Greetings:
Steve Dimse wrote:
>
> No APRS isn't a kludge. It is hundreds of kludges tied together into a
> working system. As I said before, if you could throw everything out and
> start all over, you could to a lot of things better.
Well, this is the place to do it. It certainly won't happen on APRSSIG.
> But unless you hit
> the lotto and are willing to share, it isn't likely to happen.
With a few leaders and many followers, this certainly could be the case. But
I really think you are overestimating the resistance of the installed base. If that
was the case, we'ed all still be using AM. The hobby has had many evolutionary
changes without requiring a powerball winner to front the cash.
> 9600 baud channel. Of course, since most hams are too cheap or unskilled
> to make the leap to 9600, it hasn't caught on.
Your hanging out with the wrong kind of people.
<Lots of stuff deleted>
>
> >backwaters. Just get out of my way.
> >
> I'm not standing in your way, I wish you nothing but the best. Clearly
> I'm different that you, I am a pragmatist.
<Lots more stuff deleted>
Say, lets just agree to disagree, OK? I don't think you have much interest
in the lower level workings of packet radio, and that's OK. For the most
part I have little interest in the bells and whistles end user applications, I
get a woody seeing a efficient well thought out RF network. Needless to
say, APRS needs some Viagra in this regard :-) Nothing I, or any other
person that has a interest in making the lower layers of packet radio
(of which APRS is a part of) will likely affect your applications, they
will make it better. So lighten up, and don't be so defensive.
>
> >
> >Yes, in certain cases. Its called a packet radio network.
> >
> Yes, and node stacks work because every packet going through them has a
> route. It would break down if every packet coming in had to be sent out
> all ports. This arrangement is what APRS uses. So my question to you is
> how do you plan to filter and route APRS data?
Even a simple dual port digi would do wonders without requiring any
changes. I believe Mykle Raymond suggested in his message (see my
posting APRS hidden terminals) to take lans off of 144.39 for local
users in metro areas.
Also, one other thought, again requiring no changes, is to use AXIP
encapsulation to pipe the "digipeated" packets to a central node
for distribution via a broadcast method. The advantage to this
is you would be assured they reached you central metro node
without being dropped, but the end users on the metro lans would
not know the difference. It could be made to work both ways. Each
user on the metro lan would "see" whatever the 1000 foot tower
did, without actually being a hidden terminal on 144.39.
You also can use a busy tone on your big hidden terminal 1000 foot
digi. Put fill time DGPS on a 440 simplex frequency at the digi site.
Also, multiplex a "BUSY" tone (maybe the 75 or 5 baud mode on the
MX-COM 614). Then give each of your users a PIC-E to both
decode the 440 full time DGPS *and* to hear the BUSY TONE
from your big massive 1000 foot digipeater. That way, even the poor
saps with the 500 mw HT's could get into your big massive 1000 foot
digipeater without having to run 10-20 watts.
And then extending and/or creating a better lower layer broadcast
protocol could help in the longrun as well.
> >> Computer tunable mobile radios aren't common or cheap.
> >
> >They are very common. Most PLL chips today are addressable,
> >either using SPI or I2C.
>
> The chips are common, the radios are not. Name the 2 meter mobile radios
> that can be tuned by computer.
I challenge you to name a modern one that CAN'T. I think you misunderstood.
I was assuming since you can program a PIC, you were not afraid to twiddle
bits. Almost all modern PLL's today are programmable either via a SPI or
I2C bus. Hang a PIC on it.... granted, might not be the most user friendly thing
but its a start. My first spread spectrum experiments were on a hacked up
ICOM 2AT (aka AMRAD experiments) so fear of touching radio guts is not
a issue with me.
Someone has to do it first..... if its done then all of a sudden it will become
common place and the manufactures will begin to offer it.
>
> Data HT. Telling people they have to buy a new radio isn't going to set
> well with them!
Again, we are different. The hobby costs money. If you can't pay, you
can't play. Anyways, a bit of technical knowledge goes a long way in
saving money. I have little patience for appliance operators and its not
why I got into the hobby. I'm a experimenter and will always be one.
