not as an excuse to play
juvenile "mental masturbation" games and waste people's time.
Maybe you should see if you can find someone to "master-debate" The
Code/NoCode issue with you a few more times. It appears that "Code/NoCode"
is all you are really geared up for.
Don't forget to wash your hands when you're through! ;-)
Doug Younker
With getting on your soap box and giving periodical sermons by to
cross posting NG, several of the QTH.net listservs and the packet
network IMO can't be considered debate. Charles you produce as much
regurgitated nothing new traffic as anybody. Someone needs to start a
rec.radio.amateur.whine NG
--
73, Doug Younker, N0LKK
near Plainville, KS
A HREF = mailto:do...@ruraltel.net>do...@ruraltel.net</A>
N0LKK@K0JJV.#NWKS.KS.USA.NAOM
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote in message <367892...@cats-net.com>...
> >Charles Brabham wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, Charles, let me ask you why, during my last three years in Finland
> >> >I never saw any evidence of Flexnet?
> >>
> >> That would be hard to answer, since I do not live in Finland. Although
> >> Finland is a great place, I do not think that anybody confuses it with
> >> central Europe, where of course most of the action is.
> >
> >I don't believe I saw anything in any of your posts on the subject make
> >reference only to central Europe. You said "Europe". Finland is still
> >in Europe.
>
> Ham-Policy list. It wasn't just that Code/NoCode was being ground into the
> dirt, but it was being ground into the dirt by "debaters" who showed a lot
> more interest in endlessly arguing than in a productive debate.
>
> Sorry, but I was raised to consider debate as a tool for achieving a wider
> understanding of the issue by all involved. - Not as an excuse to play
> juvenile "mental masturbation" games and waste people's time.
>
> Maybe you should see if you can find someone to "master-debate" The
> Code/NoCode issue with you a few more times. It appears that "Code/NoCode"
> is all you are really geared up for.
>
> Don't forget to wash your hands when you're through! ;-)
You've brought absolutely nothing in the way of factual material to the
table, just a disparate array of claims which you've presented as fact.
Some are obvious falsehoods. You've been abusive to each person who has
disagreed or who has tried to straighten out your "facts".
You bray about debate but you are rude and dismissive to all who don't
share your beliefs. I don't believe you were raised to consider debate
at all.
Charles, you are a loud fool.
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
Hank Oredson
JamesBond wrote:
> After reading all this debate about packet, land-lines and trolls, I have to say
> this as
> a bystander:-
>
> 1. If you want Packet to survive why dont you try to improve the
> packet infrastructure ??? ( set up more high speed 64 KB + backbones at UHF and
> higher frequencies)
Also HF for long haul links using new protocols.
Some of us are in fact doing these things. We don't say much about what
we are doing in this forum because almost 100% of the people who post
here are not actually ACTIVE on ham radio.
But the links we build cannot be used because the traffic which MIGHT
flow over them is sucked onto the internet instead of being allowed to
travel over the RF links. Why bother to build something which will not be used?
In my case, I do it for fun, and don't care if anyone else uses what I build.
And yes, I do give it away, and have done so for a long time.
> 2. Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it available through
> with free source code like GNU or free software foundation like arrangement to
> everyone. (instead you see crappy and inefficient protocols like FSK being sold
> as propreitary software without source code.
> Case in point is RITTY, (this implementaion of crappy FSK protocol seems to be
> excellent but,
> no Source code is provided, plus, the writer has encrypted the runtime code.
> (It self decrypts at runtime and does its trick. )
> Now, contrast this to the situation where the writer would have provided source
> code
> under GNU like arrangement, everyone would have been able to look at the DSP
> source
> code and learn how to improve the software, and improve their general skills to
> write
> such software and develop better protocols, and in general advance the state of
> packet radio.)
>
Some of us are working on exactly these issues. But we cannot test our ideas
because all the potential traffic is sucked over the internet. I'll probably release
some new code next year anyway, even though the only hams who will be
able to use it are outside the US.
>
> 3.AGAIN, Develop better (DSP modem or packet) software and make it available
> through with free source code instead just pissing around.
> A good example is KA9Q. Do you see him cribbing about Land Line LIDS ??? NO.
> Because he is busy writing 1200 BAUD QPSK modem for HF. ANd, he will make the
> source code
> available to everyone.
Hmmm ... I already have some fast HF modems, but cannot make use of them
because the traffic is forced to go over the internet. I cannot make use of the
facilities I build.
> 4. You great radios are nothing but which provide (noisy) channels for use in
> communications over a shared invisible media called the ether. The most
> efficient use of this media is when you use it
> to for datacomm. Every other form of communication can be sent over as
> datacomm. Voice can be coded using 2400 BITS per sec using the CELP algorithms.
> Datacomm is what it is about.
> Learn about channel coding, FECC, DSP, and how to write software to use these
> channels for datacomm.
Yes, this is all quite clear. Some hams have made good livings doing exactly
what you suggest. But the sales are not to hams, they seem uninterested.
> HINT: Buy the DSP56002EVM or DSP56307EVM kits and start writing some good DSP
> code,
> instead of whining. BUY some good digital communications books like "Bernard
> Sklars" book.
For those without the background needed to write DSP applications: get on the air!
There are some very good HF modems available now, and better ones will be soon
available. Oh, but wait, there will not be any traffic for you to handle with your
HF
modems because it is all stuffed across the internet FIRST. But there is a solution
to
this problem. I call it the "Just say no" solution. Build the radio links and use
them.
Refuse to exchange traffic with the "hams" who "play radio on the internet."
Now you have some traffic to handle, and can work on the protocols (at all layers).
Observation: 10 meters has been open a lot recently. There is almost zero digital
activity on that band. I'm there. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Anyone want to
try anything on that band? Why aren't hams (for example) busy working on the STA
that will allow the use of CLOVER 2000 on HF? Available now, 2 K BPS or better
in a 2 Khz channel.
>
> W6RCecilA wrote:
>
> > Jones wrote:
> > > And why shouldn't PACKET (or a PACKET network) be left to sink or swim on
> > > it's own merits? If it can't compete with the internet, or being hooked to
> > > it, no matter what method any ham dreams up, so be it.
> >
> > Just wondering why you don't have this same attitude toward CW. Why
> > cannot Morse code "be left to sink or swin on its own merits?"
