QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940181.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 37KB

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 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 #181
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Tue, 23 Aug 94       Volume 94 : Issue  181

Today's Topics:
                               Apology
                            Apology (fwd)
                  CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
                                 Dos
                    DOS Computer et al... (2 msgs)
                       Dos Computers (13 msgs)
                        Enough (fwd) (2 msgs)
                              subscribe
                             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: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 18:38:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
Subject: Apology
To: [e-mail]

I must apologize to the group now that my private mail has been made public.
I guess the schools don't teach privacy anymore, or at least those in Texas.

My comments were to the effect that it is in each of our power to unsubscribe
when we are no longer interested in the conversation.  When a member decides
to ruin the conversation by complaining that he isn't interested, it gets my
gander.  I'm sorry my private mail has been published, and apologize to the
group.

--
Steve

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 22:23:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kurt Freiberger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apology (fwd)
To: [e-mail] (TCP-Group Mailing List)

Forwarded message:
> From: [e-mail] (Steve Sampson)
...
> I guess the schools don't teach privacy anymore, or at least those in Texas.

No request for privacy was in the message; And by the unprovoked personal
attack, the privilege was deemed void.

> My comments were to the effect that it is in each of our power to unsubscribe
> when we are no longer interested in the conversation.  When a member decides
> to ruin the conversation by complaining that he isn't interested, it gets my
> gander.  I'm sorry my private mail has been published, and apologize to the
> group.

A very interesting interpretation.  A new vista to the specific terms used.
And, I suppose, that I am not allowed to speak that the current OS war in its
Nth incarnation should be terminated?
Has anyone else been attacked to asking that the thread be terminated?
Take a pill.  Or unsubscribe.

Enough.  Faugh.
--
# Kurt Freiberger, WB5BBW   Dept. of Computer Science, TAMU              #
# Internet: [e-mail]      |  "Even MY hypocrisy has its limits." #
# AuralNet: 409/847-8607          |                                      #
# AMPRNet: [e-mail] |        - "Doc" Holliday, Tombstone   #
# Disclaimer: Not EVEN an official document of Texas A&M University      #

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

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 09:22:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

* Original to: [e-mail]
      CC'd to: [e-mail]



On 94 Aug 23 at 05:56, Phil Karn wrote:

 PK> This is what internetting is all about -- different
 PK> machines running different operating systems and different
 PK> applications over different networking media, all
 PK> communicating easily and transparently with each other
 PK> because they all speak a common set of "middle layer"
 PK> protocols.

While we're on this subject of the desirability of everything talking to
everything, I would like to raise the issue of the Commercial Internet
Exchange, CIX, pronounced "kicks."

CIX was originally created as a consortium of Internet access providers who
would route among themselves, thus bypassing the famous NSF-Net Acceptable Use
Policy restrictrictions on commercial use of the Internet.  On July 14, the CIX
Board of Directors voted to enforce routing restrictions against non-members of
CIX.  The requirement for membership in CIX, basically, is that you have to pay
them $7,500 per year or $750 per month, plus additional fees in some cases.

In particular, CIX states the following:

                  ********** BEGIN QUOTE **********

Clarification of Service Provision
----------------------------------

It has always been CIX policy to provide services only to its membership.

Routing Services are provided only to Regular Members.


Requirements for Membership
---------------------------

Affiliate Membership is open to any individual or organization.

Regular membership is open to any organization selling IP transit.

There is no geographic restriction on membership.

Regular members provide CIX Routing Services to any individual
or organization who is NOT eligible for regular membership. Regular
members may NOT provide CIX Routing Services to any individual or
organization who is not a regular member but is eligible for regular
membership (i.e., is selling IP transit).


Definition of Seller of IP transit
----------------------------------

An individual or organization is selling IP transit if they accept IP
traffic from another individual or organization and route it to a
different individual or organization in exchange for a fee.

An individual or organization is NOT selling IP transit if it is
selling only timesharing services on a system that offers IP
connectivity as part of the time sharing service (e.g "BBS Systems" or
"Shell Account Systems").

E.g. An individual or organization who operates a computer on which
     people log in directly and are able to receive Internet access
     is NOT required to join unless they are ALSO selling IP transit.

     An individual or organization who sells one or more dialup
     PPP/SLIP accounts IS required to join to receive membership
     services.

