Ronen wrote:
> Idont understand the huge objection you all have for facebook its much better you can post Photos Videos files ETC
In 25 years being involved with net 44, I don't ever remember a photo or video being required.
I cannot think of any way that it is better than a concise archive of technical text which is searchable
and cached onto my PC as a mail file. It can't be manipulated or deleted without my consent.
I don't wish to be exploited/monetised so will not do business with Facebook. Reminder:
https://notallbits.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/facebookandyou.jpg
Therefore I shall not consider visiting any Facebook material.
Jason G7OCD
Except that it excludes all of us that don't use facebook from those discussions, which seems like a high price to pay for a formatting change.
Josh
-------- Original message --------
From: Lin Holcomb <LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com>
Date: 11/09/2017 12:46 (GMT+10:00)
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] New Facebook Group
Brian,
It is a much cleaner discussion format than email.
Lin
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
> I think this was a bad idea.
> - Brian
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:24:38PM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
> > I've put up a new group on Facebook, called "AmprNet." The title is short
> > and to the point, but doesn't call out our IPv4 history.
> >
> > Feel free to join and comment.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill W4EWH
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
> Well Bill, what has happened is that USENET has condensed into
> a few central sites exchanging the articles, and accepting subscriptions
> from people who still want to read/post to the newsgroups. It's the
> distributed model that's died.
But that is just the "story of the internet". It has happened to (almost)
all services on internet. Even e-mail, traditionally a very distributed
service, is now mostly offered by a few central sites like gmail.com and
outlook.com/hotmail.com.
Sure, in implementation those central sites still often are distributed
(being hosted in many different datacenters on many servers all serving the
same domain name), but it no longer is the big peer-to-peer network that
it once was. This also explains the slow take-off of IPv6: there is rarely
a need anymore for a different address for everyone.
Rob
Hi guys,
Could you please check if your email clients do support threads
properly? At least some of you are using ones that do not answer in a
same thread but create a new one. For me it makes this list unreadable
and a whole mailbox cluttered.
I'm looking mostly at (random order, just what I've came across) Daniel
Curry, Steve L and Rob Janssen, but it's important that we all keep the
high standards ;)
--
All the best
Paweł SQ9PID
I was working at Sun Micro system with Sunos 3.2 and up to Solaris 4.x.
That thing I did not like about 3.2 and 3.5 is that you had to mount the
ND partion user home directory to fixed a problem. There was no CD
directory command.
--
Daniel Curry
California American Legion Amateur Radio
Area 2 Commission and Chairman.
US Air Force Veteran
IPV6 Sage Certified
PGP: AD5A 96DC 7556 A020 B8E7 0E4D 5D5E 9BA5 C83E 8C92
San Francisco/Silicon Valley AmprNet Co-coordinator [44.4.0.0/16]
For those of you who are or have been users of the Solaris OS, you
should find the following article interesting. Among other things,
it once again points out some of the advantages of open source.
http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-life-of…
I mention this because there are those who have the impression that
'amprgw' is running on Solaris. It is not; it never has. It ran on the
predecessor, SunOS, for some years, but has been running on FreeBSD for
a long time.
- Brian
Lin,
Some time back I picked up a pair of Gemini G3 Dataradios on ebay,
hoping to be able to use them. I quickly learned they really cannot
be used point to point, and you need the expensive base station to act
as a controller between them.
I swear I have read that some models of the radios are capable of
point to point/ peer to peer use. Do you or anyone else know which
models would be good candidates for such a thing?
I ended up giving them to a friend who documented them the best he could:
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gemini/index.html
> Y'know, there is some relevance in a significantly asynchronous circuit
> with this stuff.
I think the correct label is "asymmetric" but many people call it "asynchronous"...
> Put the High speed TX on the top of the mountain and have it push high
> speed frames in broadcast or multicast mode whilst the outlying stations
> listen to the stream and write down the packets relevant to them.
This is of course what I had in mind. We don't have any mountains here but we
have a 3cm ATV repeater at 220m in a broadcast tower transmitting a DVB multiplex
where we could use some bandwidth (or e.g. the bandwidth remaining after the
several variable-rate encoded ATV channels have had their share) to transmit
IP over DVB. Both broadcast/multicast traffic (like IPTV streams from the repeater) and
traffic to a single endpoint (after all, we do not hide traffic from eachother).
The return channel could be much slower indeed, depending on the kind of traffic
and the required return traffic. Maybe even a 9600+ baud packet link, or one of
those newly developed 70cm links of about 400kHz width.
At the moment the repeater is not operating, but we are working on getting it back
on the air.
Rob
While I applaud Ron's experiments, it would have a very long road to
becoming something practical for the masses. Heck I can say the same
for the NWDigital radio. They have been trying for quite some time to
make the thing happen. I fear by the time either would come to
fruition, the whole market / tech landscape could be different. (I.e,
56k is not as appealing at the price point as it was 10 years ago when
they started, etc)
As for the ARRL, I am the only one who pounces on their staff
virtually every chance I get (at ham fests and by email), about
getting some of these changes though their heads? I think a
coordinated approach, can help our cause. In addition, anyone can
make comment directly to the FCC. How seriously they take things
without someone waving money in their face is a whole another issue.
I wrote this paper quite some time ago, that covers quite a few of the issues:
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/70cm-ATV-HSMM.html
Basically they way I see it, one has three ways to experiment:
1.) Pay for/file for a STA, which gives you 6 months
2.) Include some element of image transfer, so what your doing can be
classified as an image transmission rather than data. (most
logical/easiest to do)
3.) Develop a data mode that uses multiple carriers, as each carrier
can be 100 KHz wide.
#3 is something I joked with friends about when I was in high school.
That was long before SDR, so we envisioned taking a few TNC's and
radio's on different frequencies, RF combiners and tons of filters to
make it actually work, and from there channel bond/load balance all
the data streams to achieve better throughput.
Do we have anyone who holds a ARRL position on this list?
Steve, KB9MWR
Mark Phillips <g7ltt at g7ltt.com> wrote:
>
>"Maybe someone at ARRL ...."
>
>Ha! Funny.
>
>It's been many folks' experience that the ARRL does nothing that is not in
>its own interest. Unless they can be persuaded that XYZ technology is good
>for them and Ham Radio they won't lift a finger. It should also be noted
>that the ARRL speaks for less than 20% of the US ham population (see
>membership figures posted in QRZ). We are 700K+ hams here in the US. ARRL
>has less than 100K members. That said, they are the only group able to
>engage the FCC and push for changes etc. It's an expensive proposition!
> Setting up a NNTP server is easy in JNOS. Pretty tricky on Linux...
Actually it is easy, just "apt-get install inn" and editing a couple of config files.
Of course you first need to understand the architecture of USENET and the INN software
but there is documentation available. It is comparable to the complexity of configuring
JNOS when you have not done that before.
Rob