Not to mention AM and Spark <smile>.
John Wiley
: table, just a disparate array of claims which you've presented as fact.
: Some are obvious falsehoods. You've been abusive to each person who has
: disagreed or who has tried to straighten out your "facts".
Yep... Gotta agree... Gotta face it... It's true...
: You bray about debate but you are rude and dismissive to all who don't
: share your beliefs. I don't believe you were raised to consider debate
: at all.
I think Im starting to understand Charles a bit more...
Is it possible that Charles' native language isn't English?
He seems to use a whole HANDFUL of words (debate, character, upstanding,
etc) that he doesn't seem to understand the actual meaning of...
I find it difficult, frankly, to understand what he's talking about
in any other context... Just a consideration...
Best Regards,
-jw
John Wiley
: Also HF for long haul links using new protocols.
: Some of us are in fact doing these things. We don't say much about what
: we are doing in this forum because almost 100% of the people who post
: here are not actually ACTIVE on ham radio.
Then there are those of us that plan to become active when we get a
free moment... :-) (and in fact, will very PROBABLY become
active in the next 12 months...) Also, is there some kind of unwritten
rule that says there can't be any form of crosspollination between those
of us that aren't licensed and those that ARE??? This is what I was
getting at with Charles...
: But the links we build cannot be used because the traffic which MIGHT
: flow over them ucked onto the internet instead of being allowed to
: travel over the RF links. Why bother to build something which will not be used?
I know it's a rhetorical question, but "because it's there"!!! :-)
: In my case, I do it for fun, and don't care if anyone else uses what I build.
: And yes, I do give it away, and have done so for a long time.
Whoo-Hoo! A person after my heart, indeed!!!
: >
: Some of us are working on exactly these issues. But we cannot test our ideas
: because all the potential traffic is sucked over the internet. I'll probably release
: some new code next year anyway, even though the only hams who will be
: able to use it are outside the US.
Certainly you can test your ideas!! Why not??? Hmmmm... Interesting
issue though...
<snip>
: Yes, this is all quite clear. Some hams have made good livings doing exactly
: what you suggest. But the sales are not to hams, they seem uninterested.
: > HINT: Buy the DSP56002EVM or DSP56307EVM kits and start writing some good DSP
: > code,
: > instead of whining. BUY some good digital communications books like "Bernard
: > Sklars" book.
<addendum to the previous post>
Add to the list...
Proakis...
Wozencraft and Jacobs... (Dated, but still a FANTASTIC book...)
: For those without the background needed to write DSP applications: get on the air!
: There are some very good HF modems available now, and better ones will be soon
: available. Oh, but wait, there will not be any traffic for you to handle with your
: HF
: modems because it is all stuffed across the internet FIRST. But there is a solution
What about those of us WITH DSP background??? :-)
Great Post... This is exactly what I was hoping to come here and find
vs. the Charlie Whining (TM) that seems somewhat prevalent... Please,
discuss a little more about what you're up to...
Best Regards,
-John "Hoping for More Real Conversation vs. CharlieWhining(TM)" Wiley
Charles Brabham
Doug Younker wrote in message <36797E...@ruraltel.net>...
>Charles;
> With getting on your soap box and giving periodical sermons by to
>cross posting NG, several of the QTH.net listservs and the packet
>network IMO can't be considered debate. Charles you produce as much
>regurgitated nothing new traffic as anybody. Someone needs to start a
>rec.radio.amateur.whine NG
Actually, I don't do the "multiple post" thing, but do sometimes end up
answering them.
There is a "whine 'n flame" newsgroup, I believe. You should go there to
whine, and the LandLine Lids can go there to flame.
Once again, the personality attack with absolutely no arguement against what
I have had to say is praise indeed. You know I am right and that logic won't
serve you, so it's off to whine 'n flame land.
Enjoy!
Jones
> Not as an excuse to play
>juvenile "mental masturbation" games and waste people's time.
That's why they want the waiver. They all went blind...
Paul Harvey
Charles Brabham wrote in message <757mqc$g...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>Derek Jackson wrote in message
><757ebv$sjd$7...@newsreader3.core.theplanet.net>...
>>
>>Charles Brabham wrote in message <7515h7$3...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>The most important incentive of all: "Learning how to use and advance the
>>>use of Radio".
>>
>>- like advancing from with boring old plain-text 1200baud AX25? Isn't that
>>why TCP/IP became popular?
>
>I have not mentioned any preference for either plain-text or 1200 baud.
>
>Your implication that only through tcpip can packet go any further than
>"plain text and 1200 baud" is utterly moronic.
Did I say that? I was simply making the point that TCP/IP is being used
because people like the features it gives.
Can you tell me of a packet program that doesn't use TCP/IP yet allows you
to send 'fancy' mail (graphics and fonts etc.) without resorting to 7+ and
all the problems that brings? or even a program/protocol that allows file
transmission without buggering up the contents of the file or aborting
halfway through transmission?
>Actually, a lot more of what goes beyond "plain text and
>1200 baud" in Packet today goes over ax25.
>(FlexNet)
Not around here it doesn't.
>>>
>>>To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
>>>gateways have been restricted. It's that simple.
>>
>>Really? Where exactly is this?
>
>Europe. The FlexNet network. Look into it, if you are really interested.
>Don't expect me to do your research for you.
What makes you think I'm not in Europe?
>
>If you really do not know anything about packet beyond your piddly little
>tcpip LAN,
Eh? Where in the post did I say I was on a LAN?
>why put on airs as if you were some sort of "packet expert"? If
>you want to talk about a global network, you're going to have to lose your
>provincial attitude, and drop the chip off of your shoulder. Very few
>knowlegable people will bother sharing meaningful information with
>narrow-minded snots, too lazy and ignorant to look into things for
>themselves.
Well done. No doubt there's plenty of potential radio hams reading this who
have just gone completely off the idea of trying packet radio because "Very
few knowledgeable people will bother sharing meaningful information". And
you wonder why the packet network has died....
>
>>
>>>I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
>>>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP
devotees
>>>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>>>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
>>
>>TCP/IP could 'hack it' - the network can't because its so out of date.
>
>Amateur tcpip has been around over ten years that I know of, it's devotees
>always looking for someone else's network resources to freeload off of. You
>denigrate the US mainstream packet net, saying it's "too slow", and
>"too out of date".