     An individual or organization who sells dialup PPP/SLIP access
     ONLY to its own systems (i.e., who does NOT transit IP packets
     outside its internal networks) is NOT required to join.

     A University that provides IP transit only to its students, faculty
     and researchers is NOT required to join.

     A University that provides IP transit to alumni, local businesses
     or other organizations not directly participating in the University's
     educational mission IS required to join.


51% Rule
--------

No exceptions to the requirement of membership are made based on an
organization's size, non-profit status, or other criteria.  This policy
applies to all organizations, including so-called "federations" and
co-operatives.

Any organization eligible for membership whose parent organization owns
51% or more of its voting stock does not need to join separately, but
may benefit from its parent's membership. Any organization eligible for
membership who does not have a parent organization owning 51% or more
of its voting stock shall be treated as a separate organization and be
required to join to receive member services.


Enforcement of Policies
-----------------------

Historically, the Association has relied on the voluntary compliance
and support of its membership to ensure that member services were
provided only to Association members.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that this voluntary compliance is no
longer working and that the Association will need to begin actively
ensuring that its services are provided only to members.

The Board recognizes that some organizations who might have to
correct their membership status as a result of any confusion relating to
membership requirements may require time to do so in a timely manner.
Therefor, the Board will delay additional enforcement of these policies
until November 1, 1994.  Additionally, the Board will delay enforcement
of the 51% rule for subsidiaries until January 1, 1995.

The Board has contracted with the current manager of the CIX Router
Service, to provide the additional resources necessary to enforce
Association policies. These will include investigating reports of
policy violations and maintaining a set of route filters as necessary
to ensure that member services are not accidentally provided to
non-members.  When the Association determines traffic to be in violation of
CIX policies, that traffic will be filtered.

Organizations attempting to circumvent CIX policies, such as attempting
to disguise the resale status of their customers by subnetting a single
network number and sharing its use among multiple customers, will be
subject to appropriate enforcement of Association policy which may
include the entire network being filtered even though the majority of
its users are in compliance. The Association encourages the assignment
of distinct network numbers to different organizations and the use of
BGP4 for route announcement. This allows the Association to filter only
the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with its policies.

                  ********** END QUOTE **********


In my opinion, this seems like a return to the early days of telephone service,
where each telephone company refused to allow its subscribers to call the
subscribers of a competing telephone service without payment of a fee.  The
government finally stepped in to put a stop to that, for obvious reasons, and
it looks like we might have to go through a similar period of chaos soon on the
Internet.

I am not sure what to make of this change in CIX policy.  It certainly seems to
me to have all of the trappings of a "combination in restraint of trade,"
although applying such a principle to the Internet may prove to be a daunting
prospect.  My guess is that CIX and its members are going to be sued through
the floor if they actually try to implement this, with claims starting at
breach of contract and working their way up to antitrust.

What seems clear is that we may shortly have two separate and disconnected
Internets, one comprised of those CIX members and their subscribers, and one
consisting of everybody else.  Subscribers to one will have no connectivity
with the other, and vice versa.  My understanding is that several major
providers, such as JvNC Net, will be boycotting CIX.

A more immediate problem is that many organizations, both for-profit companies
and non-profit organizations, have been allowing Amprnet to piggyback on their
existing Internet service, often requiring a nominal fee to cover their own
added expenses.  Many public colleges, at least in this area, are required by
law to provide library and computer network access services to local citizens,
and to recover expenses.  Several important developments. such as AXIP, depend
on this goodwill.  Under the new CIX policy, my reading is that a company or a
university who buys service from a CIX member may be prohibited from allowing
AXIP or similar Amprnet connectivity unless the company or university itself
pays the CIX membership fee.  Understandably, no organization is likely to pay
$7,500 per year in order to keep their Amprnet link open.  Simply providing
domain name service, in such cases, would seem to come under the prohibition.

