QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940142.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 24KB

Date: Fri,  8 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 #142
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Fri,  8 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  142

Today's Topics:
                             DOS (4 msgs)
                   DOS and Packet drivers (2 msgs)
                  Dreams in Black and White (5 msgs)
      I found a News Reader That Will Work With NOS!!!!!!!!!!!!
                            ms400 settings
  PBBSs, TCP/IP, @USBBS and other junque... Stinkin' PBBS  Stinkin
                    To Person Interested in my HT

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 09:07:00
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

Alan writes -
"...servers, dns and convers servers are. ie a client/server architecture.
Around here mosaic is certainly convincing people that 'real' TCP/IP
amateur radio has a use."

There ya go! put an rf-ip web server up!!! While we're at it support MIME.
Scrap 1200 baud altogether with that, 56kb would be minimum acceptable.

I say that only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it would be a great idea but 1200
would have to go. Even in NoVa, where netwrong rules, everyone seems to be
going to atleast 9600. I think the most pervasive argument for scrapping any
future PMNOS (monolithic or V2) is that there is such a wealth of neat apps
available for the OS/2 tcp/ip stack, like web server NR/2 and MIME that it
may be more beneficial to simply write a PI card MAC driver and have folks
spend $100 for the stack. The only reason to continue it is its SOM (object)
based, which, unfortunately, means I'd have to write all the apps myself.
Since no one in NoVa wants to play rf-ip its tough to get too excited abt
Amateur IP.
Walt

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 09:07:00
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

Alan writes -
"...servers, dns and convers servers are. ie a client/server architecture.
Around here mosaic is certainly convincing people that 'real' TCP/IP
amateur radio has a use."

There ya go! put an rf-ip web server up!!! While we're at it support MIME.
Scrap 1200 baud altogether with that, 56kb would be minimum acceptable.

I say that only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it would be a great idea but 1200
would have to go. Even in NoVa, where netwrong rules, everyone seems to be
going to atleast 9600. I think the most pervasive argument for scrapping any
future PMNOS (monolithic or V2) is that there is such a wealth of neat apps
available for the OS/2 tcp/ip stack, like web server NR/2 and MIME that it
may be more beneficial to simply write a PI card MAC driver and have folks
spend $100 for the stack. The only reason to continue it is its SOM (object)
based, which, unfortunately, means I'd have to write all the apps myself.
Since no one in NoVa wants to play rf-ip its tough to get too excited abt
Amateur IP.
Walt

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 09:46:05
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

> OM, most people on this list can _already_ write unix device
> drivers....the original networking crowd came from the unix world, after
> all....

I disagree. most people on this list don't know how to spell device driver.
I may agree with the second premise.
If someone had taken the time and interest to write the xNOS drivers as DOS
device drivers than they could have been loaded high for years, adding
valuable space to the overcrowed 640k limit. Although I havent written Unix
drivers, I have written OS/2 device drivers. My comment then still stands,
one really has to want to do something sufficiently badly to start writting
device drivers to accomplish it.
My intent was not to denagrate Unix..it just struck me that not too long ago
people on this list couldnt get past DOS (640k) running JNOS now, the
pendulum has swung way over to the other side where anything in middle, like
OS/2 or even NT or Windoze is not even in consideration. ...Well I guess
I'll be provocative here....
For someone to scrap DOS running JNOS in favor of Unix, I maintain they were
not running anything else on the box. There are/were plenty of others on
this list that happened to be ALSO running NOS on their PC's. Unix for them
is not a viable solution.

This is not at all saying that for those folks happily running Unix that
that isnt a wonderful thing, certainly if it feels good, do it.
But the attitude I am seeing strikes me as abit partronizing to the
non-Unixheads. There is alot of ground between runing DOS and running Unix
and, in fact, there are alot more sophisticated O/S's out there that would
still allow one to run everything else they've bought over the years plus
MIME and Mosaic and gopher's etc.
Walt

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 12:28:26 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

On Thu, 7 Jul 1994, Dave Walmsley wrote:

> 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 last time I looked at the standard "zips" of the packet driver
collection, there was a SLIP/KISS packet driver of some sort. I don't
know if anyone has checked it out or not, and whether it is brain-damaged
or not, but if memory serves me correct, it was derived from Phil's code.

