QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/digital/940357.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18KB

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 04:30:26 PDT
From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #357
To: Ham-Digital


Ham-Digital Digest          Fri, 28 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue  357

Today's Topics:
                    Baycom vs. The World (2 msgs)
                     Exploring the Internet (QST)
                    FTP source for 'RLI ver 18.x?
                       Ham-Digital Digest #355?
                     Ham-Digital Digest V94 #351
                   Interest in KaGold mailing List?
                  Multi mode VHF/UHF recommendation?
                 NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins
                  Packet BBS posting from/to Japan?
                         searching config.gp
                    X1JR2 Patch Problems (2 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital".

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: 27 Oct 1994 12:54:02 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Baycom vs. The World

< All of the smarts are provided in your computer. As a result you are
< bound to the computer and operating systems supported by the Baycom
< software.

Please read the postings, before answering. I only said
that you can use  more than Baycom's software with the modem.

If packet only is of use to you running in the background of a
multi-user multi-media environment,  of cause you need TNC's
Dont be surprized if less is enough for some amateurs.

73, Moritz DL5UH

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:16:41
From: [e-mail] (David Arnet)
Subject: Baycom vs. The World

In article <38irli$[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>From: [e-mail] ()
>Subject: Re: Baycom vs. The World
>Date: 25 Oct 1994 11:54:26 GMT

>>All of the smarts are provided in your computer. As a result you are
>>bound to the computer and operating systems supported by the Baycom
>>software. A viable alternative for some, I guess.
>>
>>73, David N4HHE

>David,

>I think you see it a little pessimistic. First the idea of the baycom
>modem is, that it is not the best thing to use your 386 (486)
>as a dumb terminal and letting the Z80 in the TNC do all the work.

>So, I built my Baycom modem for about 15$. Furthermore you are not
>restricted to the Baycom software, there is a resident driver (TFPCX)
>which allows to operate a number of terminal programs with the modem.

>Of couse things like TCP-IP can to my knowledge only be done with a TNC.
>(Correct e if I am wrong here)
Wrong,

You can run programs such as JNOS using a packet driver such as AX25.COM, in a
similar way as you would with ethernet packet drivers,

I was using one until I purchased a Baycom ussc card.

>BTW there is now a 9K6 modem, G3RUH compatible, wich is  at 150$ (200
DM)>quite cheap. With powerful PC's becoming more popular this might be
the>thing for the future.

>73, Moritz DL5UH
73 David ZL1UFO

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 1994 12:16:39 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Exploring the Internet (QST)

>Why don't you just post the articles in this newsgroup?

Or make it available on the SIMTEL + Mirrors FTP sites.
(Only beacuse handling the payment + airfreight becomes
awkward from outide the US)

73, Moritz DL5UH

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 94 08:57:02 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FTP source for 'RLI ver 18.x?

Does anyone know if there is a FTP site ... and the address ... that has
the latest W0RLI software (ver. 18.x I think).
73
Carl
______________________________________________________________________________
Carl Estey                  |  Home Mail Address: 276 Walnut Lane
Amateur Callsign:    WA0CQG |                     Apple Valley, MN 55124
                            |  Business Address:  Honeywell Inc.
Phone: Work [phone]  |  Flight Systems & Test Operations M/S MN15-2370
       FAX  [phone]  |  1625 Zarthan Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
       Home [phone]  |  Packet: WA0CQG @ WA0CQG.#MSP.MN.USA.NA
The nonsense here is of my own making - no one else would want credit!

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 94 18:08:35 GMT
From: [e-mail] (david kelly)
Subject: Ham-Digital Digest #355?

Did I miss Ham-Digital Digest #355 or did it get eaten by a mail
gremlin? Checked ucsd.edu:/mailarchives/ham-digital and didn't
find it there either.

73, David N4HHE
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 94 06:36:05 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steven Phillips KB0OLF)
Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #351

unsubscribe ham-digital

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 21:01:55 MST
From: [e-mail] (David Dodell)
Subject: Interest in KaGold mailing List?

[e-mail] (Marvin J. Munster) writes:

> I would definately be interested in your list.  You might want to include
> PkGold as well.  I use both.

