QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940143.txt

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

Date: Sat,  9 Jul 94 04:30:08 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #143
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Sat,  9 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  143

Today's Topics:
                        AX.25 drivers for ODI
                        DOS and Packet drivers
                  Dreams in Black and White (2 msgs)
                      new WWW page for ham radio
                      WWW Interface for the Ka9q
                     WWW Interface for the KA9Q??

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: 08 Jul 1994 10:13:10 GMT
From: "Bill Horne" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AX.25 drivers for ODI
To: [e-mail]

I'm looking for an ODI-compatible driver that will allow using Novell IPX
and/or IP over AX.25 KISS links.  In other words, I want to be able to log
into a Novell server over an AX.25 link.  If you know of any such software,
please send me a note.  Also, if you have the programmer's information on
how to code an ODI-compliant driver in C, please send that as well.

Thanks in advance.

Bill Horne, aa1es
[e-mail]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This message may contain opinions which differ from my employer's.

                                               E. William Horne
[phone]                         Oliver Tower, Room 20257
OV ID "HORNE"                                      125 High St.
______________________________________          Boston MA 02110

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 12:57:30 +0100
From: Adrian Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS and Packet drivers
To: [e-mail] (Gary L. Grebus)

>
> 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.
>

What does the packet driver in bpqcode provide ?

-adrian

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 08:42:29
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail]

I guess I'll wade in some... But I'm gonna throw water on the flames!

Steve and Walt seem to be talking to the same issue here! Alan (on the other
hand has been an avowed UNIX fanatic for years. UNIX and derivatives are
fine-- so is sarcasm.... so long as the subtle Brit irony and black humor is
not misunderstood by us "uncultured colonials" over here in North America
like it usually is.

I have to side with Steve (in particular) on the OS question. ANY "real" OS
is fine so long as it is capable of being kept lean and mean. (Not a munged
up bootstrap loader with bugs preserved so as not to *break* applications
written to work around problems in earlier versions. MS-DOS is dead-- long
live MS-DOS!) LINUX and OS/2 (without the Workplace Shell) can be kept
small, fast, will boot off floppies and have TCP/IP implementations and
GNU C/CPP written for it.

A radical proposal it might seem in a world of rugged individualists...  but
the transliteration ("port" is to crude a word - ) of amateur radio enabled
IP services and applications to any OS environment ought to be carried out
with an eye toward using common source code and an a *completely uniform*
user command set. Hardware level stuff should be left to individual OS
developers, but called by the servs/apps in a standardized manner that can
be ifdef'ed in or out by compile... Say - as in the Columbia University
KERMIT project.

Then if Walt wants to write a bunch of DSOM enabled Workplace Shell IP Apps
and Steve wants to do the same in X-windows (do I hear the sound of distant
apoplexic seizures Alan?) they can do it and not worry about the binary
unlayment or disturbing the serenity of the "text-mode-forever" UNIX
fanatics.

Steve to Walt> I may have misread your article.

You did misread Walt's note.. I have talked/argued with Walt since the
earliest port of NOS to OS/2. His point, which I take the liberty to
re-state is that there are a larger number of sysop/users that can't justify
dedicating a whole machine to packet radio. Use of freeBSD or LINUX would
prevent them from using DOS "legacy applications" while they run their IP
stuff in the background. OS/2 easily allows one to do this (I am as I
write!) without major retraining or getting a CS / programming background.

Where I do agree with Steve is:
> 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.

LINUX may indeed be the best option for 80X86 based gateway/router
platforms! What about old 68K or MIPS or even new PPC boxes? Could we keep
the code portable? Common featured? Avoid rampant "feeping creaturism" as
Kurt Freiberg likes to call it? I think we better!

Lets avoid talking about UI/GUI issues in the same breath as
server/gateway/router issues. xNOS on DOS is the last gasp of an old
*all-in-one* solution based on an obsolete single tasking realtime interrupt
handler and the paradigm has shifted with freeBSD/LINUX/OS/2 (and maybe even
NT minus the graphical trappings) Let's get use to it!

Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD
KD4IZ
College of Dentistry
UT - Memphis
[phone]

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 08:42:29
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dreams in Black and White
To: [e-mail]

I guess I'll wade in some... But I'm gonna throw water on the flames!

Steve and Walt seem to be talking to the same issue here! Alan (on the other
hand has been an avowed UNIX fanatic for years. UNIX and derivatives are
fine-- so is sarcasm.... so long as the subtle Brit irony and black humor is
not misunderstood by us "uncultured colonials" over here in North America
like it usually is.

I have to side with Steve (in particular) on the OS question. ANY "real" OS
is fine so long as it is capable of being kept lean and mean. (Not a munged
up bootstrap loader with bugs preserved so as not to *break* applications
written to work around problems in earlier versions. MS-DOS is dead-- long
live MS-DOS!) LINUX and OS/2 (without the Workplace Shell) can be kept
small, fast, will boot off floppies and have TCP/IP implementations and
GNU C/CPP written for it.

A radical proposal it might seem in a world of rugged individualists...  but
the transliteration ("port" is to crude a word - ) of amateur radio enabled
IP services and applications to any OS environment ought to be carried out
with an eye toward using common source code and an a *completely uniform*
user command set. Hardware level stuff should be left to individual OS
developers, but called by the servs/apps in a standardized manner that can
be ifdef'ed in or out by compile... Say - as in the Columbia University
KERMIT project.

Then if Walt wants to write a bunch of DSOM enabled Workplace Shell IP Apps
and Steve wants to do the same in X-windows (do I hear the sound of distant
apoplexic seizures Alan?) they can do it and not worry about the binary
unlayment or disturbing the serenity of the "text-mode-forever" UNIX
fanatics.

Steve to Walt> I may have misread your article.

You did misread Walt's note.. I have talked/argued with Walt since the
earliest port of NOS to OS/2. His point, which I take the liberty to
re-state is that there are a larger number of sysop/users that can't justify
dedicating a whole machine to packet radio. Use of freeBSD or LINUX would
prevent them from using DOS "legacy applications" while they run their IP
stuff in the background. OS/2 easily allows one to do this (I am as I
write!) without major retraining or getting a CS / programming background.

Where I do agree with Steve is:
> 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.

LINUX may indeed be the best option for 80X86 based gateway/router
platforms! What about old 68K or MIPS or even new PPC boxes? Could we keep
the code portable? Common featured? Avoid rampant "feeping creaturism" as
Kurt Freiberg likes to call it? I think we better!

Lets avoid talking about UI/GUI issues in the same breath as
server/gateway/router issues. xNOS on DOS is the last gasp of an old
*all-in-one* solution based on an obsolete single tasking realtime interrupt
handler and the paradigm has shifted with freeBSD/LINUX/OS/2 (and maybe even
NT minus the graphical trappings) Let's get use to it!

Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD
KD4IZ
College of Dentistry
UT - Memphis
[phone]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 12:54:14 HST
From: Antonio Querubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: new WWW page for ham radio
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

I've setup a Web page for Amateur Radio stuff.  The URL is

http://mpg.phys.hawaii.edu/AmateurRadio.html

I've kept it as brief as possible so that accessing it over packet
radio via the Internet gateways doesn't turn into a long wait.
But it still has connecting links to the major Internet resources that
I think the average ham would want to look at.  The page is new and
subject to change of course :).


Antonio Querubin
[e-mail] / [e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 13:28:49 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: WWW Interface for the Ka9q
To: [e-mail]

Just for your information: The latest HTTPD (WWW Server) from the National
Center for Supercomputer Applications includes user security (password).
It could enable (i think) to anyone to send and receive mail, get in
chat mode and everything actually a user can do inside the mailbox.
So, what do you think about it???
Greetings from Mexico!!
Roman
Roman Torres
Programmer
Sysop Tazz BBS
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 94 13:05:44 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: WWW Interface for the KA9Q??
To: [e-mail]

Hi Folks!! Why not to put a WWW interface for the Ka9q?? It is reliable, it
is standard , and it is nice :). Why not??
Greetings!!
Roman
Roman Torres
Programmer
Sysop Tazz BBS
[e-mail]

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #143
******************************