QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940141.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu,  7 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 #141
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Thu,  7 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  141

Today's Topics:
                            Amateur Radio
                          AX.25 PBBSs vs NOS
                             DOS (3 msgs)
                 Index to the tcp-group mail archives
                               LPD help
                         PE1CHL Source Code?
                      TCP-Group Digest V94 #140
               Why not a solid PBBS prog .. or Net.TV ?

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: Thu, 07 Jul 94 11:26:45 GMT-1
From: 86CS/SCMPA <[e-mail]>
Subject: Amateur Radio
To: [e-mail]


     My name is Eddie Coates, and I subscribed to the TCP-Digest in hopes
     of gaining more knowledge of packet radio.  However, being that I am
     extremely new to the hobby, everything that I've read is way over my
     head.  Could you reccomend a mailing list or two that might be aimed
     at the novice end of things.  I would be grateful for any help.

     Also, I run an Amiga 500 and am interested in running packet radio
     with it.  Can you push me in the right direction.

     Thanx in advance
     Eddie  KB8FZQ

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 14:06:00 EDT
From: "Battles, Brian" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AX.25 PBBSs vs NOS
To: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>

WARNING: THIS IS A HUGE MESSAGE!  8-)

(I accidentally left my Verbose parameter on!)

=========BEGIN QUOTED MATTER=======================================

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 08:08:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Stinkin' PBBS

[e-mail] writes about what [e-mail] writes:

>> I've been thinking of something like this. If everyone could get together

>> and write a good Amateur Radio PBBS program for Linux

> why isn't there a good, solid, NOS-based PBBS package available for hams
who
> run DOS, Windows or OS/2 machines?

Gary L. Grebus writes:
> "Stamp out the PBBS in our lifetime."

Gary speaks pretty much the opinion of most people that have been around
packet radio for any length of time. If you really want to bore someone to
death, have them buy a TNC and log into a PBBS for 10 days; then call the
coroners office for a pickup. It's not something that gets better with age.
Just like the bulletin board in the lobby of schools and offices, nobody
ever reads it, but a lot of people stick things on it.

Probably the only intelligent thing I've read on the subject of transfering
information has to do with broadcast protocols.  For example, it seems
criminal that a PBBS would hand deliver copies to a circle of machines on
the same frequency (eg, a satellite, or a town PBBS) when it could just
broadcast the information while the others listened. The other really
interesting article is "The HUB 5/29 IP Routing Experiment" in the 12th ARRL
Digital Conference. Read this, and then decide whether you're still
interested in a boring PBBS. Paul Overton and Ian Wade discuss a really nice
routing scheme (only a mobile user would complain I suspect--but TCP/IP
isn't ready for mobile/portable anyway) and then goes on to explain their
modifications to NNTP that takes advantage of this. We've seen several
automated IP routing schemes proposed, but the truth is that ham networks
don't need them. If you have more than 3 entries in your routing table, you
should read this article. I'd like to read more about this system and maybe
see a distribution for others to duplicate.

Basically I see no advantage of prolonging the PBBS given an operating
network. The lack of a network is the reason the PBBS exists today. I think
if towns or communities developed along the lines of the HUB 5/29 article it
would make for a simple (easily duplicated) network scheme that could
transport more substantial mail or news articles. I know this will never
happen in Oklahoma because there's no organization, but other communities
should look into this network and abandon the stupid PBBS, Rose and Netrom.

Steve
 ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 15:55:24
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Stinkin PBBS

> Gary speaks pretty much the opinion of most people that have been around
> packet radio for any length of time. If you really want to bore someone
> to death, have them buy a TNC and log into a PBBS for 10 days; then call
> the coroners office for a pickup. It's not something that gets better
> with age.

I couldn't agree more. However I think the real problem is the bulk of the
PBBS users are running DOS (or maybe even Windoze) and use a terminal
emulator or (terminal.exe) to log into their favorite PBBS. The machines are
probably 286's and the memory is 640k. To answer Brian's question, the folks
writing the 'really slick new" software aren't running 286s with 640k and
given its such an labor of love  to write this stuff they generally write it
with the understanding that they too will use it. If I'm reading the
sentiment right, one won't find any more DOS based xNOS's. There'll be char
based Lunix or graphically based OS/2 or maybe even Windoze-based versions
of TCP/IP suites that may not even support AX.25 mailboxes nor netrom....I
know mine won't.