Anyone played with this?


-----------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 8 Jul 94 01:32 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Gary L. Grebus)
Subject: DOS and Packet drivers
To: [e-mail]

>>On Thu, 7 Jul 1994, Dave Walmsley wrote:
>> 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 last time I looked at the standard "zips" of the packet driver
>collection, there was a SLIP/KISS packet driver of some sort.

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.

I've modified the SLIP driver from the Crynwr V11 package to add
rudimentary support for AX.25 UI frames with real KISS support.
The driver presents an Ethernet class interface.  It works with the
Trumpet Winsock TCP/IP stack, and I'm told with SuperTCP.  The biggest
limitation will be with how well the TCP stack deals with slow links.

I've uploaded it to ftp.ucsd.edu as:
     /hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming/ethrax25.zip

If you try it, let me know what you find.

73,
    /gary
    K8LT

Gary L. Grebus        Home:  [e-mail]  (decvax!balrog!glg)
Brookline, NH           Work:  [e-mail]
            Ham Packet: K8LT@WA1PHY.#EMA.MA.USA

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 11:26:05 +0200 (BST)
From: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: DOS and Packet drivers
To: [e-mail] (Gary L. Grebus)

> I've modified the SLIP driver from the Crynwr V11 package to add
> rudimentary support for AX.25 UI frames with real KISS support.
> The driver presents an Ethernet class interface.  It works with the
> Trumpet Winsock TCP/IP stack, and I'm told with SuperTCP.  The biggest
> limitation will be with how well the TCP stack deals with slow links.
>
So long as you have ARP faked correctly then it should be reasonably OK for
most stacks. The big problems with the Linux TCP/IP stack and AX.25 I had
have been

o    Use of large windows - DOS tcp stacks let you choose small windows
o    Large MTU (ethernet is 1500 right....) thus large MSS

If the other stuff is well implemented then the initial RTT is way too fast
so you tend to get a couple of SYN frames out to fast but once thats happened
it settles down quite respectably.

Make sure the PC stack does Nagle. If it doesn't do nagle you will have a
bad time 8)

Alan

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 07:28:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail]

Walt [e-mail] writes:
> . . .I dont understand the mad rush to replace it [DOS] 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.

There are two types of people who use computers: 1) users, 2) programmers.
Unix has always been a failure for the user unless some interface is provided
which shields them from the operating system. I have limited experiance with
X windows, but a lot with Windows, but the productivity of the user is
enhanced by these interfaces.  The illiterate can now just point and click and
get on with their real job, rather than becoming a programmer type.  You
mention some confusion as to why someone would switch from DOS to Unix.
I myself switched from CP/M to Unix, and remember many people saying that they
couldn't imagine switching from CP/M to something so confusing.  If the
computer is to enhance our productivity, then logic says that it ought to be
able to perform more than one "job" at a time.  Thus Windows is such a success
because the user can point and click several jobs open, and toggle, cut, and
paste between them.  What the user doesn't realize is that the Operating System
(Windows) is not really multi-tasking, it's a bastard simulation.  Given an
Operating System with true multi-tasking provides the user with a much faster
interface. For example the Solaris Operating System runs Windows faster than
Windows because it operates at the API level and uses the Unix Operating
System to perform the work.  The screens and processes zip along rather than
plod along. You mention "in this day and age," well the truth is, that many
Unix systems no longer use the command line prompt, and are designed now more
for the user, rather than the programmer.  The programmer always will prefer
the command line, because they can't stand being reduced to a mouse, but prefer
the immediate mode of a shell.

> But I can't imagine there are that many folks interested in learning how to
> write device drivers, for DOS, OS/2 or Unix.
> Am I missing something here?