..Ah! I was talking about the US network was I? It's nice to know because I
thought I was talking about the network here...
>The mainstream packet net performs infinitely better than the non-existant
>amateur tcpip digital rf net. That's a fact.
Really? Christ help it here when more users go over to tcp/ip then...
>
>Amateur tcpip has had over a decade now to build that better, faster
>network we have all heard of so many times. What you morons did instead
>was blow off using radio to communicate, building a "virtual packet
>network" up from Internet (telephone) links. You put so much into your
>simulated network that you bult very little ACTUAL Radio network.
Oh sorry - I didn't realise that by NOT using tcp/ip personally I had built
up a virtual packet network. Actually - that's not bad going now I think
about it. I assume that if I continue to not use tcp/ip then it will grow
into a virtual global network without be doing anything?
>>>To heck with politics... I look at performance and on that scale, tcpip
>>sits at dead last for Hams..
>>
>> - just beind straight AX25 that is..
>
>Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. The "performance scale" that
>counts for Hams is "how well does it work with Radio?"
Yes - and it's looking like TCP/IP will win simply because it WORKS.
>
[EDIT]
>>Is that the 'store and forward' system that takes a week for your message
>>to travel to the next city?
>
>I'm sure that there are cases where it has taken a week, which is of course
>infinitely faster than the Packet Radio network amateur tcpip never built.
Yes there are cases. Very regular cases for me..
>
>After over ten years, the crowning achievement of the amateur tcpip
>community has been a software triumph.. - They managed to cobble on a few
>hacked-up, incomplete and incompatable versions of a normal Packet BBS
>program onto Phil Karn's NOS.
What about Linux? That has NATIVE AX25 and TCP/IP, graphical front end etc.
It's a very easy OS to use for packet. Even Win95 now has drivers that
interface TCP/IP to AX25 - It's called something like... erm.. Flexnet..
>Ten years, while other Hams were out busting
>their butts and their wallets to BUILD the network those silly LandLine
>lids have the gall to denigrate and run down.
Just what EXACTLY gave you the impression that I am a LLL? Could it be that
I dared to criticise the normal non-TCP/IP network? Or was it simply that
TCP/IP was mentioned?
Or perhaps it's just a stock-response you have?
For your information I am trying as hard as I can to avoid having to use
TCP/IP. It's a really naff protocol for radio communication. But many of the
new Hams coming to packet see it as the way forward simply because there's
no real alternative. Most of the local station here have gone over to TCP/IP
and unfortunately I think I'm going to have to join them soon or be left out
alone.
>
>Blowhard jerks.
Grow up.
Charles Brabham
Paul Harvey wrote in message <75cfqu$cpl$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Charles Brabham wrote in message <757mqc$g...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>Derek Jackson wrote in message
>><757ebv$sjd$7...@newsreader3.core.theplanet.net>...
>>>
>>>Charles Brabham wrote in message <7515h7$3...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>>The most important incentive of all: "Learning how to use and advance
the
>>>>use of Radio".
>>>
>>>- like advancing from with boring old plain-text 1200baud AX25? Isn't
that
>>>why TCP/IP became popular?
>>
>>I have not mentioned any preference for either plain-text or 1200 baud.
>>
>>Your implication that only through tcpip can packet go any further than
>>"plain text and 1200 baud" is utterly moronic.
>
>Did I say that?
I used the word "imply" Look it up, if you don't know what it means.
>I was simply making the point that TCP/IP is being used
>because people like the features it gives.
Actually, they don't. There is considerable amateur tcpip activity in my
area... They seldom if ever do anything you couldn't do better with more
modern, advanced software.
>Can you tell me of a packet program that doesn't use TCP/IP yet allows you
>to send 'fancy' mail (graphics and fonts etc.) without resorting to 7+ and
>all the problems that brings?
Graphic Packet would be my first guess, but from what I understand there is
better software available now. I don't know of anybody in north Texas who
cares one way or the other about transmitting and recieving graphic files
over Packet, so it's kind of a moot point. - Another of those "great
features of tcpip" that nobody cares about.
Most Hams figure it's kind of stupid to clutter up a Packet channel with
that kind of junk, when you can download it all day on the Internet without
bothering anybody or hogging up a freq.
>or even a program/protocol that allows file
>transmission without buggering up the contents of the file or aborting
>halfway through transmission?
I've seen tcpip transfers abort due to poor band conditions just like any
other software will do.
I've used YAPP to transfer files on a number of occasions and had no
problems whatsoever.
There are others around, but YAPP and 7PLUS is all I've had occasion to use.
>
>>Actually, a lot more of what goes beyond "plain text and
>>1200 baud" in Packet today goes over ax25.
>>(FlexNet)
>
>Not around here it doesn't.
Of course not. You're stuck back in the 70's with tcpip nostalgia software.
Hey, some guys still utilize CW too, every day. If it's fun, do it and don't
worry about being obsolete. That's what Ham Radio is all about.
>>>>To see a big, fast, highly advanced Packet net, just go to where the
>>>>gateways have been restricted. It's that simple.
>>>
>>>Really? Where exactly is this?
>>
>>Europe. The FlexNet network. Look into it, if you are really interested.
>>Don't expect me to do your research for you.
>
>What makes you think I'm not in Europe?
I assumed you did not live in Europe because you acted as if you did not
know what FlexNet is. If you have managed to live out your life in Europe
and are STILL clueless about FlexNet, you have my sympathy.
>>
>>If you really do not know anything about packet beyond your piddly little
>>tcpip LAN,
>Eh? Where in the post did I say I was on a LAN?
Gee, even tcpip goons usually can cooperate with each other, if not with
others, and build up one of their isolated, insulated LANS.
Guess you're a loner.
>
>>why put on airs as if you were some sort of "packet expert"? If
>>you want to talk about a global network, you're going to have to lose your
>>provincial attitude, and drop the chip off of your shoulder. Very few
>>knowlegable people will bother sharing meaningful information with
>>narrow-minded snots, too lazy and ignorant to look into things for
>>themselves.
>
>Well done. No doubt there's plenty of potential radio hams reading this who
>have just gone completely off the idea of trying packet radio because "Very
>few knowledgeable people will bother sharing meaningful information".