-- Mike


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilow Computer Science   | [phone] (voice) | Michael S. Bilow
Forty Plantations        | [phone] (fax)   | President
Cranston, RI 02920-5554  | [phone] (BBS)   | [e-mail]  (Internet)
United States of America | N1BEE @ KA1AZ.#SORI.RI.USA.NOAM (AX.25 non-business)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't usually do this, but: ALL COMMENTS, OPINIONS, AND STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE ABOVE MESSAGE, EXCEPT WHERE EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED AS QUOTED MATERIAL, ARE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS MESSAGE, AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OPINIONS OF ANY OTHER PERSON, COMPANY, OR ORGANIZATION.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 09:25:39
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dos
To: [e-mail]

Where I may be partly to blame for this latest wave of activity, let me
respond.
In the early days of radio, the transmitting was done via a spark generator.
This progressed into vacuum tubes, regen receivers, hetrodyne receivers
super-hetrodyne receivers, transistors, IC's, VLI curcuits etc. WHY???
Because each ADVANCEMENT meant better design, more functionality, lower
cost(??) etc.

Because I use a solid state radio doesnt mean I hate vacuum tubes. I use it
becuase, for what I want done, it works better. I have a 486/50 at home, I
could run windows on it, I could run dos on it...I run OS/2 on it. WHY?
Because, for what I do with it, it works better. As it happens, I make my
livelihood designing and writing workstation / PC software. What the general
public, that is, the buying general public, want can't be written in 640k of
memory. Sure, one can get a memory extender software and, thru much gritting
and mashing of teeth, write something that actually is larger than 640k.
Even Microsoft got tired of trying to do that and wrote DOS 7.x aka Windows
4.0 kernel. Essentially a 32 bit multitasking OS. Sure there are some all
agash waiting for it to hit the street. There are others that smile and
continue writing 32 bit linear programs, perhaps even graphical, on their
OS/2, NT, Linux etc OS's. Does that mean we all hate DOS...NO, it means that
for what we are doing, DOS doesn't do it as well as (fill in the blank).

Now, how I think this whole thing started was that I speculated that no one
was probably going to be writing rfc 1159 for xNOS. Enhancements would
probably be seen in the Linux, OS/2 etc versions of tcpip over rf.

This presents something of a problem, since it will be even more likely that
smtp mail will be arriving in the future that xNOS will throw-up all over.
That there will be ip based traffic over the given freq that xNOS won't
understand. This is not a problem for the person running a MIME compliant
mailer, its a problem for the one thats not. As I said in an earlier
mailing, 'going forward is a good thing.' As far as it being a 'problem', it
is not the fault of the person with the MIME compliant mailer or WEB
compliant program. There is no blame to be assessed here, its just a fact of
life.
The problem with a monolithic program like xNOS is it's tough to add/replace
pieces.  For those that feel intimidated or frustrated by this, why not
assume technical lead on xNOS and step up to the 'I'll write the code'
plate? Figure out how to put all the latest technology into a 640k program.

And I certainly didnt intend to start a violent, verbally abusive flame.
Walt

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 13:20:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: [e-mail] (Erik M. Hall)
Subject: DOS Computer et al...
To: [e-mail]

Hi y'all...I believe this whole DOS/on-DOS issue is relatively unimportant.

One thing we are all agreed upon is is that if you are running a network
switch, or hub, or router, then DOS is useless. Linux would be a good choice
for this.

BUT, for most of us hams who just want connectivity to the rest of the
world, DOS is fine. It works. These people don't need the net smarts, they
can connect to a router to handle that for them.

For instance: If you've got a business and want to set up a company-wide
network, do you insist that a Unix box on every desk is the only way to go?
Or do you put a Cisco router on everyone's desk? No, its just not necessary.

Besides (and please don't flame me for this one) do we really want everybody
to have the network routing and operations capabilities?  Not every ham is
capable of setting up a Unix system to run TCP/IP properly. People make
whole careers out of just that. Look at what happened recently with the UCSD
name server; it was taken down because of improperly registered hosts. That
does NOT make for a reliable network.

I believe that, all in all IMHO, we should have a dedicated nationwide WAN
backbone run by people experienced in Unix and TCP/IP and AX.25. Then MANs
local in each city (or however you wish to divide up the US geographically).
People would then have connectivity from their machine into a local MAN on a
common (or not) frequency. That way if random Joe Ham configures his machine
wrong, it won't kill the whole net. DOS would find a good home in these user
access machines, since all they'll be doing is communicating with a MAN node
and not have to worry about name serving, packet forwarding, or anything
else.

                    -Erik

--
Erik M. Hall  -  N2NRP    [e-mail]
US Army   CECOM           [phone]
AMSEL-RD-ST-WA-N          DSN  995-4968
Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703                  "Its all about soul..." -BJ

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 14:57:58
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DOS Computer et al...
To: [e-mail]

>Hi y'all...I believe this whole DOS/on-DOS issue is relatively unimportant.

