Date: Sat, 9 Jul 94 04:30:08 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 #143 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Sat, 9 Jul 94 Volume 94 : Issue 143 Today's Topics: AX.25 drivers for ODI DOS and Packet drivers Dreams in Black and White (2 msgs) new WWW page for ham radio WWW Interface for the Ka9q WWW Interface for the KA9Q?? 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: 08 Jul 1994 10:13:10 GMT From: "Bill Horne" Subject: AX.25 drivers for ODI To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I'm looking for an ODI-compatible driver that will allow using Novell IPX and/or IP over AX.25 KISS links. In other words, I want to be able to log into a Novell server over an AX.25 link. If you know of any such software, please send me a note. Also, if you have the programmer's information on how to code an ODI-compliant driver in C, please send that as well. Thanks in advance. Bill Horne, aa1es nsystem.zmpehor@a50vm1.trg.nynex.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This message may contain opinions which differ from my employer's. E. William Horne (617) 743-9609 Oliver Tower, Room 20257 OV ID "HORNE" 125 High St. ______________________________________ Boston MA 02110 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 12:57:30 +0100 From: Adrian Godwin Subject: DOS and Packet drivers To: glg@balrog.k8lt.ampr.org (Gary L. Grebus) > > The KISS support in the standard SLIP packet driver only sets the > driver class to "KISS". It doesn't change what is sent, and doesn't > support the AX.25 layer you need on the air. > What does the packet driver in bpqcode provide ? -adrian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 08:42:29 From: jks@giskard.utmem.edu Subject: Dreams in Black and White To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I guess I'll wade in some... But I'm gonna throw water on the flames! Steve and Walt seem to be talking to the same issue here! Alan (on the other hand has been an avowed UNIX fanatic for years. UNIX and derivatives are fine-- so is sarcasm.... so long as the subtle Brit irony and black humor is not misunderstood by us "uncultured colonials" over here in North America like it usually is. I have to side with Steve (in particular) on the OS question. ANY "real" OS is fine so long as it is capable of being kept lean and mean. (Not a munged up bootstrap loader with bugs preserved so as not to *break* applications written to work around problems in earlier versions. MS-DOS is dead-- long live MS-DOS!) LINUX and OS/2 (without the Workplace Shell) can be kept small, fast, will boot off floppies and have TCP/IP implementations and GNU C/CPP written for it. A radical proposal it might seem in a world of rugged individualists... but the transliteration ("port" is to crude a word - ) of amateur radio enabled IP services and applications to any OS environment ought to be carried out with an eye toward using common source code and an a *completely uniform* user command set. Hardware level stuff should be left to individual OS developers, but called by the servs/apps in a standardized manner that can be ifdef'ed in or out by compile... Say - as in the Columbia University KERMIT project. Then if Walt wants to write a bunch of DSOM enabled Workplace Shell IP Apps and Steve wants to do the same in X-windows (do I hear the sound of distant apoplexic seizures Alan?) they can do it and not worry about the binary unlayment or disturbing the serenity of the "text-mode-forever" UNIX fanatics. Steve to Walt> I may have misread your article. You did misread Walt's note.. I have talked/argued with Walt since the earliest port of NOS to OS/2. His point, which I take the liberty to re-state is that there are a larger number of sysop/users that can't justify dedicating a whole machine to packet radio. Use of freeBSD or LINUX would prevent them from using DOS "legacy applications" while they run their IP stuff in the background. OS/2 easily allows one to do this (I am as I write!) without major retraining or getting a CS / programming background. Where I do agree with Steve is: > I was only pointing out that the routers should be standardized and capable of > using high speed hardware, large address space, and multi-tasking software. > The router should be cheap. LINUX may indeed be the best option for 80X86 based gateway/router platforms! What about old 68K or MIPS or even new PPC boxes? Could we keep the code portable? Common featured? Avoid rampant "feeping creaturism" as Kurt Freiberg likes to call it? I think we better! Lets avoid talking about UI/GUI issues in the same breath as server/gateway/router issues. xNOS on DOS is the last gasp of an old *all-in-one* solution based on an obsolete single tasking realtime interrupt handler and the paradigm has shifted with freeBSD/LINUX/OS/2 (and maybe even NT minus the graphical trappings) Let's get use to it! Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD KD4IZ College of Dentistry UT - Memphis (901) 488-6242 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 08:42:29 From: jks@giskard.utmem.edu Subject: Dreams in Black and White To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu I guess I'll wade in some... But I'm gonna throw water on the flames! Steve and Walt seem to be talking to the same issue here! Alan (on the other hand has been an avowed UNIX fanatic for years. UNIX and derivatives are fine-- so is sarcasm.... so long as the subtle Brit irony and black humor is not misunderstood by us "uncultured colonials" over here in North America like it usually is. I have to side with Steve (in particular) on the OS question. ANY "real" OS is fine so long as it is capable of being kept lean and mean. (Not a munged up bootstrap loader with bugs preserved so as not to *break* applications written to work around problems in earlier versions. MS-DOS is dead-- long live MS-DOS!) LINUX and OS/2 (without the Workplace Shell) can be kept small, fast, will boot off floppies and have TCP/IP implementations and GNU C/CPP written for it. A radical proposal it might seem in a world of rugged individualists... but the transliteration ("port" is to crude a word - ) of amateur radio enabled IP services and applications to any OS environment ought to be carried out with an eye toward using common source code and an a *completely uniform* user command set. Hardware level stuff should be left to individual OS developers, but called by the servs/apps in a standardized manner that can be ifdef'ed in or out by compile... Say - as in the Columbia University KERMIT project. Then if Walt wants to write a bunch of DSOM enabled Workplace Shell IP Apps and Steve wants to do the same in X-windows (do I hear the sound of distant apoplexic seizures Alan?) they can do it and not worry about the binary unlayment or disturbing the serenity of the "text-mode-forever" UNIX fanatics. Steve to Walt> I may have misread your article. You did misread Walt's note.. I have talked/argued with Walt since the earliest port of NOS to OS/2. His point, which I take the liberty to re-state is that there are a larger number of sysop/users that can't justify dedicating a whole machine to packet radio. Use of freeBSD or LINUX would prevent them from using DOS "legacy applications" while they run their IP stuff in the background. OS/2 easily allows one to do this (I am as I write!) without major retraining or getting a CS / programming background. Where I do agree with Steve is: > I was only pointing out that the routers should be standardized and capable of > using high speed hardware, large address space, and multi-tasking software. > The router should be cheap. LINUX may indeed be the best option for 80X86 based gateway/router platforms! What about old 68K or MIPS or even new PPC boxes? Could we keep the code portable? Common featured? Avoid rampant "feeping creaturism" as Kurt Freiberg likes to call it? I think we better! Lets avoid talking about UI/GUI issues in the same breath as server/gateway/router issues. xNOS on DOS is the last gasp of an old *all-in-one* solution based on an obsolete single tasking realtime interrupt handler and the paradigm has shifted with freeBSD/LINUX/OS/2 (and maybe even NT minus the graphical trappings) Let's get use to it! Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD KD4IZ College of Dentistry UT - Memphis (901) 488-6242 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 12:54:14 HST From: Antonio Querubin Subject: new WWW page for ham radio To: nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca, tcpgroup@ucsd.edu I've setup a Web page for Amateur Radio stuff. The URL is http://mpg.phys.hawaii.edu/AmateurRadio.html I've kept it as brief as possible so that accessing it over packet radio via the Internet gateways doesn't turn into a long wait. But it still has connecting links to the major Internet resources that I think the average ham would want to look at. The page is new and subject to change of course :). Antonio Querubin tony@mpg.phys.hawaii.edu / ah6bw@uhm.ampr.org / querubin@hawaii.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 13:28:49 CST From: rtorres@tazz.coacade.uv.mx Subject: WWW Interface for the Ka9q To: tcpgroup@ucsd.edu Just for your information: The latest HTTPD (WWW Server) from the National Center for Supercomputer Applications includes user security (password). It could enable (i think) to anyone to send and receive mail, get in chat mode and everything actually a user can do inside the mailbox. So, what do you think about it??? Greetings from Mexico!! Roman Roman Torres Programmer Sysop Tazz BBS rtorres@tazz.coacade.uv.mx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 13:05:44 CST From: rtorres@tazz.coacade.uv.mx Subject: WWW Interface for the KA9Q?? To: tcpgroup@ucsd.edu Hi Folks!! Why not to put a WWW interface for the Ka9q?? It is reliable, it is standard , and it is nice :). Why not?? Greetings!! Roman Roman Torres Programmer Sysop Tazz BBS rtorres@tazz.coacade.uv.mx ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #143 ******************************