On 4/4/99 8:37 PM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Steve Dimse wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Complex here is relative to the APRS system currently used. Virtually any
ham can put up a digi or install a tracker as they are currently
implemented in APRS.
Complex means a system where ther user has to go into a radio, and solder
a PIC onto the PLL chip. Complex is 9600/440 digi stacked with a 1200/2m.
Complex is a mobile that listens on 440 for dgps and busy tones and then
transmits on 2 meters.
>
>> 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.
Nothing is wrong with that, but that isn't the attitude you have
expressed over the last week:
-----
On 3/31/99 2:32 AM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Least common denominator factor again, aye? Tough. This is supposed to
>be a technical hobby so I have no pity for those that want to remain in the
>backwaters. Just get out of my way.
>
On 4/1/99 1:53 AM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>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.
On 4/1/99 1:53 AM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Hmmm..... this sounds like a Gateism... Anyways, lets make something
>clear. I'm in the hobby for _*ME*_ not the average user.
>
--------
>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 think this is a bit harsh. Bob, Kantronics, PacComm, and others have
put a lot of thought into the "network" design. Yes, it is a single
frequency and that disqualifies it from being called a network in your
opinion. Yes, it operates at a different layer than you would use, but it
uses technology that already existed. The goal was to produce a system
that had good enough functionality, and still was cheap and easy. It
wasn't to produce the best possible system regardless of complexity or
cost.
>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.
>
I haven't seen or heard anyone suppressing or standing in the way of any
transport layer development. But then, I haven't seen any working
systems. A lot of talk the last week, but talk is cheap. If you produce
something that works, and it gets unfairly trashed by someone, then you
have a reason to complain. But to throw out a bunch of ideas and expect
people to adopt a technology that doesn't yet exist is a little
unrealistic, don't you think?
I would love to see you or someone else come up with something better
than exists now. I just don't think you can do it without requiring more
time, money, and skill than hams are willing and able to expend. Please,
prove me wrong! (Hint...words aren't going to prove it, at least to me!)
>(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.
>
There is no separate protocol for APRServe. It is simply lines of text as
they come out of the TNC's, the usual APRS format packets that the client
programs already understand. KISS...
>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.
>
If the data is compatible with the present data, as you seem to imply it
will be (it has to be if there isn't going to be programming required),
then it is welcome. There are several authors who are not "Official APRS
Authors", who have written IGate, server, or client software, which is in
constant use via APRServe. aprsd is the one most significant to this
discussion. I spent a long time with Dale going over the inner workings
of APRServe so that his program was fully compatible, as he includes the
bidirectional messaging and filtering functions of APRServe which are not
particularly easy to understand.
However if your data is not compatible, then it is better placed on
another server. This really would be a simple task, as aprsd is open
source, and you could could adapt it to your needs.
Furthermore, XMLserve would be a great way to link two incompatible
systems together were that to be necessary.
Steve K4HG