Not to belabor the point but its not simply a router issue.

I think what would put the xNOS (DOS) user communitee at ease is for someone
to take ownership of xNOS on the DOS platform. This is because the rest of
us are going to be using rfc1159 and/or setting up Gopher and/or WWW servers
etc etc. If no one is going to pick up the code and carry it forward these
versions are destined to the same place as CP/M and Word for DOS (both work
fine, just not with anything else).

This won't happen overnight but it will happen. We've already seen nastyisms
over having a xNOS smtp client get MIME mail.

In this respect, xNOS on DOS may make a respectable router since all it will
be doing is moving ip packets around with no user (client) code running,

I dont think anyone is afraid of or intimidated by OS/2 at $49. or Linux at
$0, I think they're afraid of being abandoned.
Walt

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 08:04:13
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dos Computers
To: "TCP digest" <[e-mail]>

Enough!!!???!!!

> From: "Klarsen" <[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.

This is pure vitriolic slime! Karl.... Get your head out of the the sand!
Rather than spending your time proving to us that you are a reactionary
know-nothing with multiple axes to grind, please consider the following:

Many of the "32-bit" folks use the non-reentrant interupt handler you refer
to as DOS (actually MS-DOS-- Mickey$oft dos not own the name "DOS", there
are others!) for low level grunt work on their boxes, because of the direct
and largely unrestricted access it allows to the hardware. We all agree, DOS
HAS some uses. It will remain in use on 8088/86/186/ and 286 machines for a
long time, but even M$ has made it clear they are leaving 16 bit M$-DOS
behind.        ^^^^

Many users of advanced operating systems on these lists have Intel based
boxes purchased at considerable expense to themselves. Taxpayers provided me
with none of my current equipment (it came out of money I earned with my own
sweat, time, and tears.) I have a Mac on my desk at work, forced down my
throat by the buying policy of the institution. The Mac was procurred
for me from departmental funds generated by contract work for a large
pharmaceutical concern -- it gets used 1-2 hours a week for word-smithing...
It's a cute/friendly box, but clumsy.... a little like handling a school bus
with a Triumph Spitfire engine in it. The 486DX-33 OS/2 box (I paid for
out-of-pocket!!) gets 30 hours a week worth of heavy "productivity" use and
is online 7 days / 24 hrs doing network duty. I could not do that when I
used M$DOS -- to unstable.

You can post your insults to abUseNet groups like alt.barney.die.die.die or
alt.flame.dev.null, but please don't waste tcp-group bandwidth continuing
this thread!

Jack Spitznagel
KD4IZ
Rancho Malario
Tennessee
[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 09:55:12 -0400
From: Jim De Arras <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: stuart  <[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.
>
> lots cut out.....
>
> Thanks Karl ! A good artical realy needed saying.
>
>         We need to put this artical in at least once a month!
>         so not to forget.
>
> 73's Rogan sm0kjd
>
I try to stay out of this war, but the above suggestion is too simplistic.
There are a number of real operation systems that can run on that same PC
hardware, now.  A large part of the resistance is simply resistance to
change.

DOS is not an OS, it's a boot loader.  It's fine for what it does, but it
simply is not up to real multi-tasking/multi-threaded work.  The current crop
of PC hardware is very much up to multi-tasking/multi-threaded work, and it's
a shame to restrict it so much with DOS.

Jim  (using a UNIX based system he paid for himself) De Arras
WA4ONG.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 07:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: stuart <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, stuart wrote:

> Thanks Karl ! A good artical realy needed saying.

>         We need to put this artical in at least once a month!
>         so not to forget.

In other words, "stop experimenting, because I {cannot afford, can't be
bothered} to keep up."

This attitude scares me to no end. What will your argument be when the
governments of the world abolish Amateur Radio completely because it is
no longer contributing to the state of the art (thus justifying it's
existence)?

--lyndon  VE7TCP/VE6BBM

Put the EXPERIMENTAL back in the Amateur EXPERIMENTAL Service!

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:29:56 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 22 Aug 1994 [e-mail] wrote:

> ..... We all agree, DOS
> HAS some uses. It will remain in use on 8088/86/186/ and 286 machines for a
> long time, but even M$ has made it clear they are leaving 16 bit M$-DOS
> behind.        ^^^^

Jack hits the nail on the head that many of us have been dancing around.
It is NOT us that is going to orphan MS-DOS, it is MICROSOFT!

