Date: Mon, 4 Jul 94 04:30:01 PDT From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #138 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Mon, 4 Jul 94 Volume 94 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: 'at' command bug DOS (3 msgs) Help me unsubscribe, please. NOS and the PC Packet Switches subscribe TCP-Group Digest V94 #137 TCP/Ip Conferences Send Replies or notes for publication to: . Subscription requests to . Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Jul 1994 13:20:23 +1000 From: ccdrw@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dave Walmsley) Subject: 'at' command bug To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu Hi all, Well, after a few weeks of thinking DFD was great I've found a bug :-(. I have in AUTOEXEC.NET an 'at 0234 exit' that's not working. As a test I've tried 'at now+0001 exit', it gets into the list, but when the time passes the console goes into 'I wont echo your commands' state and if you switch screens (F9 say) and back you get a lot of 'unknown command errors'. This is in both the distribution compile of DFD and the version I run on the gateway. It also occurs in JNOS108, JNOS110d and K2MF's 1.13....but is OK in JNOS107b. When I noticed things slowing down I had tried a remote exit, that made it worse! Then it refused connects from me! so I came over here and found the console in the above state, and quite repeatable. I'm now running an old compile of 107b. I've done a compile with the new ALLOC.C in, compiled OK, but will wait a few days to install and see how that runs. This may tie in with a few old questions about why do the commands show only after you switch screens, except I get the unknown command stuff. Dave ========================================================================= Dave VK2XPX, sysop VK2RAP ccdrw@cc.newcastle.edu.au sysop@vk2rap.newcastle.edu.au vk2xpx@vk2xpx.ampr.org ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Barry McLarnon" Subject: DOS To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU > I have read guys saying Linux is the way to go and I say bull > pucky! Linux to have ANY speed must live in 8 meg of ram on a 88486-50. > This translates into a MUCH more expensive computer and I'm not sure you > can boot up in Linux without dos being present. Need to run an experiment. Nonsense. Linux (w/o X windows) runs just fine on a garden variety 386(sx/dx) with 4MB of ram. But don't let these facts stand in the way of your argument... > As one tag line says " Are you still using dos? Pity" I say if > you are paying for your software dos is a good deal. So is Windows ver > 3.1 and a host of other software written for dos. From my point of view > going back to UNIX with it's $2,000.00 software is a real BAD idea!! Say what? $2,000 for Linux? This takes my breath away. I give up... Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: barry@dgbt.doc.ca Communications Research Center | AMPRnet: barry@va3tcp.ampr.org Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | FreeNet: aa187@freenet.carleton.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 09:45:47 +0200 (BST) From: A.Cox@swansea.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: DOS To: barry@dgbt.doc.ca > > I have read guys saying Linux is the way to go and I say bull > > pucky! Linux to have ANY speed must live in 8 meg of ram on a 88486-50. > > This translates into a MUCH more expensive computer and I'm not sure you > > can boot up in Linux without dos being present. Need to run an experiment. > Nonsense. Linux (w/o X windows) runs just fine on a garden variety 386(sx/dx) > with 4MB of ram. But don't let these facts stand in the way of your > argument... If you are not running very large system you can run happily in 2Mb, that is purely a bootstrap limit that you can go below. I've run older Linux systems in 1Mb (as a proper nethack on a floppy system). Nevertheless a 386SX is a minimum and thats a price factor. > Say what? $2,000 for Linux? This takes my breath away. I give up... Says it all. Alan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 09:56:53 +0200 (BST) From: A.Cox@swansea.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: DOS To: klarsen@kazak.NMSU.Edu (Klarsen) > can buy ver 3.3 anymore. But I have a very legal set of 3.3 sitting on > the shelf. I can put that in 1 node and still be legal. But if it goes on > another node is it still legal? Of course its illegal. Hey you get a _LICENSE_ to read with your software. You can BTW still find DOS 3.3 for very low prices occasionally in the UK. > I have read guys saying Linux is the way to go and I say bull > pucky! Linux to have ANY speed must live in 8 meg of ram on a 88486-50. > This translates into a MUCH more expensive computer and I'm not sure you > can boot up in Linux without dos being present. Need to run an experiment. Ah ok you _CANT_ read that explains the first question. Linux runs as a one job dedicated system like a router on a 386SX16 with one floppy disk no keyboard or monitor, providing the BIOS boot can cope with no keyboard. In fact your '80486-50' is vastly more powerful that most people doing very serious development use. > 3.1 and a host of other software written for dos. From my point of view > going back to UNIX with it's $2,000.00 software is a real BAD idea!! UNIX is a bad idea.. But Linux/NetBSD/FreeBSD all make ideal 386+ systems and the current BSD kernels are pretty lightweight too now that most of the nasty stuff has been cleaned up. Alan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 23:38:26 -0800 (GMT-0800) From: John W Redelfs Subject: Help me unsubscribe, please. To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu Please help me . I've gotten onto this list and I can't get off. All my unsubscribes to the listserver inform me that I have done something wrong. If anyone would send me information on how to unsubscribe, I would be grateful. I know I should have kept my welcome message, but I seem to have misplaced it. John W. Redelfs, tsjwr@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 10:50:32 +0200 (BST) From: A.Cox@swansea.