I will be starting up a list this weekend, there seems to be enough
interest ... I was referring to Kagold generically to include all gold
products.

david

---
Editor, HICNet Medical Newsletter
Internet: [e-mail]                 FAX: [phone]
Bitnet  : ATW1H@ASUACAD

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 1994 11:00:39 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Grattan)
Subject: Multi mode VHF/UHF recommendation?

I'm interested in recommendations for a multi mode transceiver which
will work at least 2m/70cm and maybe 1.2ghz.  Are there any comparisons
around for the units sold by Icom, Kenwood and Yaesu?

It would be nice to have something that would work satellites,
terrestrial packet, etc... (9600 baud and above) and be upgradable as
things evolve.  Don't want much, do I?

Many thanks in advance for advice.

Bob - N4MRV
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:32:37 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David Tiller)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Larry Rappaport ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >

: Bear in mind that what is being discussed are one-way bulletins. In
: legitimate discussion, the FCC has very little power to regulate anything. I
: think if their power were ever challenged in that regard, that under the
: first amendment, it might becomes very difficult to censor anything... :)

: That said, IANAL, so maybe I'm full of crap. :)

What 'One Way' bulletins??? What this idiot OO forgets is the each and every
'transmission' is a two way, point to point, ham to ham communication.
I sent the message to my local BBS (point to point) - it sends it to a ham
that requests it (point to point again).  Where's the broadcasting?  Where's
the "one way" transmission?  That what the FCC regulates, anyhow.  Are they
saying I can't put an open letter or editorial on packet since the subject
matter doesn't involve RF or electrons?  I don't think so.  Since only hams
can access the messages via a pt-pt connection, there's no broadcasting.
If they want to limit content, go after the "last operation/what I had for
breakfast" OF's.

--
David Tiller                | Network Administrator | Voice: [phone]   |
[e-mail] |  n2kau/4  | Randolph-Macon College| Fax:   [phone]   |
  Don't let your SKS get    | P.O. Box 5005         | ICBM:  37d 42' 43.75" N |
"Tainted with Defilement!"  | Ashland, Va 23005     |        77d 31' 32.19" W |

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 17:58:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Sandy Lynch)
Subject: Packet BBS posting from/to Japan?

W. E. Van Horne ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Greg Horine ([e-mail]) wrote:
: : >I have seen on my "home" packet BBS postings from many countries in Europe,
: : >some from South America, of course North America, but never seen any from
: : >Japan.  A ham friend thinks that may be because of a 3rd party traffic
: : >rule or something forbidding automatic passing of posts from other hams
: : >or something.

There ARE severe restrictions on 3rd party in Japan.  In fact, two hams
that share the same radio cannot use each other's callsigns.  On packet,
the ubiquitous FORSALE bulletins no longer exist there .... I believe
they were terminated in early 1992 due to an "advisory" from the MPT.

It would seem that the Japanese hams are a bit more conservative about
sending out bulletins addressed to WW - worldwide ...
: : >
: : >What is the real story in Japan?  They don't have packet BBS's like
: : >those in USA there?  Or have the Japanese hams not linked their networks
: : >to the rest of the world?

Well, 7J1YAA.10.JNET1.JPN.AS is operated by the Tokyo Int'l Ama. Radio Assn
made up of lots of Japanese and foreign (7J) hams....  they send receive
personal traffic worldwide.  However, when I was living in Japan, we
would rarely see bulletins coming in from the USA ... supposedly it had
something to do with the vast amount of data and what it would take to
move all this traffic via HF links being way too burdensome.

: I thought that all telegraphy in Japan used the Katakana syllabary, not
: Roman letters, and certainly is in the Japanese language, not English.
: Please correct me if I am wrong.  But if it is so, then the characters
: would appear as gibberish on our screens.

No .. "all" cw is not done in the Japanese katakana syllabary.  JA CW
license/holders operators are required to learn int'l Morse first and
secondarily the Japanese Morse.  You can tell when they switch in mid
QSO and/or when they call CQ that they want to use Japanese morse bcuz
you'll hear:   -..---

Cheers
Sandy
WA6BXH/7J1ABV
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 14:14:59 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Sebastien SCHMITT)
Subject: searching config.gp

Hello, I do a lot of packet like the most of you.
I got a few weeks ago, Graphic Packet, wich is better than Baycom, I think.

