QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940144.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 10KB

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 04:30:07 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #144
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Sun, 10 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  144

Today's Topics:
                             DOS (5 msgs)
                        DOS and Packet drivers
                         Need NOS for Windows
                           TCP/IP Question
                             unsubscribe

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: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 07:28:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

    I have been waiting almost 10 years for the general ham world to
have a real DOS computer so I can get him to run nos. We are about there
now. And what happens? All the serious thinkers are off with plans to use
LINUX as the operating system of the future. I do admit the advantages of
linux, it's free and it works.

    In defense of dos there are millions of homes and offices that
have one or a lot of dos computers, many with the windows ver 3.1 running
and several good programs for work related purposes and a few for fun. I
have talked with a ham in San Diego who can now get used dos computers of
the 386 class for under $100. It would then seem logical that hams will
in the next few years be able to upgrade from their Commador to a 386 dos
computer.

    From here it seems we need to talk about users running faster
equipment. It is not unreasonable to suggest a CARD type modem that will
give the average ham a 9600 baud switch that nos can attach to in a clean
way. It should have some non-oscillscope way to adjust the audio levels
and should come with serious documentation.

    The card will use the computers power supply and clocks and such
so that the card can be produced cheap. It should be cheaper than a TNC-2
is today ($125.00). We could talk with G3RUH and see if he is interested
and if the thing could be built for the above figure.

    I see the local network guys putting up x1j nodes on 2 meters and
producing list's of radio's that will support 9600 baud (true FM
transmitters). I have always wondered if the Alinco dj580 could be used
for a 9600 baud system. It might make a good bit wise full duplex
regenerator node....

    Well the card is important because the new packet ham doesn't
want to buy a tnc and then buy a modem for that. Better he buy 1 card and
he is set to join in at 9600 baud.

    Wonder if DRSI would like to make this card?

karl
k5di


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

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 1994 11:21:53 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

In your message of Sat, 09 Jul 1994 07:28:52 MDT, you write:
+---------------
| now. And what happens? All the serious thinkers are off with plans to use
| LINUX as the operating system of the future. I do admit the advantages of
+------------->8

Huh?  Johan's targeting MS-Windows and NT; others are working on OS/2; and,
last I heard, Phil was using 386BSD.  Alan Cox and I are the primary Linux
folks, and we're following different paths (Alan with kernel AX.25, my own
being a JNOS variant which will allow use as a "traditional" NOS or as a
simple AX.25 server to allow interfacing between AX.25 activity and Linux
network clients and servers).  None of *us* is arguing that we have the One
True Way.  [Many of the JNOS folks are looking at Linux, though, mainly
because my own work makes a nice almost-drop-in replacement for their existing
configurations.]  It is, however, missing the point of a 32-bit multitasking
environment to use it that way; I hope to be able to provide a migration path
from a traditional NOS-like setup to something that actually *uses* the
system.  I believe Johan is working in the same direction with respect to NT;
I think Phil cut the rope with his new stuff, though, and I know Alan Cox did.

The point of these development paths is not that Linux, or any other
particular operating system, is the way of the future.  It is that DOS by
itself has reached the point where it isn't viable; the 640K limit has become
too severe a limitation.  Witness Windows 3.x and --- more tellingly --- the
upcoming 32-bit Windows 4.  Heck, if I'd had any decent comm drivers for the
DV/X djgpp distribution 3 years ago my own work would probably be in
DESQview/X instead of Linux now.

A DOS client setup is still doable, but any reasonable server configuration
strains available memory and has done so for several years.  It's only now
that true 16/32-bit environments are becoming viable (read: inexpensive
enough) for amateur radio networks.

++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery       kf8nh@44.70.4.88           [e-mail]
Friends don't let friends load Windows NT (tnx Sun)    A Linux iBCS2 developer

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 94 13:28:03
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

> | now. And what happens? All the serious thinkers are off with plans to
> use LINUX as the operating system of the future.

Brandon, I think his point was (similar to mine before the brush war) is
that DOS users are pretty much left holding the bag. The Microsoft
platform(s) solution doesnt exist yet and the fact they are still running
DOS may mean they arent running enough to make it viable to upgrade to
something else (OS/2 or NT or, yes, even Linux). No one capable of putting
mosaic, for instance, into DOS NOS is going to, they are off on other
platforms or they havent stepped up to the plate. I think the answer to his
implied question is either:
1) thats life in the big city, or
2) find someone capable and willing to own NOS on a DOS platform.
And, what will probably be the case is the former.
Walt

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 94 12:25:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: DOS
To: [e-mail]

Cc: [e-mail]

On Jul 07 09:46 94, kz1f wrote:

 k> Although I havent written Unix
 k> drivers, I have written OS/2 device drivers. My comment then
 k> still stands, one really has to want to do something
 k> sufficiently badly to start writting device drivers to
 k> accomplish it.

There's an important difference.  In Unix or OS/2, you have to write a device
driver if you want to do certain things.  For example, there is no proper way
in either operating system to service a hardware interrupt other than by
writing a device driver.  In DOS, you can get away with writing these kinds of
basic facilities directly into applications, and it became the standard way to
do things for performance and other reasons.  For example, how many DOS
programs try to use the BIOS serial port services, even to do things that are
not time critical, such as settings the baud rate?

-- Mike

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jul 94 13:20 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: DOS
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>, Klarsen <[e-mail]>

DRSI already makes a 9600/1200 card. I think they list it for $300.
There's no radio included, so add $100 for a TEKK (cheaper than an HT)
and something for cables, antenna, feedline, power supply, etc.

There's also the Gracilis card/radio/software package, which is about
the same as the above but works out of the box and costs $100 more.

What you get is something that's OK for connecting to a BBS, and
doesn't have much of a user interface. The user interface is going
to be a _BIG_ problem for the average ham. Maybe Windows would be
better for this reason.

    Bruce Perens AB6YM

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 01:17 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Gary L. Grebus)
Subject: DOS and Packet drivers
To: [e-mail]

>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.

That's one thing that works better in  *BSD networking code.
You can associate an irtt and mtu with each route, so both your
Ethernet and radio links have good defaults.

Unfortunately, there are also application timeouts which may be too fast.
Name resolution seems to be one of them, both on the my 386BSD system,
and on the Windows system with Trumpet Winsock.

    /gary
    K8LT

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 16:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Horne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need NOS for Windows
To: [e-mail]

Jack, N1REU, has just gotten started on TCP/IP, and needs a nos which
will run under Windows.  Please tell me what's available.  Thanks.

Bill aa1es
--
E. William Horne

[e-mail]        (Internet)
[e-mail]  (TCP/IP)
aa1es%switch.foxboro@WA1PHY.#EMA.MA (AX.25)
[phone]  (home phone, voice only)

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 94 00:22:55 CDT
From: [e-mail] (System Administrator)
Subject: TCP/IP Question
To: [e-mail]

ok, TCP/IP Question for you all...
I know you can do Telnet/FTP over TCP/IP. But, can I do other stuff over
TCP/IP such as Mosaic/Gopher/Archie/IRC? If so, how?
-Bye

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 94 11:14:27 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: unsubscribe
To: [e-mail]

unsub [e-mail] [e-mail]

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #144
******************************