Walt
 ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 18:56:55 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why not a solid PBBS program?
To: [e-mail]

>  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 PBBSs 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?

Phil

===============END OF QUOTED MATTER========================================

I must say that I agree, in principle. Your everyday local DOS-based AX.25
PBBS is a neat resource that's become an anachronism with so many more
advanced choices today. The simple problem is that the hundreds of PBBS
SysOps and thousands of PBBS users aren't likely to drop everything and
tackle that infamous "NOS learning curve" after they've just (in many cases)
gotten close to mastering MSYS, W0RLI, FBBS, etc.

We have to face it, in 1994, at least, your average amateur packet radio
operator still sees TCP/IP as an "experimental" mode. But most packet ops
have come to rely on packet (PBBS or DX cluster) as a service not unlike the
telephone company. It's more a utility to them than a real "ham radio" mode.
Thousands of radio amateurs operate their TNCs with dumb terminals, and
they're satisfied. People who want file transfers rely on their cheap 14,400
bit/s telephone modems. Unsatisfactory experience with digipeaters and nodes
has left many hams cold and uninterested in packet anymore, and unwilling
even to try out TCP/IP.

  I know it's difficult for people like us to imagine, but I know young
(teens through 30s), enthusiastic new hams who don't have the vaguest guess
at what a DOS is or how to turn on a PC. Many of them, however, always hear
all about packet from ham friends and are interested in getting started.
Taking someone who doesn't even know the difference between an RS-232
connector and an ac cord and trying to describe how to operate a plain AX.25
TNC is a challenge; teaching them what TCP/IP is and how to use might well
be a full-time job!

  There always have been and always will be amateurs with widely differing
levels of knowledge, interest and experience. A few of us are comfortable
with TCP/IP, HF DXing, contesting, ragchewing on repeaters, playing with
RTTY, AMTOR, PacTOR and satellites, pointing ATV cameras at each other,
running coommunity service communication activities, and piddling around
with simple kits. Others use their licenses solely to experiment with
VHF/UHF packet. The AX.25 PBBS network is a simple,
"lowest-common-denominator" system for sending mail and ragchewing via
keyboard (as mail or in real time). Personally, I feel that it would be far
more efficient and productive to essentially let all the AX.25 PBBSs fade
away to be supplanted by a national (worldwide?) network of TCP/IP users and
Switches (ideally, all running *at least* 9600 bauds), with all sorts of
useful, interesting Servers, Internet wormholes and gateways, and links to
HF (ALE, Clover, G-TOR, whatever).

  Is this going to happen? Perhaps. Soon? No. Until TNCs come with built-in
TCP/IP software and a friendly (GUI?) interface, learning to set MYCALL and
TXDELAY, how to switch from cmd: to converse mode, and how to connect to a
PBBS and list/read SALE@USBBS bulletins or DX spots is enough for most
amateurs who own packet equipment. That is real life, outside these
conferences and newsgroups.

  What's my point? Simply that AX.25 PBBSs are here to stay (for now) and
the only way to get the main body of the packet population interested in
TCP/IP and other advanced modes is to coexist with AX.25 PBBSs. This means
gatewaying mail between AX.25 and SMTP, offering Telnet to users who enter
the TCP/IP system via plain AX.25 connects, providing Convers servers (and
other "goodies"), and perhaps even (shudder) inventing a truly efficient
method to operate a DX cluster on a NOS-based station in a way that's better
than AK1A's PacketCluster. All those SALE, WANTED, HELP, HUMOR, NASA, KEPS,
AMSAT, ARL, DX, FEST, EXAMS, MODS, etc, bulletins have to be available to
someone who dumps his PBBSing habit and commits a PC, radio, TNC and a bunch
of hours of learning and tweaking to operating NOS.

  Why convert more packet operators from AX.25 to TCP/IP? Because every
station running NOS can act as a link or even a Switch, if they're in an
advantageous location and there's a need. There's no major functional
distinction between one NOS user and another, as there is between a user and
a PBBS in the "plain-AX.25" world. Very broadly speaking, more TCP/IPers
means more service and connectivity, whereas more AX.25 users means more
congestion and less efficiency. When it comes to TCP/IP (again, very
generally speaking), the more users, the better. Not to mention that larger
local groups means more people potentially willing and able to pool
resources to invest in central LAN Switches with duplex repeaters and
dedicated Switch-to-Switch links.

