My sentiments exactly. There is no "protocol" for APRS. It's merely a shell
which puts a wrapper on position info and stuffs that into a packet (dumbed
down explanation). As such there is NO technical reason why it or any AVM
system couldn't use existing packet networks to deliver the same data. SO, why
don't they? Because Bob doesn't want to play with the other kids. Period.
I for one would like to see a newer AVM technology developed and I believe the
Linux-Hams gang is just the group to do it. So, let's use this forum as sort
of an "RFC maker" and get some creative ideas on the table.
Any takers?
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Jeff King wrote:
<big snip>
>I never said that I wasn't amazed at what you and the other authors of APRS
>had accomplished. I am amazed and impressed. You are defensive about
>APRS, and seeing some of the comments on this list, I can understand why.
>I'm just suggesting, in a hopefully constructive way, you might want to
>occasionally step back and look at the underlying protocol of APRS,
>which frankly I don't think anyone has done that is in a "leadership"
>position in the so called APRS community. The PIC-E, coupled with
>the open source nature and resources of the Linux community is a good
>opportunity for this to happen. Don't be closed to this.
>
--
-------------------------------
James S. Kaplan KG7FU
Eugene Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rio.com/~kg7fu
Have YOU tried Linux today?
NAR# 74764
--------------------------------