You forgot the rest of the sentence --- "Very few knowlegable people
will bother sharing meaningful information with narrow-minded snots, too
lazy and ignorant to look into things for themselves.
See? It just applies to you, not everybody else.
>And you wonder why the packet network has died....
Nope. I KNOW why it is having problems, and clowns like you are a big part
of that.
>>>>I call it sucky performance with Radio, so bad that without the Internet
>>>>(Telephone) as a crutch, it is a dead duck. That's why only TCPIP
>devotees
>>>>insist upon "Amateur Telephone". - Because TCPIP can't hack it as a
>>>>wide-scale Ham Radio protocol. It's the latest thing from the 70's.
>>>
>>>TCP/IP could 'hack it' - the network can't because its so out of date.
>>
>>Amateur tcpip has been around over ten years that I know of, it's devotees
>>always looking for someone else's network resources to freeload off of.
You
>>denigrate the US mainstream packet net, saying it's "too slow", and
>>"too out of date".
>
>..Ah! I was talking about the US network was I? It's nice to know because I
>thought I was talking about the network here...
Too stupid or ashamed to identify your alleged location. Does it make you
feel real "clever" when you can play little word games about your location?
Moron.
>
>>The mainstream packet net performs infinitely better than the non-existant
>>amateur tcpip digital rf net. That's a fact.
>
>Really? Christ help it here when more users go over to tcp/ip then...
Don't worry. It's not likely that large numbers of Hams will be looking to
use the latest stuff from the 70's. Most of them will want to run modern
software instead.
>>
>>Amateur tcpip has had over a decade now to build that better, faster
>>network we have all heard of so many times. What you morons did instead
>>was blow off using radio to communicate, building a "virtual packet
>>network" up from Internet (telephone) links. You put so much into your
>>simulated network that you bult very little ACTUAL Radio network.
>
>Oh sorry - I didn't realise that by NOT using tcp/ip personally I had built
>up a virtual packet network.
Were you trying to make sense when you said that? Just curious.
>Actually - that's not bad going now I think
>about it. I assume that if I continue to not use tcp/ip then it will grow
>into a virtual global network without be doing anything?
OK, I see... You weren't trying to make sense, just trying to look "clever"
in some way that backfired horribly. Oh, well. Par for the course I suppose.
>
>>>>To heck with politics... I look at performance and on that scale, tcpip
>>>sits at dead last for Hams..
>>>
>>> - just beind straight AX25 that is..
>>
>>Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. The "performance scale" that
>>counts for Hams is "how well does it work with Radio?"
>
>Yes - and it's looking like TCP/IP will win simply because it WORKS.
Yes, I'm sure everybody will be flocking to use nostalgia softeware from the
70's.
>[EDIT]
>
>>>Is that the 'store and forward' system that takes a week for your message
>>>to travel to the next city?
>>
>>I'm sure that there are cases where it has taken a week, which is of
course
>>infinitely faster than the Packet Radio network amateur tcpip never built.
>
>Yes there are cases. Very regular cases for me..
>>
>>After over ten years, the crowning achievement of the amateur tcpip
>>community has been a software triumph.. - They managed to cobble on a few
>>hacked-up, incomplete and incompatable versions of a normal Packet BBS
>>program onto Phil Karn's NOS.
>
>What about Linux? That has NATIVE AX25 and TCP/IP, graphical front end etc.
>It's a very easy OS to use for packet. Even Win95 now has drivers that
>interface TCP/IP to AX25 - It's called something like... erm.. Flexnet..
LINUX is an oddity. - Nothing more and nothing less. It takes a back-seat to
OS/2, which is stsarting to become pretty obscrure.
For Radio users, LINUX sucks due to it's heavy dependence upon the old,
inefficient KISS drivers. The hot setup for LINUX users is to run
applications in LINUX, then run an ethernet or serial link to a DOS/FlexNet
box which handles all of the Radios much better than LINUX can.
>
>>Ten years, while other Hams were out busting
>>their butts and their wallets to BUILD the network those silly LandLine
>>lids have the gall to denigrate and run down.
>
>Just what EXACTLY gave you the impression that I am a LLL? Could it be that
>I dared to criticise the normal non-TCP/IP network? Or was it simply that
>TCP/IP was mentioned?
Now you're going to pretend that you have not advocated tcpip. I suppose?
When you figure out where you're coming from and what you are saying, be
sure and let me know. Until then, I'm afraid I'm going to have to toss you
back and fish around for someone a bit more sure of themselves to debate
this issue with.
>
>Or perhaps it's just a stock-response you have?
To snots who run down Ham Radio and advocate using old-style networking
software that doesn't even work well with Radios? Yep.
>
>For your information I am trying as hard as I can to avoid having to use
>TCP/IP. It's a really naff protocol for radio communication. But many of
the
>new Hams coming to packet see it as the way forward simply because there's
>no real alternative. Most of the local station here have gone over to
TCP/IP
>and unfortunately I think I'm going to have to join them soon or be left
out
>alone.
By all means, if nostalgia is your "thing", amateur tcpip is the way to go.
Enjoy!
73 Charles Brabham,
K0...@arrl.org
> You've seen the sort of pond-scum which has been trying to pester me
> here. Typical low-character, no-brain LandLine Lids.
Charles,
I disagreed with your proposal for "protective legislation" for the packet
mode. I personally think it is a bad idea.
How does that make me "pond-scum" or "low-character"?
73, Hans, K0HB
~~~
We pass the word around; we ponder how the case is put by different
people, we read the poetry; we meditate over the literature; we play
the music; we change our minds; we reach an understanding. Society
evolves this way, not by shouting each other down, but by the unique
capacity of unique, individual human beings to comprehend each other.
--Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail (1979)
~~~
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Wiley
: >>Your implication that only through tcpip can packet go any further than
: >>"plain text and 1200 baud" is utterly moronic.
: >
: >Did I say that?
: I used the word "imply" Look it up, if you don't know what it means.
Charles... Your use of the word "moronic", in this case, is nonsensical
fluff then... You are essentially either...
1) Unwilling to directly call him a "moron" for making a statement
you KNOW he didn't make...
2) Stuffing words in his mouth and then calling him a "moron" for having
said them...
3) Admitting that you actually didn't understand EXACTLY what he said
and calling HIM a moron as a consequence of your lack of
understanding...
Any of the above qualified you for something... Dunno what...