  There's no need to "dilute" NOS or try to mash in enough code to turn it
into a completely "dual-personality" AX.25 PBBS and TCP/IP combo-in-a-box.
But it would be useful to see a reasonably smooth (I hate the word
"seamless") system for intermingling as much of the two flavors of packet as
possible, at least until TCP/IP users clearly outnumber AX.25 packeteers.

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

   Say, here's a rare opportunity: I "guest wrote" what's planned to be the
Packet Perspective column in September '94 QST. Here's my first draft...have
a gander at it (especially the last paragraph) and shoot me e-mail if you
have any substantial, specific points you want o clarify, correct or submit
an opinion about. No guarantees about whether I'll use it, or even that my
final draft will look much like this, but I'd like to see how you as an
informed packet operator feel about this:


Packet Perspective


@USBBS

Anyone who has visited the Never Land of written electronic
communication knows that the open forum provided by telephone
bulletin boards (BBSs), the Internet and other similar media have
long offered users exciting, effective means of discussing,
debating and announcing diverse opinions, issues and emotions.
These environments have traditionally relied on two basic means
of controlling the content of messages posted and behavior of
those who choose to participate: (1) a "gatekeeper" and (2) peer
pressure. The gatekeeper (SysOp) can decide who may post
material, what may be posted and if it will be forwarded. Peer
pressure, the most visible yet least powerful, provides a vocal,
but ultimately impotent form of obligation to conformity. It does
this through friendly advice, admonishment, chastisement and
outright insult. In amateur packet radio, a third entity wields a
measure of control: The regulator (the FCC), which determines
what is legally acceptable.

Traditional wired networks, such as the seminal Fidonet, maintain
an accepted level of decorum through a time-honored voluntary
standard of cooperation and a well-defined hierarchy of people
who have definite levels of enforcement authority. Specific
areas, also known as "conferences" or "forums" (or Echoes, in the
case of Fidonet), are designated where users may write messages
pertaining to that area's usually narrowly defined topic. A
volunteer, often selected by conference participants, acts as
moderator. This person's job is to regularly post a set of
conference rules, to monitor the posted messages and to point out
transgressions. Theoretically, the moderator's presence is to
serve as a referee, to inform users of transgressions and to
reduce the amount of peer-to-peer bickering among users over each
others' perceived misbehavior. Users who repeatedly violate the
rules after sufficient warnings from the moderator are reported
to the SysOp of the site where the user logs in to post messages,
who provides the offending user access to the conference. It
becomes the SysOp's responsibility to counsel, rehabilitate,
educate or bar the user's access to the conference. The SysOp is
motivated by the potential consequence of having his BBS
excommunicated from the network if he fails to exercise the
proper control over his users' behavior.

In the world of amateur packet radio bulletin boards (PBBSs),
however, there are differences that make control and adherence to
standards difficult to implement. For one thing, open packet
bulletin traffic isn't carried and categorized in distinctly
separate "conferences" that a user may conveniently choose to
read or ignore by simply selecting from a menu. All packet
bulletins are mixed into a homogenous list that users see
whwnever they log in and request a listing of the day's latest
mail. Second, the spirit of democratic, uncensored participation
that offers many advantages to radio amateurs precludes most
SysOps from refusing access to uncooperative users, and even
pressures them to make undesirable messages available to all of
their local users, and even to forward such messages to other
PBBSs in the network. SysOps have been roundly and publicly
criticized for refusing to forward bulletins they deemed to be
inappropriate, even if only for purely technical reasons. In many
raging discussions, users have maintained that a SysOp is
obligated to accept and forward their message without question,
as long as it doesn't expressly violate any FCC rules. (This is,
by the way, entirely untrue. According to the law, no SysOp is
under any obligation to do anything whatsoever with any radio
amateur's messages, and the law also states that a PBBS is its
SysOp's privately operated radio station, for which the SysOp is
permitted--in fact, expected--to monitor and control the material
it transmits.)


