QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940140.txt

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

Date: Wed,  6 Jul 94 04:30:02 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #140
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Wed,  6 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  140

Today's Topics:
                             DOS (2 msgs)
                              JNOS 1.08
                            NOS and the PC
                Why not a solid PBBS program? (2 msgs)

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: Tue, 5 Jul 94 08:11:45 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Steve Brown)
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

Karl writes:

  [Stuff deleted]

>     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.

Where did you get this information, Karl?  Have you experimented with
it yourself?

> 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.

 Of course you can boot Linux without DOS being present.

>     I ask anyone reading this with any information about use of dos
> ver 3.3 to speak up. Perhaps what we need is a way to ask for a free use
> of old dos for ham only projects. Or we must add another $65 to the cost
> of the operating system.
>
>     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!!

Linux _is_ U**x.  I sure doesn't cost $2,000.  It's free.  You generally
pay someone to package it for you but, even then, it's $30.

              *********************************************
              |  Steve Brown, WD5HCY         |            |
              |  [e-mail]   | Simplicate |
              |  [e-mail]      | and add    |
              |       [44.28.0.61]           | lightness. |
              |  wd5hcy@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.na |            |
              *********************************************

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 23:46:25 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

On Sat, 2 Jul 1994, Klarsen wrote:

>     But don't forget the operating system. For this stuff to work we
> do need something to make the computer functional. I suggest that we use
> dos of about the version 3.3 which I am asking a lawyer about whether the
> early dos is still protected by copyright or patent. I don't think you
> 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?

A copyright is a copyright! Version 3.3 is protected by the same
international copyright laws that it was when it was released.


>     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.
>

No version of MSDOS is required for use of Linux, unless you use a
distribution that requires MSDOS in order to "bootstrap" Linux. The
distributions that come with CD-ROMs and boot floppies NEVER need use of
MSDOS.

Why would you need to boot up into an "operating system" (debatable term in
the case of MSDOS) in order to boot up an operating system?

>     I ask anyone reading this with any information about use of dos
> ver 3.3 to speak up. Perhaps what we need is a way to ask for a free use
> of old dos for ham only projects. Or we must add another $65 to the cost
> of the operating system.

I suggest buying legal copies! If you MUST use DOS, don't do it illegally.

>     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!!

$2,000.00 software? I paid $40.00 for 600+ Meg of operating system and
utilities, including ALL source code. And that cost was for the
DISTRIBUTION, NOT the programs. Don't know where you get YOUR Unix, but I
suggest a change of vendor.

Try buting MSDOS source code, at ANY price.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Lantz/KO4KS                 [e-mail]

REAL PORTION of Microsoft Windows code:
    while (memory_available)    {
        eat_major_portion_of_memory (no_real_reason);
        if (feel_like_it)
            make_user_THINK (this_is_an_OS);
        gates_bank_balance++;
    }

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 07:45:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: JNOS 1.08
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

    Hi Barry, I AM impressed with your jnos that has passed GB of
traffic and not failed since 1 Feb! That is VERY impressive. Barry please
send me the config.h that you used and any other tricks you may have for
achieving that performance.

    Tim at the NMSUGW gateway is pulling his hair trying to find a
version of nos that will run for days at a time! Yesterday I checked out
the computer and it's fine. So it must be the way we are configuring nos.

    I find that at home my nos is fine no matter what I compile into
it. But on a gateway it's a much differnt matter.

    Thanks de karl k5di

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 94 00:06:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NOS and the PC
To: [e-mail]

> > Bus Master DMA:
>
> I didn't think ISA _could_ multi-master : how is it done ?
>
Dunno.. but my SCSI driver and ethernet card do it and its in the PC hardware
specifications. I never was any good with wires ;)

I'm no expert either but I've read some of the writeups from vendors.
Multi bus master DMA on ISA was not part of the original design, but
it was possible.  Basically there's a trick involving the PC's DMA
controller to set up the channel and the board's own DMA hardware to
do the transfer.  Or something like that.

