QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940138.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 12KB

Date: Mon,  4 Jul 94 04:30:01 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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: <[e-mail]>.
Subscription requests to <[e-mail]>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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: [e-mail] (Dave Walmsley)
Subject: 'at' command bug
To: [e-mail]

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                   [e-mail]
                                            [e-mail]
                                            [e-mail]

=========================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Barry McLarnon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

>     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: [e-mail]
Communications Research Center  |  AMPRnet:  [e-mail]
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada         |  FreeNet:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 09:45:47 +0200 (BST)
From: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

> >     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: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help me unsubscribe, please.
To: [e-mail]

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, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 10:50:32 +0200 (BST)
From: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: NOS and the PC
To: [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Packet Switches
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] 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." <[e-mail]>
Subject: subscribe
To: [e-mail]

Please subscribe.

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 08:16:39 CET
From: "Jack Stiekema" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #137
To: [e-mail]

>>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: [phone]   Fax: [phone]        |
|   Email: [e-mail] Internet: 193.78.242.81   |
|   Home:  [phone]  [e-mail]    |
+----------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 03 Jul 94 22:55:21 CDT
From: [e-mail] (System Administrator)
Subject: TCP/Ip Conferences
To: [e-mail]

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
******************************