If you lived in a city and were told by some that the city was in danger,
you MIGHT think about leaving. But if you were told that the Mayor, the
City Council, and all of the elected leaders had LEFT because of the
danger, you'd be reckless to not consider leaving.

Well, gang, Mayor Bill has already declared MS-DOS an abandoned house,
with the wrecker to come next year. You will need to consider whether
your residence will be Chicago, NT, OS-2, Linux, FreeBSD, Novell DOS, etc.

Simply keeping the status quo is ignoring the danger ALREADY told by
Mayor Bill.

So why are those living in Bill's city blaming us, who heard the warning
and moved? We're just getting on with our lives...


And Walt, WELL SAID!

-----------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:07:25 -0600 (MDT)
From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Lyndon Nerenberg <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, stuart wrote:
>
> > Thanks Karl ! A good artical realy needed saying.
>
> >         We need to put this artical in at least once a month!
> >         so not to forget.
>
> In other words, "stop experimenting, because I {cannot afford, can't be
> bothered} to keep up."

    I didn't say that Lyndon, you did.

>
> This attitude scares me to no end. What will your argument be when the
> governments of the world abolish Amateur Radio completely because it is
> no longer contributing to the state of the art (thus justifying it's
> existence)?

    Where have you been for the past 40 years?  The way things are
now the experts who happen to be hams hand down nice things like NOS to
us so we can play tcp/ip. But they have a family to feed so they sell 60
hours a week of their time to a business. Are you so above the rest of
the world you don't see this?


> --lyndon  VE7TCP/VE6BBM
>
> Put the EXPERIMENTAL back in the Amateur EXPERIMENTAL Service!
> -karl k5di

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 14:35:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Bruce Perens <[e-mail]>

On Sat, 20 Aug 1994, Bruce Perens wrote:

> 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.

    Then be sure you don't get into a position to must do or walk...


>
> 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.
    No problem with that. Still an Intel cpu but it smells a bit like
the unix you learned to love.

> 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.

    My wife is the same way. She doesn't PLAY with a computer, she
USES her computer.

>
> 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.

    I hope so Bruce. But who will port JNOS to a pure windows enviornment?

> 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
>
    Yes I wish I could spare $500 for a big HD. My wife Juanita says
"how big is my HD?". I say 120 mbyte. She says what the Hell do I need
1000 mbytes for? Discussion closed....hi

-karl

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 17:17:38 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: TCP digest <[e-mail]>

And as one final note on this topic, I found it coincidental that the
lead story on the cover of today's issue of COMPUTERWORLD ("Few mourn
DOS decline") states that not only is Microsoft giving up on MS-DOS, but
it seems that Novell DOS will be history, too. Quotes person after person
who says, basically, "No more MS-DOS, so what!".

To be fair, on the other side, look at Dvorak's column in today's PC
Magazine. He quotes figures from a research firm that show that 6 of the
top ten most widely used software applications are DOS-based.

Is there life left in MS-DOS? Depends on who you talk to, now doesn't it!


-----------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 Aug 94 21:13:49 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ron Atkinson  N8FOW)
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail]

Can someone send me a message when the DOS arguement is over and packet
radio is discussed again  so I know to start reading the group again?

Ron

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:22:04 +0100
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Ron Atkinson N8FOW <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Ron Atkinson N8FOW wrote:

> Can someone send me a message when the DOS arguement is over and packet
> radio is discussed again  so I know to start reading the group again?

Or how about TCP/IP?

-----------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 21:00:38 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers )
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail]

> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 14:35:35 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Klarsen <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Dos Computers
> To: Bruce Perens <[e-mail]>
> Cc: TCP digest <[e-mail]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Aug 1994, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>     Then be sure you don't get into a position to must do or walk...
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>     No problem with that. Still an Intel cpu but it smells a bit like
> the unix you learned to love.

"still an Intel CPU" ?? Arg!! Now the Intel bashing war will have
to start!!!

Arg!


By the way; running Solaris 2.4 here, I tend to forget I'm using just
an Intel CPU.

;-)

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 22:56:44 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail]

>    I hope so Bruce. But who will port JNOS to a pure windows enviornment?