But I Have a problem with the config file. I don't know how to set the
differents parameters.If someboby could give me an advice, or sent a config
file without problems, that would be great.

Thanks for reading this message.    Seb.F1TMI

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:25:13 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Foster)
Subject: X1JR2 Patch Problems

We had the same question.  Dave's instructions were to "look at the byte offset 0x13d8 into that file".
We assumed he meant the byte location after the offset.  You found a 2a after 18 same as we did.
Anyway, that is where we patched from 2a to 24 and things worked ok.  If you find out otherwise, let
us know.

- Mike wa5txx

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 1994 13:52:56 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Roberts)
Subject: X1JR2 Patch Problems

In article <[e-mail]>, jkbe@lena (John Bednar) says:
>
>
>I received a phone call last night from someone that
>is having trouble patching X1JR2 with the

<< text deleted >>

>What are we doing wrong?
>
>John, WB3ESS
>


What's wrong is that it is 14d9 not 14d8 ( Not sure where the 8
came from, don't *think* it was a typo but apologies if so )

The code from 14d8 is :

14d8    jr    xx
    ld    hl, (xxxx)
    ld    de,2
    call    xxxx

So at 14d8 is the opcode ( jump relative ) and 14d9 is the offset
for the jump. The patch is to change the jump address, so the byte
to patch is at the next location, 14d9.

Regards

Dave

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 1994 14:41:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Phillips x397)

References<[e-mail]> <38k0lg$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] (Rajiv Dewan) writes:

>You have clearly missed the whole point of amateur radio in US being
>a self policing hobby.  Would you like ham radio turn into the chaos
>of CB?

Actually, many people (myself included) think it already has done so.
Have a listen on 14.313 some time.

{Lest someone complain again that I am "no call sign", I hold a general
class license, KA9NZI.}

--
  Gary Lee Phillips                  <[e-mail]>
  Computer Services Librarian        [phone] x397
  Columbia College, Chicago          #include <std_disclaimers.here>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 1994 15:47:14 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] (Steve Wolf NO8M) writes:
>Your reference to "idiot OO" negated the need to reply.

You're right, it WAS redundant.
    - Brian

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 1994 23:26:51 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Little)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:

|>Again, this discussion is not about speech content, but one-way
|>communications.

Good, I'm glad you see our point then.  The communication is two-way.  I
send a packet to the PBBS and it sends me an acknowledgement.  What is
one-way about that?  The content may be construed as one-way, but the
communication is definitely two-way.  That is unless you set up your
beacon text to be a 10 line cookie recipe. ;-)

And to whomever it was (was it you Dave?) that made the comments about
folks being too cheap to purchase Internet access or whatever, that is
really a stretch.  That is like saying we should eliminate the phone
bands because people are too cheap to make long distance calls.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 11:46:36 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:
>
>I don't think that would be a good idea.  I think you should be able
>to talk about whatever you feel like talking about.  The same is true
>for packet, or any other mode.  It's just that indiscriminately
>posting bulletins to every PBBS in the country about things that are
>not of interest to the general ham population is a waste of resources
>and annoying.  Depending on the interpretation of 97.113(b), it might
>also be illegal.

I don't think it's illegal, certainly not under 97.113(b). There's
no hint of material compensation involved. Nor do I think 97.113(c)
applies since these messages are not broadcasts in the sense meant
by the Commission in that section. The messages are more similar
to a ham roundtable than anything else. It's just that due to packet
propagation through the BBS network, it's not in realtime.

As to wasting resources, 99% of what we do as amateurs could be
considered wasting resources by that standard. We're certainly
not going to be able to save up spectrum for later use, once the
moment is gone, it's gone whether we send anything or not. Nor
do sysops have to clutter their disks with every post, that's
what expires, killfiles, and budlists are for. This certainly
isn't a case where we want the government involved. The subject
of content of speech is an area where the government should
tread very carefully, if at all.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 22:06:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mark G. Salyzyn)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:

>     (b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of
>broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way
>communications except as specifically provided in these rules;

AX.25 is specifically allowed for in the rules ...

Ciao -- Mark

------------------------------

End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #357
******************************