Most people are content.  They don't dream in color, they dream in black and
white. They plod along doing the same thing they've done for 50 years. They
have no desire for revolution. Programmers are like writers. They like to
protect their work through copyrights, and make it difficult for people to
use their product. In recent years many companies have said "Enough!" and you
can now purchase programming tools which enhance productivity. For example the
Visual Basic and Visual C are excellent Windows tools.  A programmer can now
easily manufacture what his users need.  Unix tools are going in the same
direction. No longer must someone learn the register set of a B52 processor in
order to attach an F15 tape drive...  So, you're not really missing anything
except your life. People who are content with CP/M, DOS, or their Wife, will
abrubtly find that the world is passing them by, and those things they are
content with will leave them. I think that the Dodge brothers probably had the
same questions asked of them "I drive a Model-A, why should I switch to your
car? Am I missing something here?" Yea, your missing something! It's called
performance.  You see all those Model-A's stuck in the mud with Dodges passing
them by...
--
Steve

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 11:35:30
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

This is getting really thick here.. Hey Jack (Snodgrass or Spitznagel), you
can jump in any time.

referencing Steve's comments..

To answer your implied question, I dream in color, have for some time.
DOS to Windows to OS/2 to Unix back to OS/2. Except for Solaris (which I
admit has some promise) the finest level of granularity in Unix is a
process, pretty archane, if you ask me. Real operating systems have had
tasks or threads since the 60's, when I started development. Its the
nineties and except for one flavor Unix requires every dispatchable unit of
work to have its own address space. You are right abt Windows, a poor excuse
for an OS. OS/2 on the other hand came out of the box with processes,
threads, built in graphical interface (1.1) AND supports everybodies (except
the unixheads) legacy apps.

I am not at all implying that folks should jump on the OS/2 bandwagon simply
because I happen to like it but, I dont think people are feeble, non
developers or somehow not with it, if they dont swoon over Unix.
There is nothing wrong with people who prefer Unix, I dont understand it but
then I dont understand acouple of other things also. But there is also
nothing wrong or inferior about those developers (and users) that set a
higher standard for themselves.

Let the Jehad begin...I guess that comment's alittle late.

Walt

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 13:15:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail]

I may have misread your article. It appeared to me as just another vote for us
to stay where we [packet radio] are, and not go anywhere.  Your reply points
out that you do indeed wish to move on, but the Operating System should not be
Unix oriented; rather, it should be OS/2 oriented.  To tell the truth I don't
really care what OS everyone wants to use on the client or server end of the
chains,

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.  There are two TCP/IP systems that come quickly to
mind when building a router.  The first is NOS and the second is Linux. I
probably should include OS/2 in there, but I feel that maybe the price of the
OS is too high to dedicate to a router siting on a mountain or tall building
somewhere.  That's when Alan said that the best solution may be a Linux OS
running the PI2 card(s) and Ethernet.  It's only an opinion, and I was kind of
favoring DOS and NOS just because it's cheap.  He points out that Linux is
cheaper.  I think if you, in fact, point out that OS/2 is cheaper (either up
front, or in the end) then we shall salute smartly and charge up the hill (as
Ollie North likes to say) behind you. . .
--
Steve

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:26:13 +0200 (BST)
From: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail]

> process, pretty archane, if you ask me. Real operating systems have had
> tasks or threads since the 60's, when I started development. Its the
> nineties and except for one flavor Unix requires every dispatchable unit of
> work to have its own address space. You are right abt Windows, a poor excuse

I assume liblwp on every Unix (and unixlike) system I own is a fragment of
my imagination. The unix philosopy is that the kernel provides the minimal
needed services and little used stuff (like threads) that can be implemented
by a user shouldn't be in the kernel but in user space.

Alan

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:31:46 +0200 (BST)
From: [e-mail] (Alan Cox)
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)

> I may have misread your article. It appeared to me as just another vote for us
> to stay where we [packet radio] are, and not go anywhere.  Your reply points
> out that you do indeed wish to move on, but the Operating System should not be
> Unix oriented; rather, it should be OS/2 oriented.  To tell the truth I don't
> really care what OS everyone wants to use on the client or server end of the
> chains,

This is the most important single factor. We are talking about routers for
a protocol. The operating system isn't that important. For a true handbuilt
dedicated router then stuff like OS/9 would be ideal.

My prime concerns are a machine that I can give other users full user access
to (including building programs, using graphical tools etc), that has
multiperson security etc. Now thats not OS/2. But running windows programs
while being an amateur radio client system is definitely OS/2.

> 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.

They don't need to be standardised. TCP/IP and AX.25 are the standards and
maybe RSPF or RIP for routing in some places. Thats _all_ that matters.

