Nate,
Good reply! this is all good stuff! A very good read
Oh, what do you think about those who try to improve the hobby (D-Star)
but look down on? Like the hams in Germany?
Will
Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
>
>> Nate,
>>
>> Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.
>>
>
> FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", none of which I am "spreading".
>
>> D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a
>> D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again,
>> DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be
>> foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.
>>
>
> That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when
> I turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like.
>
> If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not
> required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice
> if this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a
> network this large. Documentation from those who make the decisions,
> would be great. I've never seen any. Show us the way...
>
>> People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I
>> know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don’t
>> like its implementation. I don’t use it. I think that it is a
>> relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though
>> through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe
>> that Icom’s gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to
>> be utilized.
>>
>
> It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized,
> otherwise they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping
> it, would they? You read too much into things, Ed. I never said one or
> the other was "bad" or "good"... I said they both hase plusses and
> minuses, and that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and
> thus, how they did their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included
> D-PLUS. That's all well-known fact, after all. Note how they added
> MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS.
> Are they stupid? They know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust
> system. Or do you propose that they just ignored it? Why would they do
> that? Because... they don't care at all about it. That or they're
> hideously horrible engineers who aren't paying any attention at all...
> and I can't bring myself to say that.
>
> You judge. But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making
> radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing
> easier, they sure as hell could have added "linking memories" and
> other interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have
> to explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in
> Japan. They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen
> do lightly, nor engineers. Been there, seen that in my professional
> job, got the t-shirt.
>
> Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for
> their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they
> refused to allow D-PLUS on it. I was told it could NOT be put on
> Icom-operated demo gear, per Japan. I can dig up those e-mails if
> you'd like them too.
>
> Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS. I'm only going off of
> that fact. If you'd like to call them and get them to post
> documentation otherwise, again... feel free.
>
>> I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would
>> probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of
>> penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C
>> and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability
>> to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.
>>
>
> Now in this, we probably agree. D-STAR would have been dead without
> the ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage
> area to other areas with more activity.
>
> As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside
> one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep
> another for local traffic.
>
> Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these
> days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one.
>
> Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for
> "CQ" types of contacts. All completely normal.
>
> On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system...
> that's about the only difference. No one attempts low-speed data
> (other than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the
> purpose because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it. In
> fact, people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really. They
> want to mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide. That's fine, if
> that's your goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a
> LOT cheaper with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog.
>
> So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked analog system is
> fairly nil when linked. It offers nothing the other system doesn't do.
> (In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my
> breath for a voted D-STAR receier system)
>
>> By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?
>>
>
> I hang around here and answer the new people's questions. I take care
> of my Gateway and actually watch the logs when the Icom DB
> implementation barfs all over itself. I answer questions locally and
> register people with this moronic registration system we're all stuck
> with. I teach local classes on the topic when asked. I offer to set up
> fully-working systems at ARRL Conventions and get told by Icom to go
> pound sand. Is there more I should be doing, Ed? For Icom? Am I not
> raising the "one-true-banner" high enough for you and singing praises
> to the almighty D-STAR loud enough?
>
> You constantly tell me what you "think" about D-STAR. I don't see why
> you're so obsessed with refuting my opinions, which you do poorly I
> might add, unless you're threatened by them in some way. Do you run
> systems dependent on tax dollars for their existence, perhaps? That's
> my only guess... I have no idea.
>
> I have been doing computers and digital comm for so many years, I
> really don't care what system gets used... as long as it meets the
> communicators requirements. If D-STAR meets your requirements, great.
> If not, that's fine too. I certainly won't "scare anyone off" who's
> committed to learning this new technology, or already well entrenched
> in it (as yourself). I've got rigs, I know how to use them.
>
> But I have no aspirations to "push" the mode over any other...
> whatever works, is always the technology we need to use... we should
> know them all. Not be fan-boys of one particular one.
>
> Most of the folks here are jacks-of-all-trades and operate multiple
> repeater linking methods...
>
> This is a discussion forum about the mode. Here we discuss both the
> good AND the bad of it. If that bugs you, learn to tough it out, big
> boy. You keep attacking and spreading FUD about ME... and I'll
> continue to not care, 'cause you're WAY too engaged for a HOBBY.
>
> Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care,
> or even know, what D-STAR is... "Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing."...
> if you're lucky. I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch
> center in the Denver Metro area last night. No one there had even
> heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR.
>
> Someone managed to get a grant for a grand total of about 4-5 ID-1's
> in one city here. I recommended they try to do some real file
> transfers with ALL 5 units at the same time, and see how slow it is...
> so they can set appropriate procedures for the use of the rigs. Going
> through the Gateway isn't going to work for more than about 5 units
> simultaneously, and the data rates will fall so dramatically that
> they're going to wonder why they spent $1000 on each rig, I'm afraid.
> We'll see. Engineering analysis shows that's where it'll fall apart,
> It'll be nice to have more than two ID-1's in the entire Metro area --
> of 3.5 million people -- to try it out.
>
> 6 different ARES groups technically "own"/"operate" our repeater here.
> I haven't heard a single ARES Net on it yet...
>
> Nate WY0X
>
------------------------------------
Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original
message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