: >I was simply making the point that TCP/IP is being used
: >because people like the features it gives.
: Actually, they don't. There is considerable amateur tcpip activity in my
: area... They seldom if ever do anything you couldn't do better with more
: modern, advanced software.
Such as? What could you do "better" with more "modern advanced software"
that isn't being done... (anyone feel free to chime in... Im pretty
familiar with TCP/IPs shortcomings over SATCOM links and some forms
of RF links, but Im genuinely curious about what you see...) Im sure
Charles isn't going to answer... But this, at least, gives me a forum
to ask the question in...
: >Can you tell me of a packet program that doesn't use TCP/IP yet allows you
: >to send 'fancy' mail (graphics and fonts etc.) without resorting to 7+ and
: >all the problems that brings?
: Graphic Packet would be my first guess, but from what I understand there is
: better software available now. I don't know of anybody in north Texas who
: cares one way or the other about transmitting and recieving graphic files
: over Packet, so it's kind of a moot point. - Another of those "great
: features of tcpip" that nobody cares about.
Why do you think that "sending graphic files" is a "feature" of TCP/IP
Charles? No one ever wants to send "maps" or maybe "weather data" over
a packet network? How about SSTV? No? Interesting... Seems like not
such a bad thing to be able to do...
: Most Hams figure it's kind of stupid to clutter up a Packet channel with
: that kind of junk, when you can download it all day on the Internet without
: bothering anybody or hogging up a freq.
Actually SSTV would interest me a great deal... (and I've all but decided
that Im going to get the Amateur license, JUST so I can yank away the
argument you're sure to make here...)
: >or even a program/protocol that allows file
: >transmission without buggering up the contents of the file or aborting
: >halfway through transmission?
: I've seen tcpip transfers abort due to poor band conditions just like any
: other software will do.
Ahem... There are mods to TCP/IP to alleviate some of this Charles...
Maybe you should do a little leg work...
: I've used YAPP to transfer files on a number of occasions and had no
: problems whatsoever.
: There are others around, but YAPP and 7PLUS is all I've had occasion to use.
: >
: >>Actually, a lot more of what goes beyond "plain text and
: >>1200 baud" in Packet today goes over ax25.
: >>(FlexNet)
: >
: >Not around here it doesn't.
: Of course not. You're stuck back in the 70's with tcpip nostalgia software.
: Hey, some guys still utilize CW too, every day. If it's fun, do it and don't
: worry about being obsolete. That's what Ham Radio is all about.
Hmmmmmm...
<snip>
: >>knowlegable people will bother sharing meaningful information with
: >>narrow-minded snots, too lazy and ignorant to look into things for
: >>themselves.
: >
: >Well done. No doubt there's plenty of potential radio hams reading this who
: >have just gone completely off the idea of trying packet radio because "Very
: >few knowledgeable people will bother sharing meaningful information".
: You forgot the rest of the sentence --- "Very few knowlegable people
: will bother sharing meaningful information with narrow-minded snots, too
: lazy and ignorant to look into things for themselves.
More like... People that are "knowledgable" and lack an enormous ego
(because they are too scared someone will take their toys/rice away
from them) are very glad to share meaningful information with
EVERYONE... Especially those that others interpret as "narrow minded
snots"... That's how they convince people that they are right...
I usually find that people that make these claims are people that
don't really HAVE any meaningful information to share, and they are
simply covering up their own bloated and unjustified ego...
: >
: >..Ah! I was talking about the US network was I? It's nice to know because I
: >thought I was talking about the network here...
: Too stupid or ashamed to identify your alleged location. Does it make you
: feel real "clever" when you can play little word games about your location?
: Moron.
Rt. 7... Across the street from Border's books... Tall building...
McLean Virginia... Want my office phone number too?
: >
: >>The mainstream packet net performs infinitely better than the non-existant
: >>amateur tcpip digital rf net. That's a fact.
: >
: >Really? Christ help it here when more users go over to tcp/ip then...
: Don't worry. It's not likely that large numbers of Hams will be looking to
: use the latest stuff from the 70's. Most of them will want to run modern
: software instead.
Charles... TCP/IP has been modified as well to behave adaptively in
RF network environments (well... I should say *is* being modified...)
Try looking at it for real... (Nothing like listening to you call
others "narrow minded snot"... It's amusing... )
: >>
: >>Amateur tcpip has had over a decade now to build that better, faster
<snip>
: Yes, I'm sure everybody will be flocking to use nostalgia softeware from the
: 70's.
Stupid statement Charles... You have no idea what you're talking about
here... You simply betray your own ignorance... At least some folks
are willing to look at both sides of the argument, instead of displaying
their narrowminded attitudes regarding things they have no clue about...
: LINUX is an oddity. - Nothing more and nothing less. It takes a back-seat to
: OS/2, which is stsarting to become pretty obscrure.
WHAT?!?! Yeah... Right...
<snip>
No time to debate the rest of this blathering... Got a holiday party to
attend... Later Charles...
-jw
John Wiley
: Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
: > know what FlexNet is. If you have managed to live out your life in Europe
: > and are STILL clueless about FlexNet, you have my sympathy.
: Perhaps he lives in an area where flexnet _isn't_
Yeah... Like Finland apparently...
: > >>Amateur tcpip has been around over ten years that I know of, it's devotees
: > >>always looking for someone else's network resources to freeload off of.
: You would know all about that, right Charles? Tell us again how much
: "support" you have given to TexNet.
: Or is it only "tcp/ip devotees" that freeload network resources?
Ouch...
: > Yes, I'm sure everybody will be flocking to use nostalgia softeware from the
: > 70's.
: You do realize, of course, that AX.25 is a modification of X.25, which is
: normally run over wire? And that it is quite an old spec?
: Or are you operating under a STA to do work on new link-layer protocols?
Ouch... Ouch...
: > For Radio users, LINUX sucks due to it's heavy dependence upon the old,
: > inefficient KISS drivers. The hot setup for LINUX users is to run
: Lets see, the Linux kernel supports:
: AX.25, NET/ROM, ROSE
: Baycom Ser12/Par96
: Soundcard 1200afsk,2400afsk,2666afsk,4800hapn,4800psk,9600g3ruh
: Gracilis PackeTwin
: PI/PI2
: Z8530SCC (OptoSCC,Eagle,PC100,DG9BL,Baycom USCC) cards
: KISS
: BPQether
: Looks like it supports a bit more then KISS, Charles.