>
> >> stations. So there are lots of BandAids that can be used.
> >
> >NO NO NO NO, at least not on the LINUX ham's list. These guys can
> >actually do it right. That's the beauty of open source, others can look at
> >your
> >code, critique it, fix it, patch it, make it better. The success of KA9Q NOS
> >was mostly due to its open source nature. APRS is not this way and it clearly
> >shows.
> >
> That is why Linux (in general, not just ham-Linux) so far has remained a
> server tool and geek playground.
Right, we are on the Linux-hams list, aren't we?
> More attention needs to be paid to the
> average user's experience.
Hmmm..... this sounds like a Gateism... Anyways, lets make something
clear. I'm in the hobby for _*ME*_ not the average user.
> You can sit here and perform mental
> masterbation about how you can double and triple channel capacity, but if
> it means spending $500, or holding a soldering iron, your system will go
> largely unused.
Well, masturbation is not really a team sport anyways...
> Like I said, I have a different focus, on the user. I
> think it ain't cool unless people use it!
I never said I didn't want people to use something, I agree it is cool.
I just know it would bother me if I was the author/creator/supporter
of a system that was a kludge, that's all. I think there is nothing wrong
with seeking technical excellence at all levels. Clearly the user interface
of the various APRS flavors is impressive. I think it is no crime to want
to improve some of the "unseen" layers of it.
> I'm talking about digi sites that have to add another radio, filters, and
> antenna.
Sorry, I missed that. I was thinking of the end users and your earlier comment that
they wouldn't change. (which really amounted to them putting in a new firmware)
>
> by adding lots of special cases, which I abhor. I would love to trash the
> whole thing and do it right.
>
> The problem is that from practical standpoint you just can't do that.
So, your saying if someone comes up with there own extension and/or new
protocol you won't support it on APRSserve? I'd say your labor to support
it would be little to none as your up at the application layer.
> There are too many people involved in APRS to start over.
APRS really is just an application. I'm not talking about the application so it
may not be as hard as you think.
> We still get
> people who whine because they are using a 6 year old version of APRSdos,
> and it isn't working right because the protocol changes.
Ahhh....... OK. Kill them.
> There are almost
> a thousand owners of the Kenwood HTs that would need to upgrade.
The thing does have flash, doesn't it?
> There
> are more than a thousand users of the Mic-E and MIM that would need to
> upgrade.
A PIC16C73B costs about $4 or so on www.netbuy.com. BTW, I've never seen
more then about 10 MIMS on APRS server, what's the deal?
> How many thousands of TNC's?
I pick 27C256's out of the garbage, I think they are what, about $3 or so new?
Anyways, we all moved from AX.25 level one to AX.25 level two (and the
Germans are using DAMA) without to many hams kicking the bucket..
> The APRS authors are pragmatists like me.
And to think I saw all those cool naked chicks on your web site. I was hoping
some of them were APRS authors ;-)
> They aren't going to be willing
> to disrupt the user experience just to make the protocol more elegant or
> cooler.
I keep getting distracted by the term "user experience". I know your serious
but I'm not used to seeing something like that associated with a hobby,
my automotive marketing buddies use that term alot. Mostly to justify
the worthless crap they add to cars so they can charge more. But I digress....
> Any such major overhaul would need to add some major improvements
> in functionality to justify itself. If you think your ideas can promise
> this, then I urge you to present them.
No, seriously, I really think you are overestimating the amount of changes
the APRS end user application authors would have to make. For the most
part I'm discussing lower layer issues that largely would be transparent
to the application developers such as yourself.
> As to my alleged aversion to open source,
Fine, but I wasn't the one grilling you about this. That was someone
in another thread. I just made a general statement.
Steve, I seriously enjoyed this and am not sure we can take it any further
then to agree to disagree on what we don't see eye to eye on and to
help each other when we can.
Best regards,
Jeff King wb8wka
