QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940179.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 8KB

Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 04:30:06 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #179
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Sun, 21 Aug 94       Volume 94 : Issue  179

Today's Topics:
                        Dos Computers (4 msgs)
                                 HELP
                             UNSUBSCRIBE
       VIA N4SO/MCI MAIL INTERNET [e-mail] (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: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 08:50:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

    I find it interesting that many of you on these Internet ham
radio "echos" are very hostile to the Disk Operating System and the
computers that can use that operating system. I think for the most part
the guys most vocal about the evils of DOS are using computers bought for
them to use by others, often the tax payers of the state or the country.

    I know the moderator of this excellent tcp-group has a whole
bunch of computers to use...that is his job. But Brian doesn't tell me
how bad my computer is. I think this is because he knows there are a lot
of hams in this country who do not have a SUN computer.

    I am a ham with a masters degree in EE. I have had a lot of
computers bought for/by me in the workplace. They were very nice. But I
could not USE them for ham purposes. The US Army is not into letting you
bring your Silicon Graphics Indego computer home for week ends. And in
the good old days of 1 mip VACS they were way too large.

    But I did buy for ham radio purposes my first computer, a Radio
Shack Level 1 with expansion board. A full 32k of ram. It was a lot of
fun but had big problems.

    In 1985 I bought a XT clone. It was the first REAL computer I
ever owned. I still have it and use it a bit to burn e-proms. I learned
DOS and got an assembler program and played with debug and assembly
language programing. A friend has a tag line that says:

    Real programers use copy con program.exe

    Well that is a bit difficult to do but in concept it is possible.
Anyway I did get to C and things began to look up. I wrote some useful
software.

    Now I own a 88486-66 computer with 16 meg of ram and run windows
and have a lot of free ham software and commercial software I purchased.
I use Word for Windows version 2.0c because it makes this DOS computer a
desk-top publisher. I do that while my f6fbb packet bbs is working, my
jnos is sending an ftp out and my telephone bbs is being used.

    Those of you that hate DOS, what kind of computer do you use at
home? Well that is what hams have. I still have users with Commidor 64
computers. But most now have a DOS of some size.

    The idea that to be good you must have a Indego is false. The
facts are if you write ham software for a SUN station you will not be
able to give it away. There are just not many in homes yet.

73, de karl k5di

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

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 11:28:54 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Klarsen <[e-mail]>

In your message of Sat, 20 Aug 1994 08:50:59 MDT, you write:
+---------------
|     Those of you that hate DOS, what kind of computer do you use at
| home? Well that is what hams have. I still have users with Commidor 64
| computers. But most now have a DOS of some size.
+------------->8

(the above in re: DOS vs. Sun/SGI/whatever)

If only that were the issue... the flames start when people insist that that
PC or etc. should be used to run NT or OS/2 or Linux, etc.

++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH     [44.70.4.88]          [e-mail]
Linux development:  iBCS2, JNOS, MH

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

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 14:27:49 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Klarsen <[e-mail]>

On Sat, 20 Aug 1994, Klarsen wrote:

>     I find it interesting that many of you on these Internet ham
> radio "echos" are very hostile to the Disk Operating System and the
> computers that can use that operating system.

I would say that "hostile" is a bad choice of words for this. Many have
there problems with MSDOS, but I wouldn't say that I have seen "hostility".

>     Those of you that hate DOS, what kind of computer do you use at
> home? Well that is what hams have. I still have users with Commidor 64
> computers. But most now have a DOS of some size.

As Brandon pointed out, the box is probably INTEL, the "debate" is the OS
on top of it. Remember, there IS no such thing as a "DOS computer". It
may RUN DOS, but the computer is NOT tied to a particular OS.

I have at home an INTEL-compatible machine, that runs Linux. DOS does not
in any way describe my computer.

Is this "hostility"? No, just personal preference....


-----------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 20 Aug 94 14:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Dos Computers
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>, Klarsen <[e-mail]>

I write shareware for DOS systems, but they are palmtops.
I guess I would get hostile if you wanted me to write a networking
system for DOS. It's a poor vehicle for the task and would be painful
to do.

Like many other programmers with an investment in 386 hardware and no
real reason to stick with a Microsoft OS, I put Linux on my "DOS" machine.
That made it a lot easier to work with. My wife runs Windows on her
computer - she's not a programmer and curls her lip at command-line
interfaces.

I'm sorry, but those DOS systems are doomed to remain running packet
terminal programs to connect to more sophisticated systems or at best
NOS. The programmers are going to insist on Windows at a minimum.

Last week, Fry's had a "loss-leader" sale. Connor 1 Gigabyte disks for
$500. There's not that much motivation to keep one's computer small
any longer.

    Bruce AB6YM

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

Date: 20 Aug 1994 15:52:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Vincent,Wellfleet Field)
Subject: HELP
To: [e-mail]

HELP

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

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ho Lai Fong <[e-mail]>
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
To: [e-mail]

UNSUBSCRIBE [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 94 11:23 EST
From: Charles K Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: VIA N4SO/MCI MAIL INTERNET [e-mail]
To: TCP-GROUP <[e-mail]>

DELETE [e-mail] TCP-GROUP

THIS IS THE THIRD REQUEST TO BE TAKEN OFF THE TCP-GROUP MAILING
LIST. I SENT A REQUEST LAST WEEK AND RECEIVED A REPLY BUT AM STILL
RECEIVING MSGS FROM TCP-GROUP. MY SECOND REQUEST SAYS THAT I AM NOT
ON THE MAILING LIST. HOWEVER, AS OF TODAY, SATURDAY I RECEIVED ABOUT
5 MSGS FROM TCP-GROUP.
PLEASE DELETE ME FROM YOUR LIST.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 94 19:18 EST
From: Charles K Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: VIA N4SO/MCI MAIL INTERNET [e-mail]
To: TCP-GROUP <[e-mail]>

KURT FREIBERGER,
I ALREADY SENT A MSG TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS.
AFTER THE ROBOT REPLIED THAT I HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE LIST, I STILL
RECEIVED INCOMING MSGS FROM TCP-GROUP.
YOUR MSG WAS SUPERFLUOUS.

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #179
******************************