Ahem... Charles? You out there Charles? Yoo-Hoo!! Chuck?
: Of course, I shouldn't have to do your research for you, right?
Thanks, Brian... The list is very useful!
Best Regards,
-jw
Geoff Webb
along at 1200 baud and it is pathetic. I develop client server software for
a living , and I use networks everyday. Any network that I have to know the
network topology to use is just about useless for software development. I
tolerated it in the early eighties with bitnet, but then again I wasn't
writing very many networking programs at that time. With tcp/ip I can take
programs that I have developed for the internet and move it very quickly
over to a amateur radio network. That is incredibly valuable in a disaster
when an official wants to access data somewhere on the internet, using
software that he knows well. IP may not be the best protocol in the world
for radio, but it is a defacto standard in the world of computing, and
amateurs should not ignore it.
Geoff Webb
N7ZRR
we...@wsu.edu
Charles Brabham
K0...@arrl.org wrote in message <75dtnk$2e9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
>> You've seen the sort of pond-scum which has been trying to pester me
>> here. Typical low-character, no-brain LandLine Lids.
>
>Charles,
>
>I disagreed with your proposal for "protective legislation" for the packet
>mode. I personally think it is a bad idea.
>
>How does that make me "pond-scum" or "low-character"?
It doesn't. You disagreed with me, but at no time did you pester me. Also, I
have seen no evidence, one way or another, as to whether you are involved in
"Amateur Telephone" yourself.
If you'll remember, my reply to your post was to remind you that in a
general sense, Amateur Radio depends upon protective legislation in order to
survive. I then said that I didn't follow your reasoning, and asked you to
expand on your initial statement. You never did, or I missed it.
I was implying that if Amateur Radio exists due to protective legislation
and rulemaking, then as part of Amateur Radio, the new digital modes desreve
that sort of protection no less than AM, SSB, SS, FM, CW, FM, ect. The
digital stuff is still a bit new, and I do not see it as being unusual that
adjustments to their use are still being made, just as they have had to be
made in the past to make way for other "new modes".
Is there really a logical reason why it is less important for Hams to use
Radio if they are moving digital as opposed to analog info?
Why should the Hams in Europe enjoy protection from the damage and outright
reversal of infrastructure growth that widespread use of "Amateur Telephone"
brings on, but not US Hams? Why is it less important for Hams to use Radio
in the US than it is in Europe?
Less than ten years ago, a global digital network consisting entirely and
solely of Amateur Radio links existed. This unique all-Ham network is now
fragmented and in disarray, and this damage occured because of the lack of
"anti-hacker" legislation to protect the digital Amateur Radio network from
the attentions of "digital communications hobbyists", who are really very
easy to spot. They are the ones who keep insisting that "speed" and
"connectivity" are more important to Hams than using Radios.
Think it through. -- Which is REALLY more important to Hams?
73 DE Charles Brabham,
Charles Brabham
Brian Mullaney wrote in message <75dujs$anb$1...@lawrenceville.mccc.edu>...
>
>Charles Brabham (n5...@texoma.net) wrote:
Brian Mullaney! This must be "old home week" for all the LandLine Lid
trolls. Haven't heard from this one in a while.
>
>> know what FlexNet is. If you have managed to live out your life in Europe
>> and are STILL clueless about FlexNet, you have my sympathy.
>
>Perhaps he lives in an area where flexnet _isn't_
Yes, that seems reasonable. Seems funny that I have heard a lot about it
here in Texas, and he hasn't heard of it there in Europe. I guess some of us
do not pay as much attention to things like that as others do.
>
>> >>Amateur tcpip has been around over ten years that I know of, it's
devotees
>> >>always looking for someone else's network resources to freeload off of.
>
>You would know all about that, right Charles? Tell us again how much
>"support" you have given to TexNet.
Well, I'll tell you, Brian; After looking into back issues of the TPRS
Q-Report, I see my name in there quite a few times, and I even served as
Editor of the Q-Report for a year or so. I didn't see your name in there
anywhere.
>
>Or is it only "tcp/ip devotees" that freeload network resources?
Yes, that appears to be the case.
>
>> Yes, I'm sure everybody will be flocking to use nostalgia softeware from
the
>> 70's.
>
>You do realize, of course, that AX.25 is a modification of X.25, which is
>normally run over wire? And that it is quite an old spec?
Actually, as I'm sure you realize, there is more to communicating on Packet
than AX25. FlexNet is described as "an ax25 stack", but that description is
not too terribly comprehensive. There's more to it than ax25.
>
>Or are you operating under a STA to do work on new link-layer protocols?
>
>> For Radio users, LINUX sucks due to it's heavy dependence upon the old,
>> inefficient KISS drivers. The hot setup for LINUX users is to run
>
>Lets see, the Linux kernel supports:
>
>AX.25, NET/ROM, ROSE
>Baycom Ser12/Par96
>Soundcard 1200afsk,2400afsk,2666afsk,4800hapn,4800psk,9600g3ruh
>Gracilis PackeTwin
>PI/PI2
>Z8530SCC (OptoSCC,Eagle,PC100,DG9BL,Baycom USCC) cards
>KISS
>BPQether
>
>Looks like it supports a bit more then KISS, Charles.
Hey that's great! I'm not certain, but I believe a port of FlexNet to LINUX
is also currently in the works.
Here in the US though, most of options seldom see any use. *NOS users are
used to KISS, are set up for it already and tend to stick with it when they
switch over to LINUX, in order to reduce the number of new things to learn
at once.
>
>Of course, I shouldn't have to do your research for you, right?
I appreciate it anyway.
John Wiley
: It doesn't. You disagreed with me, but at no time did you pester me. Also, I
: have seen no evidence, one way or another, as to whether you are involved in
: "Amateur Telephone" yourself.
: If you'll remember, my reply to your post was to remind you that in a
: general sense, Amateur Radio depends upon protective legislation in order to
: survive. I then said that I didn't follow your reasoning, and asked you to
: expand on your initial statement. You never did, or I missed it.
Following that, I made the point that Amateur Radio doesn't really depend
on "legislative protection" for it's continued existence... You never
answered that Charles... Why do you persist in the comparison of Apples
and Oranges?