Since it's sort of a hack, it's not all that common.  EISA added
multiple bus master as a major feature.  The first card I saw doing
this on ISA was Cogent's Ethernet card, which has been out since
1990 or earlier.  In a true DOS environment you hardly care, since
you're single-tasking anyway, but with multitasking or server systems,
it makes a huge difference in performance.
   fred  k1io

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 12:47:50 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers )
Subject: Why not a solid PBBS program?
To: [e-mail]

> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 18:56:55 -0700
> From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Why not a solid PBBS program?
>
> >  Perhaps it would take a commercial venture to do it right. Would a PBBS
> >SysOp, who's spent maybe $1000-$2000 (or more) on radios, TNCs, antennas,
> >PCs, etc, also shell out maybe $50-$100 or so for GOOD software that beats
> >the heck out of the standard freebie AX.25 PBBS packages or the bazillion
> >semi-complete NOSs floating around?
>
> Why do we have to have PBBSes at all, especially if we're using
> TCP/IP?  Why do hams have to keep reinventing the wheel, especially
> ones that aren't quite round? What's wrong with just using all the
> mail and news software that the rest of the Internet uses that seems
> to work fine for them? Why do hams always have to be different?


I've often asked this question.  As time and cash permit, I'm working to
build a local "demostration" net using NNTP and SMTP.  JNOS is currently
my choice of software, since it provides a newsreader method that is workable.

One reason hams re-invent things is that we are learning.  Building a radio,
building a TNC, building an AX.25 protocol driver, etc., can be extremely
valuable ways to learn.  The problem is that amateurs often don't discriminate
between a prototype and a product; in terms of quality and interoperability.
We often have too much ego tied up in a prototype, and we can't throw it
away after it has served the purpose of learning.

An IP based digital network with BBS services provided via NNTP could be
reality today.  It would require a large number of BBS operators to realize
that the existing amateur BBS network was a good first effort, but that
the IP suite offers "real world" function and interoperability.  It would
require a whole bunch people with a lot of time and effort invested in the
existing BBS structure to admit that we've learned a lot but it is time to
move on.

I normally argue for controlled, evolutionary enhancement of systems.
However, the demands on the packet BBS system are increasingly difficult to
meet, even with evolution of the packet BBS system.  It is time to make a
big step in a modern direction.

Dana

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 22:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: [e-mail] (Mike Cheponis)
Subject: Why not a solid PBBS program?
To: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)

> > Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 18:56:55 -0700
> > From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: Why not a solid PBBS program?
> >
> >
> > Why do we have to have PBBSes at all, especially if we're using
> > TCP/IP?  Why do hams have to keep reinventing the wheel, especially
> > ones that aren't quite round? What's wrong with just using all the
> > mail and news software that the rest of the Internet uses that seems
> > to work fine for them? Why do hams always have to be different?

Dana Writes:

>
>I've often asked this question.  As time and cash permit, I'm working to
>build a local "demostration" net using NNTP and SMTP.  JNOS is currently
>my choice of software, since it provides a newsreader method that is workable.
...
>I normally argue for controlled, evolutionary enhancement of systems.
>However, the demands on the packet BBS system are increasingly difficult to
>meet, even with evolution of the packet BBS system.  It is time to make a
>big step in a modern direction.
>
> Dana

The Japanese have two developments that may be of interest.  The first is
their "Terakoya" system for distributing newsgroups throughout
Japan. (Bdale, perhaps you can fill in more details?)  Their TCP/IP
stations use a flooding approach, and they've merely introduced new news
groups to handle the ham interests.  So, for example, instead of:

SB SALE @ ALLUSA

The posting station just sends mail to the newgroup rec.radio.amateur.jp.sale
(or some such named newsgroup), and that station floods his neighbors, and
they flood theirs, etc, until the message makes it all over Japan.

Then second development is the TNC-Z.  It is a high-speed kiss tnc that uses
a Hitachi high-performance enhanced Z80 CPU.  Here is a little blurb about it:

     ***************************************
     *          TNCZ-A03C                  *
     ***************************************
     for:
    NET.EXE
    up to 19200bps KISS port
    64kbps FM0   &   9600bps NRZI  packet port
    enter serch mode command on every frame
    inter frame timer (time out detect for KISS port)
    4kbyte+ buffer for 4k-packet
                           1991.Oct.03
                           by M&K.Yonezawa

Mr. Yonezawa (and K.Yonezawa, his wife who co-wrote the code) are at:
2-9-15-B307
Goten-yome, Musoshino
Tokyo, 180
JAPAN

(This board was described in some detail in the last NCPA Downlink [you _are_
an NCPA member, _aren't you_ !!!?])

And, Japan has been doing 64 kb/s for several years now on the 1.2 Ghz band,
including 64 kb/s mobile(!).

Yes, we here in the U.S. are surely a pathetic bunch... (and yes, I include
myself, of course!)...a motley crew, indeed!


-Mike k3mc

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #140
******************************