Educating Users

To turn to a more basic, pragmatic issue, many packet operators
have spent many hours discussing the frustration of having these
PBBS, supposedly design and built for the main purpose of
carrying person-to-person mail traffic and occasional bulletins
of general interest, into electronic "classified ad pages."
Notices that carry announcements of items for sale, swap or
wanted, noticeably far outnumber every other single type of
bulletin. Because of its convenience, low cost and apparent
effectiveness, PBBS users indundate the airwaves with a
nationwide swapfest day and night. Most messages in this category
are individually harmless, but when viewed as a class, are the
greatest consumers or computer storage space, message-forwarding
time and bandwidth.

Many SysOps, and more PBBS users, complain that all you ever see
listed on a PBBS today are screenfuls of "SALE@USBBS" messages
and so on. It's an understandable lament: There's a lot of stuff
in there, but most of it is "junk mail" most users will never
read. For example, a ham in Boston isn't likely to care about a
personal computer or hand-held transceiver being sold by an
amateur in Seattle. But there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of
amateurs in Washington or perhaps the Pacific Northwest region
who will read and respond to such a notice. So why waste the time
and bandwidth to send this bulletin ping-ponging all over the US
by adressing it so it's forwared to "@USBBS"?

In a sadly ironic way, most packet messages posted aren't nearly
as efficient as the non-SysOp packet operator believes. It's
common to see items too insignificant or unwieldy to be easily
sold to amateurs hundreds of miles away sent out addressed to
"FOR SALE @ USBBS," a lazy, or perhaps misunderstood format that
causes thousands of amateurs in Alabama, for example, to have
their local PBBSs spew forth several screens full of listings for
hand-held transceivers, parts, batteries and other such items
that are being offered by hams in Oregon or Alaska, and that are
likely to be sold by the time they reach most out-of-state PBBSs.


SysOps: Can You Do It?

Perhaps there needs to be a system implemented by which SysOps
would be asked to voluntarily help educate users by requiring the
user to read an educational message about the most appropriate
way to address bulletins before the user would be given the
privilege of posting a message that was intended to be forwarded
to other PBBSs. This would require at least two things: (1) The
PBBS software would have to support a method of doing so, and (2)
The SysOp would have to be willing to invest whatever additional
time it might take to grant access to potential users who
acknowledge that they've read and understand the proper
procedure.

Is it reasonable to suggest that PBBS SysOps route incoming
messages addressed to @USBBS" to some kind of holding bin, unless
they meet certain criteria (eg, ARL, KEPS, AMSAT, FCC, SYSOP, DX,
etc)? For example, do we really need so many SALE, WANTED, HELP,
FEST and EXAM bulletins addressed to, and circulated over the
airwaves to, @USBBS? Does it offer any real advantage to the user
who posts it? Isn't it more efficient, timely and appropriate to
post most bulletins to a local, state or regional circulation?
Could PBBS SysOps do this, and would they want to? How much extra
time and effort would it take? Can any of this be automated? Will
an investment in the time and energy now pay off later with less
"junk mail" coming through each PBBS in the near future, if users
can be taught to cut down the unnecessary "@USBBS" traffic?And
how much actual improvement would that offer all amateurs,
regarding the possible decrease in traffic transmitted via
VHF/UHF backbone and HF forwarding?

This could certainly be implemented in a friendly manner, with
errant users gently instructed in a friendly, helpful manner.
Each PBBS SysOp could prepare a "boilerplate" text he could use
to inform a user whose postings were held or rerouted that would
explain what was done, why it was done and how to avoid such faux
pas in the future. A standard one-page (one screen?) message from
the SysOp could simply inform the user that @USBBS is, by
conventional agreement, reserved for messages that, by their
inherent nature, lend themselves most advantageously to
distribution to the entire nation's amateurs. It could advise the
user that buying, selling, swapping or evaluating almost any
Amateur Radio item could be quite effectively accomplished via a
local or regional bulletin, and that he should seriously consider
if the hams in a distant state will care or be able to take
advantage of the information in certain types of messages.


The Alternative

This primarily concerns standard AX.25 PBBS users and SysOps
because more advanced software, such as that used for TCP/IP
networking, doesn't even involve PBBSs, as most hams know them. A
TCP/IP user finds his mail forwarded neatly stored in his own
private mail area on his own computer's disk drive. Bulletins can
be forwarded only to TCP/IP operators who specifically request
them, by category, from stations that act as "gateways" to
collect useful bulletins from local AX.25 PBBSs and mail them
directly to those who want to see them. Ideally, if all US packet
stations operated TCP/IP software, rather than standard, "built-
in" AX.25, the traditional PBBS could be eliminated and amateur
packet radio would function more like the Internet. Each station
would be accessible directly by every other station, and each
amateur could choose to "subscribe" to "newsgroups" that
encompass particular topics.

