On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Steve Meuse wrote:
> >FWIW I would much prefer an ethernet TNC, sort of a router with one or
> >more radio ports...
> >
> >Geoff
>
> Using ethernet is not worthwhile if you expect to send IP frames over ether
> to the TNC. It's not *like* a router, it *is* a router, which means you
> need an IP stack, and hey! You are now off the topic of this thread!!
>
> Building an IP stack into a TNC, just to accept frames from a linux box,
> seems like a huge waste of time. However, if you plan on using ethernet, on
> a lower level, just to send frames to the TNC, well, I might agree that it
> would be interesting.
>
> I'll put my $.02 in, and state that I would prefer to see something USB based.
>
> That said, I'm not knocking firewire, but, market penetration is nill at
> the moment. I wouldn't think designing a product to use a technology that
> 'may' be popular soon, is such a great Idea.
>
> Then again, as usual, I could be wrong :)
Hmm, I must admit to being a little tongue-in-cheek here, I could imagine
such an ethernet ported TNC could have a 486 processor, a couple of
8530's, a few MB of ram, and a hard drive, and run Linux :-)
However, I do have problems with a USB port - none of the PC's here,
except the laptop have a USB port - and as somebody else said, it is not
viable (cost wise) to use a new PC for radio. I would much rather put
together an old 486 with a USCC card and hide it in a corner.
Geoff
--
Geoff Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux 2.0.36
Chelmsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] sparc - i586
Intel create faster processors - Microsoft create slower processes