: I was implying that if Amateur Radio exists due to protective legislation
: and rulemaking, then as part of Amateur Radio, the new digital modes desreve
: that sort of protection no less than AM, SSB, SS, FM, CW, FM, ect. The
: digital stuff is still a bit new, and I do not see it as being unusual that
: adjustments to their use are still being made, just as they have had to be
: made in the past to make way for other "new modes".
ROTFL... "Digital Modes" aren't NEW Charles... LOTS of people have been
doing digital for many many years... Just because you aren't part of that
particular COMMUNITY, don't make the mistake of assuming that the technology
is "new"...
: Is there really a logical reason why it is less important for Hams to use
: Radio if they are moving digital as opposed to analog info?
More important, I think... It's all analog anyway when it hits the
channel... I think the problem you are having, Charles, is that you
just don't have a big enough pipe... People want to use services that
just don't seem to be provided by your solution...
: Why should the Hams in Europe enjoy protection from the damage and outright
: reversal of infrastructure growth that widespread use of "Amateur Telephone"
: brings on, but not US Hams? Why is it less important for Hams to use Radio
: in the US than it is in Europe?
Again... Please provide the names of those parts of Europe that enjoy
this "protection" you claim...
: Less than ten years ago, a global digital network consisting entirely and
: solely of Amateur Radio links existed. This unique all-Ham network is now
: fragmented and in disarray, and this damage occured because of the lack of
: "anti-hacker" legislation to protect the digital Amateur Radio network from
: the attentions of "digital communications hobbyists", who are really very
: easy to spot. They are the ones who keep insisting that "speed" and
: "connectivity" are more important to Hams than using Radios.
Speed and Connectivity are the two requirements that are often driving
forces in "pushing" things forward Charles... I think I remember you
yammering about that at some point... Which way do you want it?
If Im forced to use a 1200 bps pipe with limited dynamic routing
capability, I think I'll choose to do it better... Whatever that may
mean...
Best Regards,
-jw
Steve Sampson
they all are fine (I worked on one that used DTMF tones to signal alarms
and provide status), but when it comes to interfacing client-server
applications, or WAN applications, IP is the clear winner.
My company develops software for military and commercial satellites,
and I can tell you we do not use anything Ham related. The satellites
must transport multiple overlayed sensor data from the battlefield to the
National Command Authority from one side of the world to another.
Even General Electric said that all appliances will have an IP address.
That is, a toaster to a furnace will be addressable. That's not to say they
will not use a private range IP address, rather than an Internet one.
GE could make toasters that all had the same IP address, and the
home interface will be a cable modem, telco modem, or satellite dish
which masquerades the whole house.
Ham radio, to be valuable, must have bandwidth to transport bit rates
of over 100 kbps. There are some who advocate "Fog Horn" technology
(conventional wideband), but Spread Spectrum will rule the day in the
coming decade. Commercial FM stations will be as quaint as AM stations
were in 1969. Commercial radio will go to spread spectrum in the next
decade, and anything designed for "Fog Horn" (read that AMSAT) will
be a toy. The NAVY launched a satellite that is designed for spread
spectrum, and the silence about it on the Ham bands and Internet
groups, does little to make me feel that Hams will provide any leadership
in the commercial sectors future.
Our satellite motto: If it ain't IP it ain't shit!
Geoff Webb wrote in message <75e1rl$5nj$1...@leopard.it.wsu.edu>...
Steve Sampson
Don't need that crap for Linux. It's well beyond that on its own.
Charles Brabham wrote
Charles Brabham
Steve Sampson wrote in message ...
>Flexnet is a DOS toy. About 15 year old technology.
>
>Don't need that crap for Linux. It's well beyond that on its own.
Sure... Right.
Charles Brabham
Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <75evbv$vol$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75eh3m$p...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey that's great! I'm not certain, but I believe a port of FlexNet to
LINUX
>> is also currently in the works.
>
>to investigate the protocol myself.
A good logical place to start would be with the FlexNet folks.
http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/
73 DE Charles Brabham,
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
> Hey that's great! I'm not certain, but I believe a port of FlexNet to LINUX
> is also currently in the works.
Where can I find the Flexnet protocol specification(s)? I'd like
to investigate the protocol myself.
--
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
Paul England
Brian Mullaney wrote in message <75dujs$anb$1...@lawrenceville.mccc.edu>...
...
>Lets see, the Linux kernel supports:
>
>AX.25, NET/ROM, ROSE
>Baycom Ser12/Par96
>Soundcard 1200afsk,2400afsk,2666afsk,4800hapn,4800psk,9600g3ruh
>Gracilis PackeTwin
>PI/PI2
>Z8530SCC (OptoSCC,Eagle,PC100,DG9BL,Baycom USCC) cards
>KISS
>BPQether
Do you know where to get hold of the Soundcard drivers for 2400 and 4800?
I wouldn't mind giving them a go...
Bob Nielsen
They are built into the newer kernels, or can be patched into older
kernels. It's an option when configuring the kernel source for
compilation. See the AX25-HOWTO:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/doc/HOWTO/AX25-HOWTO
Bob
--
Bob Nielsen Internet: nie...@primenet.com
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: w6...@w6swe.ampr.org
DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
"Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <75evbv$vol$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > "Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey that's great! I'm not certain, but I believe a port of FlexNet to
> LINUX
> >> is also currently in the works.
> >
> >Where can I find the Flexnet protocol specification(s)? I'd like
> >to investigate the protocol myself.
>
>
> http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/
Been there, done that. All I found was a 6-pack specification in
German. Nothing more than a "motherhood" diagram of the modules
in the Flexnet implementation, and nothing at all that even resembles
a concise description of the Flexnet "on-the-wire" protocol.
Since you're a strong advocate of the Flexnet, I rather expected you'd
have the protocol specification there. The more I look into it, the
more it looks like a proprietary protocol with binary-only distribution.
I certainly hope this isn't the case.
Charles Brabham
Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <75fnbs$ia4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>Since you're a strong advocate of the Flexnet, I rather expected you'd
>have the protocol specification there. The more I look into it, the
>more it looks like a proprietary protocol with binary-only distribution.
>I certainly hope this isn't the case.
No, I do not have access to anything special. I'm just a guy with a web
page. Lots of those.