Why bother? Several TCP/IP stacks are already available for Windows;
FTP Software's package and the excellent shareware Trumpet Winsock
among them. Works great on those rare occasions when I am forced to
use Windows. For me this is pretty much limited to accessing America
Online, which speaks a special application protocol over TCP/IP and
for which only Windows and Mac clients are available; no X versions
are yet available.

Yet even if I had a reason to want a Windows networking application to
talk TCP/IP over packet radio I could use Trumpet Winsock without
modification. That's because I have a dedicated machine running NOS
that handles radios and dialup SLIP connections, and it connects to
the Windows (and UNIX) machines via Ethernet.

This is what internetting is all about -- different machines running
different operating systems and different applications over different
networking media, all communicating easily and transparently with each
other because they all speak a common set of "middle layer"
protocols. In 1985 I chose to start implementing TCP/IP in what became
NOS because I knew that TCP/IP was going to be a winner in the "real
world", and that many other implementations would eventually appear
and be within reach of the average amateur. NOS was a way to quickly
bring multitasking TCP/IP to the average ham with the primitive
computers and operating systems we had available at the time.

Now that "native" TCP/IP is available for just about every modern
platform and OS, there is little reason to port NOS to these
platforms, or to port big existing applications over to NOS from these
platforms. But NOS still has a role in doing what it does best -
acting as a low-end standalone IP router with amateur packet radio
capabilities, and as a convenient base for protocol experimentation
and development. I never intended it to be the only TCP/IP package
ever used by amateurs, and despite my pride of authorship it bugs me
to see it used inappropriately.

Phil

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 22:58:01 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail]

>To be fair, on the other side, look at Dvorak's column in today's PC
>Magazine. He quotes figures from a research firm that show that 6 of the
>top ten most widely used software applications are DOS-based.

Hell, even Windows is DOS-based, if you consider that you first boot
DOS before you bring up Windows. DOS is simply the second-stage
bootstrap loader!

Phil

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

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:42:22 DST
From: Martin W Freiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail] (Lyndon Nerenberg)

> > Thanks Karl ! A good artical realy needed saying.
>
> >         We need to put this artical in at least once a month!
> >         so not to forget.
>
> In other words, "stop experimenting, because I {cannot afford, can't be
> bothered} to keep up."

If the use of newer and bigger tools were all it takes, research would
progress much faster. Processing power does not help in solving the
underlying networking problems we have now.

The experimental spirit of ham radio is a function of the mind first,
and the computer used for IP is just a tool.  Any tool that does the job
is the right tool for that job, be it called CP/M, Windows or Linux.

-Martin (and now, lets all flame me for using a TRS80 Model I with an S100-bus
 Z80-SCC card for packet :-)).

--
 Martin Freiss               | R&D computer center | [e-mail]
 Siemens Nixdorf Infosystems | Dept. MR OI 4       | NIC MF194
 Paderborn, Germany          | Phone [phone]
"The average pointer, statistically, points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 14:25:33 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Enough (fwd)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>Might I remind you all that this group is retransmitted in many
>places to AMPR. Please keep it down.

And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for
people actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking.
Emotions fly high at times among creative people; strong language is
occasionally necessary to express strong emotions.

If someone is gatewaying this list over amateur radio, it is HIS
responsibility to ensure that he doesn't transmit any language that
he might regret later.  It is not the charter of this group to
respect his restraints.

I don't mind that people retransmit this mailing list to other places,
perhaps via amateur radio.  But doing so is at their own risk.

As 'moderator' of this list, I encourage the free interchange of
thoughts and ideas.  I do not require that people censor themselves,
although I will remind all that reason often prevails when shouting
fails.  Speak as you see fit.
    - Brian

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

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 08:35:51 BST
From: Martin Lines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enough (fwd)
To: [e-mail]

Brian wrote:
>And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for
>people actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking.
>Emotions fly high at times among creative people; strong language is
>occasionally necessary to express strong emotions.

May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe
to Internet etc. Whilst I appreciate there are far worse corners of the
Internet there can be no real justification for some of the language I
have seen.

I suppose I will receive all sorts of language in flames for this one.

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:13:23 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Dave Alexander)
Subject: subscribe
To: [e-mail]

subscribe

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 12:34:31 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: unsubscribe
To: [e-mail]

unscribe tcp-group [e-mail]
unjoin tcp-group [e-mail]

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

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #181
******************************