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: NOS and the PC To: agodwin@acorn.co.uk (Adrian Godwin) > Memory transfer : > Programmed I/O : > DMA : Add Bus Master DMA: The ethernet card copies data into system memory at almost full ISA bus speed and interrupts the CPU to say ready. Used by AT1500 and other single chip lance boards. Alan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 14:06:57 -0500 (CDT) From: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil (Steve Sampson) Subject: Packet Switches To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu klarsen@kazak.NMSU.Edu writes: > a "all purpose" IO board for $15 Don't need it. We do need an Ethernet card @ $65 new > and we need at least 1 keyboard and 1 monitor with card. Do you have a keyboard and monitor on your TNC? No. Then we don't need one on a PC TNC. Remember, this is an embedded processor project, not another version of NOS. > May I suggest the G8BPQ switch? It has been tested to work at 56k bit/sec > and may well run at higher speed. The code is 110% assembly language coded > and is about as fast as you can go using the cpu speed you have. Does it run with a PI2 card? What features does it have. I picture a BPQ switch as a serial port oriented software. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ok, suppose I find this software and install it. How do I network with it? Does it have some proprietary networking layer, or no networking layer at all? Does it use TCP/IP or is it AX.25 serial only? Tell us what advantages it has over NOS applicable to networking. How do you get 110% assembly language? Does it use Cold Fusion :-) > 8 ports are no problem to the switch. Sounds like serial ports? Does it have DMA commands? I'll wait for your reply to educate us about BPQ, but I think an overview of what I'm thinking about is needed. The thread started as a request for a better/modern TNC. It drifted a bit around new hardware designs and then finished with the assumption that a PC was the way to go money wise. Remember, this is supposed to be a TNC, not a general purpose computer. An embedded design. Since PI2 cards are cheap, and a very nice design, we put one of those in there to handle 1200 and high speed (high speed isn't defined, but would be 19.2 to 56k, or maybe 250k or 1meg) channels. A second card would provide a gateway. Then a method of talking to the local LAN or Home PC, and that comes in the form of an Ethernet card. So in review, we have a CPU, 2 Meg Mem, PI2, NIC, and a floppy for booting. Using DOS the 2 Meg would be used for Loadhi, and RAM disk, under Linux it would be for the whole OS. I see no reason for using DOS, as Linux is available for free, and includes the Networking as part of the system. Under DOS we would need NOS. So there you have it, a modern TNC using off the shelf parts. You can do it in your own garage. All you have now is the compatability decisions. I propose: Card IRQ Address NIC ? ? PI2-A ? ? PI2-B ? ? PI2-C ? ? Floppy ? ? Now, tell us how BPQ fits into this picture, and tell us how it will network. -- Steve, N5OWK ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 00:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gary Horwith M.D." Subject: subscribe To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU Please subscribe. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 08:16:39 CET From: "Jack Stiekema" Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #137 To: TCP-Group@ucsd.edu >>While there MAY be use for a BBS, there is NO USE for a BBS as brain >>dead, ugly, hard-to-use, and feature-poor as the AVERAGE packet BBS. >> / Brian A. Lantz/KO4KS / Sigh! How is it possible that you operate a bbs which needs something cryptic like "dg help.20" if you want to know how to send or receive a message? Who did not reset his ax25 connection after 30 minutes of blaahhh at 1200 baud just because you entered help or a ? at the prompt? Did packeteers ever look at normal phone bbs's when they designed or installed a pbbs? Do the operators of a pbbs ever try to login at their own bbs via 1200 baud ax25 i.s.o. the fast easy console on the pbbs? Why do you always get a lot of garbage when you are new to a pbbs (i was never interested in the fact that they use 10 watt in a dipole), it takes 10 minutes of blaahhh before you can login. (for the operators: just go on with the good work, we need pbbs, we need also better ones) Kind regards, Jack Stiekema Product Manager Connectivity +----------------------------------------------------+ | Victron bv POB 31 9700 AA Groningen Holland | | Phone: +31 50 446222 Fax: +31 50 424107 | | Email: jack@victron.nl Internet: 193.78.242.81 | | Home: +31 5980 80498 pe0mot@pe0mot.ampr.org | +----------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 94 22:55:21 CDT From: route66@ddl.chi.il.us (System Administrator) Subject: TCP/Ip Conferences To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu Can someone post all the IP Address's for the Conference @ Detroit, Conference @ Ottawa, etc.. Thanks. -Greg N9TOL ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #138 ******************************