You've seen the web-site: Have you talked to the FlexNet gruppe? My
understanding is that if you present yourself well, and can demonstrate that
you are a competent programmer and not just wasting their time, that they
are quite cooperative.
I believe you are right about FlexNet being proprietary, with no source code
available though. There is a paper available which describes the FlexNet API
(Application Programming Interface) but I don't think this is what you are
looking for. - Maybe it is!
In fact, now I remember stories about the XNet system being "FlexNet
compatable" but then hearing stories about it's compatibility being
incomplete, not fully functional. That would follow if the original code was
not available.
I don't think the FlexNet folks are ready for a tcpip enthusiast to cut 'n
paste the result of thier work, if that's what you are after. My best
suggestion in that case would be that you come up with your own code. Hey!
It only took ten years' concentrated effort by the amateur tcpip community's
pool of programmers to cobble a poor imitation of a Packet BBS into Phil
Karn's NOS. At that rate, the amateur tcpip community should be able to come
up with a third-rate imitation of FlexNet in, lets say, another decade or
so.
Start today!
Bob Nielsen
PE1RJA and IW5AWZ have included some flexnet capability in their hacks of
the Linux node software. There isn't an explanation of the protocol
included, but you may be able to glean something from the source code:
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/ham/packet/linux/awznode/
73, Bob
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:15:57 GMT, Dana H. Myers K6JQ <Da...@Source.Net> wrote:
>In article <75f3te$9...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <75evbv$vol$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >In article <75eh3m$p...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> > "Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey that's great! I'm not certain, but I believe a port of FlexNet to
>> LINUX
>> >> is also currently in the works.
>> >
>> >Where can I find the Flexnet protocol specification(s)? I'd like
>> >to investigate the protocol myself.
>>
>> A good logical place to start would be with the FlexNet folks.
>>
>> http://www.afthd.tu-darmstadt.de/~flexnet/
>
>Been there, done that. All I found was a 6-pack specification in
>German. Nothing more than a "motherhood" diagram of the modules
>in the Flexnet implementation, and nothing at all that even resembles
>a concise description of the Flexnet "on-the-wire" protocol.
>
>Since you're a strong advocate of the Flexnet, I rather expected you'd
>have the protocol specification there. The more I look into it, the
>more it looks like a proprietary protocol with binary-only distribution.
>I certainly hope this isn't the case.
>
>--
>Dana K6JQ
>Da...@Source.Net
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
"Charles Brabham" <n5...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> Dana H. Myers K6JQ wrote in message <75fnbs$ia4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >
> >Since you're a strong advocate of the Flexnet, I rather expected you'd
> >have the protocol specification there. The more I look into it, the
> >more it looks like a proprietary protocol with binary-only distribution.
> >I certainly hope this isn't the case.
>
> page. Lots of those.
Oh.
> You've seen the web-site: Have you talked to the FlexNet gruppe? My
> understanding is that if you present yourself well, and can demonstrate that
> you are a competent programmer and not just wasting their time, that they
> are quite cooperative.
That's what I'm guessing, too, but that's not very encouraging. If there
is actually a protocol specification, it would be trivial to publish it
via the web. There would be no "waste of time". Engineers like myself
wouldn't have to "bother" asking, we could just download the specification
and inspect it on our own.
> I believe you are right about FlexNet being proprietary, with no source code
> available though. There is a paper available which describes the FlexNet API
> (Application Programming Interface) but I don't think this is what you are
> looking for. - Maybe it is!
No, Charles, I was quite specific in my question, I'm looking for the
protocol specification - without a public specification, there's no
way to independently build interoperable systems with this protocol.
By the way, when you make the comment about "wasting their time", you're
apparently unaware that keeping source and specifications proprietary is
a clear invitation to "waste time". Sun figured this out when it made
the pJava and eJava specifications public last year, and now the source
code (!) is being made public, free for download to anyone, regardless of
how well they present themselves. There's still a royalty for shipping
products that use pJava/eJava, but there's no upfront cost to become
part of the development community.
> In fact, now I remember stories about the XNet system being "FlexNet
> compatable" but then hearing stories about it's compatibility being
> incomplete, not fully functional. That would follow if the original code was
> not available.
Yup, it sure would. Incompletely reverse-engineered systems. Talk about
a waste of time.
> I don't think the FlexNet folks are ready for a tcpip enthusiast to cut 'n
> paste the result of thier work, if that's what you are after.
This statement implies a great deal of subjective bias. You were quick
to lecture about the meaning of "implication", please take your dictionary
out and look up the meaning of "specification". I'm obviously not interested
in boilerplating the Flexnet code, I'm interested in evaluating the protocol
and perhaps independently implementing it. That's why I asked for the
protocol specification. Source code of existing implementations is
useful for clearing up ambiguities in the specification, or, in the absence
of a specification, helps to speed the reverse-engineering process.
> My best
> suggestion in that case would be that you come up with your own code.
Why, thank you, Charles. See above.
> Hey!
> It only took ten years' concentrated effort by the amateur tcpip community's
> pool of programmers to cobble a poor imitation of a Packet BBS into Phil
> Karn's NOS. At that rate, the amateur tcpip community should be able to come
> up with a third-rate imitation of FlexNet in, lets say, another decade or
> so.
There's the obligatory ad hom attack. This attack is clearly unwarranted.
John Mock
a protocol. The API is documented, but i ca't say how completely. If i
i were in the Microsoft world and not the LINUX and i can get someone
to talk to at >20 kbps (in the S.F. Bay Area, even), you'd be amazed
how quickly i could get something running. The LINUX material appears
to be handle a comparable number of protocols, although at this point,
the DSP side may not be as complete. But my feeling is that TCP/IP at
9600 bps is a toy and that at 1200 or 9600, ARPS is probably the right
tool for most things you don't just start up and look for the results
hours later. And that is not to say that AX25 isn't a toy (which is
what FlexNet uses as a transport layer) at those speeds as well. (And
indeed, APRS and TCP/IPprotocols use the AX25 unnumbered packets as a
transport mechanism). If FlexNet were a protocol and there's both
enough documentation and a nearby node or three, it'll maybe a week or
three (if i'm not busy), not years or decades. After all, i was doing
ARPS on a Mac well before MacAPRS came out. They say they've invented
a better wheel, but i think packets show fly, not roll...
-- KD6PAG (Networking Old-Timer, "RF newbie")