Let's hear what you think, as a packet operator, and especially
as a PBBS SysOp. Poke holes in my suggestion or offer ideas on
how to improve it. Be constructive and thoughful, and perhaps
we'll be able to slowly educate our fellow packet operators so
that we can all help each other maintain, expand and speed up our
powerful, impressive amateur packet radio network.



CUL es 73 de BB
 ___________________________________________________________________________
 Brian Battles, WS1O  I  Internet     [e-mail]  I  "Radio amateurs
 QST Features Editor  I  Compu$erve   70007,3373         I   do it with high
 ARRL HQ              I  MCI Mail     215-5052           I      frequency"
 Newington, CT USA    I
 Tel [phone]     I  Amprnet      [e-mail] [44.88.2.43]
 Fax [phone]     I  AX.25 packet WS1O @ W1EDH.CT.USA.NA
 BBS 203-666-0578
 ___________________________________________________________________________
      COMMENTS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MY OWN PRIVATE, PERSONAL REMARKS
     AND ARE TOO INANE TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL ARRL VIEWS OR POLICY.

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 94 16:00:05
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS
To: "TCP digest" <[e-mail]>

I must add my two cents in here. I understand the sentiment behind
bad-mouthing DOS (its so easy to do). But I dont understand the mad rush to
replace it with a version of Unix, free or otherwise. In this day and age
its a real labor of love to learn the Unix cmds and associated flags.
It may have one advantage though, one doesnt need to write a xNOS to run
onit, merely write the appropriate driver for the tnc or PI card. But I
can't imagiine there are that many folks interested in learning how to write
device drivers, for DOS, OS/2 or Unix.
Am I missing something here?
Walt [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 16:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

On Wed, 6 Jul 1994 [e-mail] wrote:

> I must add my two cents in here. I understand the sentiment behind
> bad-mouthing DOS (its so easy to do). But I dont understand the mad rush to
> replace it with a version of Unix, free or otherwise. In this day and age
> its a real labor of love to learn the Unix cmds and associated flags.

Can you say client/server boys and girls? I *knew* you could :-)

Use the Unix box as the news/mail/convers server. Let the end users run
Windows based clients talking IP over the radio. Everyone gets to use
their favorite software and nobody has to learn to type 'man'.

The scary thing is that *all* the application software has already been
written. All that's missing is a packet driver that knows how to talk to
a TNC and fake out AX25 callsign/SSID MAC addresses as if they were
Ethernet MAC addresses.

--lyndon

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 1994 12:50:42 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Dave Walmsley)
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

Lyndon et all.

My thoughts when Johan defected ;-), we just need a Winsoc or packet driver
that sits below all the goodies that live on the net. I wish I had the
knowledge and time to get such a project started.

>The scary thing is that *all* the application software has already been
>written. All that's missing is a packet driver that knows how to talk to
>a TNC and fake out AX25 callsign/SSID MAC addresses as if they were
>Ethernet MAC addresses.
>
>--lyndon
>

Dave
=========================================================================


Dave VK2XPX, sysop VK2RAP                   [e-mail]
                                            [e-mail]
                                            [e-mail]

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 01:26:16 +0100
From: Adrian Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Index to the tcp-group mail archives
To: [e-mail]

As I suggested earlier, I've made a first stab at a topical index of
the tcp-group mail archives. It's rather slow work, and the only other
volunteer is looking at using WAIS in the hope of producing a longer-term
solution, so I've only done 1987 so far.

This index is on ftp.ucsd.edu as
hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming/tcp-group-index.87a.gz

I'm holding indexed articles in MH folders, but I didn't want to
upload the entire archive in this form. For the moment I've
just created a file containing a list of topics and pointers (in
the form of subject // author // date // message ID) to the articles.
This is probably useable as input to a reformatter for a browser
such as WWW, but may be of little use for manual browsing in the
meantime, especially as the 1987 files are simply two simple mail
folders - you have to download them and search for the index entries,
and the lines in the index are rather long.