Alan

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 18:44:43 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Evan E. Idler, Edmonton, AB  [192.75.200.5])
Subject: I found a News Reader That Will Work With NOS!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

I thought that people would like to know that I have found a
multi-threaded news reader that can be configured to work with nos,
when running the nntp server code under JNOS 1.08dfd.
After a few evening playing with it I have it working perfectly.
The program works like NN on a unix machine, and boy is it
nice to finally have a good news reader to work with nos.

The PROGRAM is called RUSNEWS, and is a replacement news reader for
waffle.  I will try and type up the instructions on how to set it up
with nos this weekend.  However the program's documents do tell you how
to set it up for use with other programs that waffle (in a round about
way).

Here's were the Documents for RUSNEWS say that it can be found:

Where to Find New Versions
--------------------------

minor updates end up in ftp.halcyon.com:/pub/waffle/news, thanks to
the generosity of Ralph Sims.  major updates go on simtel20 and all
of its mirrors (including oak.oakland.edu:/SimTel/msdos/waffle)




Now, I have one question.  When an external program post a news article,
what files are created, modified, and were do the article get placed,
so that NOS knows that there is a new message, so that it can tell the
local server that is has a new message to be reverse forwarded,
ie. nntp Ihave 2.  This program may be able to be configured to post
messages as well!?

If not, maybe the nnpt portion of nos can be altered to work like waffle
does, (file structure?? file names) so that this program can be made to
post as well as read articles.

Any suggestions????

73
Evan

=======================================================================
Evan E. Idler                     |         Of All The Things I've Lost
[e-mail]          |         In Life, I Miss My MIND The
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada         |         Most!!!
Amateur Packet Radio Station VE6EEI [192.75.200.5]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 20:16:19 +0930 (CST)
From: Rob Mayfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: ms400 settings
To: [e-mail] (TCP Group)

Can anyone help me with the settings for an ms400 type 1 card ?

Ive acquired one with no manuals etc, and with 48 jumpers/dips its not
clear to me how to configure it ...

thanks ... Rob

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 14:50:00 EDT
From: "Battles, Brian" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBBSs, TCP/IP, @USBBS and other junque... Stinkin' PBBS  Stinkin
To: Adrian Godwin <[e-mail]>

AG> I think it's an excellent article and hope you'll send it to
AG> the RSGB or Ham Radio Today for inclusion in UK magazines
AG> as well as QST.

  Hadn't thought of that, Adrian. But I believe the usual technique
is for RSGB and other mags to call us if they want to reprint something
from an ARRL publication.

AG> The only fault I could pick was in this section :

BB>> In the world of amateur packet radio bulletin boards (PBBSs), however,
BB>> there are differences that make control and adherence to standards
BB>> difficult to implement. For one thing, open packet bulletin traffic
BB>> isn't carried and categorized in distinctly separate "conferences"
BB>> that a user may conveniently choose to read or ignore by simply
BB>> selecting from a menu. All packet bulletins are mixed into a
BB>> homogenous list that users see whenever they log in and request a
BB>> listing of the day's latest

AG> Although I agree with the sentiments, it's not true that you can't
AG> choose subjects--the FBB package (and doubtless others) allow you to
AG> list and filter bulletins according to the 'To' field in a way
AG> related to Usenet groups. I feel you should compliment those authors
AG> on showing the way ahead!

  True, I have seen that in the latest version of MSYS, myself. But it's
still got a way to go.

AG> The problem that remains with this is still user education--there
AG> isn't the guidance given (by the PBBS package or the SysOps) to
AG> encourage users to send their articles with appropriate To:
AG> fields--as a result, there's a wide variety of possible headings
AG> and no formal structure. This is bad for readers and senders--the
AG> readers have to scan all the group names, looking for a clue to
AG> the possible content (and in just a few characters, that's a big
AG> problem) and the senders have to try to work out a suitable
AG> abbreviation that will get them the audience they want.

  Say, how about only permitting a set of a couple of dozen predefined
non-call sign addresses, many "permanently" mapped to "@??" destinations?

   Thanks for your comments!

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: Thu, 07 Jul 94 13:07:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (System Administrator)
Subject: To Person Interested in my HT
To: [e-mail]

To the person that was interested in my 800 mHz Trunked HT's. I have lost
your address, please e-mail me with it

-Greg

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #142
******************************