Steve Dimse wrote:
> On 4/4/99 2:50 PM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >Steve Dimse K4HG wrote:
> >
> >You might want to re-read the last message I sent you, I went into some
> >detail as to some easy things to improve APRS without any need to
> >"scrap" the protocol.
> >
> I didn't respond because I thought we had agreed to disagree.
Didn't ask you to respond, just asked you to read what I sent so I
don't have to endlessly repeat myself.
Or are you saying that the RF layer just doesn't matter? Then
you are right, we have agreed to disagree...
> While you
> get a woody designing and building a complex system that only you and a
> handful of your fellow technical elite are able to build and use,
What is your basis for this statement? Name what is "complex" about
anything I stated? Everything I stated or expanded upon in my last
message is basic packet radio stuff that was published in the 70's and 80's.
> I get
> off on using my skills to build something that the average ham can plug
> in and use. Even though I started as a techie, my experience as physician
> has given me a sensitivity for the needs of others. That is not to say
> that I do it out of altruism. Just like you, I do it for myself, because
> I enjoy it. Neither one of us is right or better than the other. Just
> different.
So what is wrong with making something that is both technically sound
*AND* that the average ham can use? You know, they are not mutually
exclusive. Knowingly promoting and expanding a system that is technically
flawed (hidden terminals, etc.), in my opinion, is being insensitive to the
needs
of others. The fellow with the 500mw HT should have just as much right
to use the system as does the fellow with a 100watt mobile. With hidden
terminals, the user with the most power wins.
As I have stated on a number of occasions, the authors of the various
APRS flavors should put some consideration into the transport layer.
I don't think this has been done. If they don't wish to do this, then they
shouldn't stand in the way, or attempt to suppress the efforts of those
that in good faith wish to improve things.
(on APRServe support for alternate RF transport methods)
>
> If it is no work on my part, then I don't have to support it, right ;-)
> Otherwise, I'm not going to make a blanket committment without seeing
> what you come up with and exactly what is involved in supporting it
What would be involved in supporting it would be disclosing the APRServe
protocol and answering a couple questions. By no work, I meant you
shouldn't have to write anymore code and you could expect those
writing the apps. to be able to read a protocol sheet.
However, my question was more to see if you are open to working with
others on a peer basis. It would be a shame to write a application to
gate PIC-E AAVL reports to APRServe unless you were willing to
accept these. Otherwise, a separate AAVL server should be written.
-Jeff