I'd appreciate comments on :

  - a more useful format for the index
  - my arbitrary choices of topic title and group
  - the granularity of the topics
  - pretty well anything else relevant

By 'topic' I mean the name for a series of threads on related subjects.
By 'group' I mean a series of vaguely related topics. This should be
pretty obvious from the index file.

The topic list started out as a bunch of likely topics off the top of
my head and was adapted slightly as I went along. As a result, some
articles are doubly-indexed (I consider this a feature, not a bug) and
some topics are empty (for the moment).

Note that I've no intention of setting up a browser for this myself -
long term, a WWW server on ucsd (and perhaps a WAIS interface) is the aim.

-adrian, g7hwn

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 04:00:56 CST
From: Jack Snodgrass                                   <[e-mail]>
Subject: LPD help
To: tcp-group mailling list                            <[e-mail]>

    I've compiled in the LPD stuff with JNOS, but can't figure out if it
works or how to use it. Has anyone else figured it out? I'd appreciate if
someone who's using LPD with NOS could send me a working printcap example.
I'm using a Canon BJ-200 printer ( IBM ProPrinter compatible ) on LPT1 but
I'd like to see ANY WORKING /etc/printcap example that defines a printer on
LPT1. Thanks.

73's  de  Jack  -  kf5mg
Internet        -  [e-mail]            -  44.28.0.14
AX25net         -  kf5mg@kf5mg.#dfw.tx.usa.noam    -  home [phone]
Dialup          -  [e-mail]              -  work (looking  for)

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 09:52 +1000
From: ANDY JOYCE <[e-mail]>
Subject: PE1CHL Source Code?
To: [e-mail]

   Hi all,  Im working with some project students here at QUT who will be
using TCP/IP and the FTL0 Pacsat broadcast protocol for use within the TSG
Telemetry Systems Group within the University here. We would like to add some
station control code to the PE1CHL version of NOS that also uses the FTL0
protocol. The problem is that we have been searching high & low for source
code or an Email address to PE1CHL, but we cannot find either? Does anyone
know if source code for PE1CHL-NOS is available and/or a FTP site, or either
a Email address so we can contact PE1CHL direct...

Thanks..

Andy Joyce VK4KIV

AARNet/Internet - [e-mail]
AMPRNet/Packet  - [e-mail]

Queensland University of Technology:

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 10:05:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: Tim Baggett <[e-mail]>
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #140
To: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[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.

Well Karl, as you know, I just got Linux installed on a 386dx-25mhz, 8 mb
RAM machine here at school. Its not a Sun SPARC 10, but I can see power
roaring under the hood already. Actually I'm quite content with the
speed, so far.

> > 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 MS-DOS present at ALL on my Linux machine (YEAH!). Boots right up into
Linux. Not even the slightest hint of MS-DOS. I wiped that sucker clean
out when I formatted the hard drive :-)

> >     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!!

Well, Linux cost me about $20 worth of disks to put it on. Snag it from
net.tamu.edu.

Finally, I found out what your supposed to do with a PC clone (besides
using it as a door-stop, which people at work tell me) - format the HD
and install *NIX :-) :-) Linux is just like the big machines, and real
timesharing! none of this crowbarring it into MS-DOS (Although you did a
good job of forcing MS-DOS to do it Phil!)

73
Tim

********************************************************************
Tim Baggett, AA5DF                    Electrical Engineering Student
                                      New Mexico State University
Internet: [e-mail]
AMPR: [e-mail]           US Snail: 1805 Rentfrow Apt #1
(When on) AA5DF.AMPR.ORG                        Las Cruces, NM 88001
********************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 16:21:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Everett F Batey)
Subject: Why not a solid PBBS prog .. or Net.TV ?
To: [e-mail]

Perhaps a look at Broadcast / Multicast Internet television would give
us a model to consider .. Saw it running at ISI last year so .. if we
have a backbone equivalent then we can spread tiled pictures ( a la
CCITT- Gp4 ) or send newsgroups .. //

--
 +  [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] +
 +  [e-mail]   WA6CRE    Gold Coast Sun Users   Vta-SB-SLO DECUS  gnu +
 +  Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle_s | WWW b-news postmaster xntp dns  WAFFLE  +

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #141
******************************