Re: [AFMUG] Test test

[Keefe John]

My last message in this thread took two days to show up.

Keefe

On March 18, 2018 11:34:52 AM CDT, Jay Weekley  
wrote:
>Same here.
>
>Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Is this thing on? Messages seem to be being delayed by days.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [AFMUG] testing

[Matt Hoppes]

Huh. But amazon is such a reliable platform. 

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 14:00, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
>> On 3/15/18 6:32 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>> I posted two items and they haven't made to list in two days.  Must be 
>> Russians or Aliens.
> 
> Nothing I'm sending has been showing up that I can tell.

Re: [AFMUG] Test test

[Jay Weekley]

I am sending this at 11:41am on 3/18/2018.

Jay Weekley wrote:

Same here.

Matt Hoppes wrote:

Is this thing on? Messages seem to be being delayed by days.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [AFMUG] -48 VDC supply needed

[Josh Baird]

https://www.alpha.ca/solutions/solutions-alpha-catalog/standard-systems/dc-power-solutions/item/cordex-psu

~$800 or so for the -48VDC/650W version.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:02 AM,  wrote:

> Looking for universal input (AC 85-240 volts)
> Isolated 48 VDC output.  1.5 amp continuous.
> I can go din rail, prefer not to.  There is always meanwell.
> Pricy...
>

Re: [AFMUG] Test test

[Chuck McCown]

I wrote a snail mail emulation package and applied it to the list serv so we 
could have a vintage experience here...


-Original Message- 
From: Seth Mattinen

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Test test

On 3/16/18 13:35, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Is this thing on? Messages seem to be being delayed by days.



I sent a couple messages the other day and haven't seen any of them yet.
Maybe I won't make it either. 

Re: [AFMUG] Test test

[Jaime Solorza]

Chuck and I traded emails this weekend because of this issue.  Must be
Aliens

Jaime Solorza

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 9:24 AM  wrote:

> I noticed that too on my posting to the list.  I get one copy immediately
> then another much later.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 2:35 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Test test
>
> Is this thing on? Messages seem to be being delayed by days.
>
>

[AFMUG] List Delay

[Chuck McCown]

On one of my most recent postings there was a 40 hour delay between posting and 
listing.  

Re: [AFMUG] Require Recent Web Browser?

[Paul Stewart]

Yes – can’t stress enough what Sean is saying here…. Customers need to keep up, 
the applications/services/software should not need to slow down because of a 
small number of customers who won’t keep current.  Those same customers will be 
the one who call your technical support to complain that their online banking 
doesn’t work as well 

 

 

From: Sean Heskett 

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:14 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Require Recent Web Browser?

 

Use modern technologies.  Your customer base is tech savvy enough and should 
not be using old browsers and if they are then too bad.

 

2 cents

 

-sean

 

 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:49 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) 
 wrote:

A bit of a survey here 

 

A couple of features I'm looking at for current/future products would be much 
easier to implement using a certain feature found only in relatively new web 
browsers, aka, Chrome/Firefox/Edge updated within the last year.

 

One specific browser feature I'm looking at is webassembly.  Various tools out 
there indicate that around 87% of the installed/active browsers on the internet 
are recent enough for native support.   Most of the browsers gained support for 
this feature early to mid last year.   With autoupdates being the rule instead 
of the exception, anyone on a recent auto-updating web browser should support 
this.  I'm mostly concerned about 'the rest'.

 

Support for the older browsers is possible, but it adds a level of complexity 
(specifically a level of testing) which I would prefer not to do if I could get 
away without it. 

 

To be clear:  Almost all of the functionality of the upcoming products won't 
require these functions.  A specific example of something that might require 
this is setting up the scripting functionality as I'm looking at various 
technologies which would work best if I could run a chunk of webassembly code 
in the browser as part of the code editor.  However, other than editing a 
script, the rest of the functionality would work fine.

 

Thoughts?

 

-- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.Tel: 406-449-3345 | 
Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com  

[AFMUG] Cambium LTE

[Matt Hoppes]

What’s known about the Cambium LTE product so far?

Re: [AFMUG] Require Recent Web Browser?

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I remember when lynx was an acceptable Web browser.  But again I also
remember when the Web didn't exist and it was email, ftp, telnet, and
gopher.

On Mar 18, 2018 12:35 AM,  wrote:

> As long as netscape still works I am good.
>
> *From:* Sean Heskett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:14 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Require Recent Web Browser?
>
> Use modern technologies.  Your customer base is tech savvy enough and
> should not be using old browsers and if they are then too bad.
>
> 2 cents
>
> -sean
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:49 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> A bit of a survey here
>>
>> A couple of features I'm looking at for current/future products would be
>> much easier to implement using a certain feature found only in relatively
>> new web browsers, aka, Chrome/Firefox/Edge updated within the last year.
>>
>> One specific browser feature I'm looking at is webassembly.  Various
>> tools out there indicate that around 87% of the installed/active browsers
>> on the internet are recent enough for native support.   Most of the
>> browsers gained support for this feature early to mid last year.   With
>> autoupdates being the rule instead of the exception, anyone on a recent
>> auto-updating web browser should support this.  I'm mostly concerned about
>> 'the rest'.
>>
>> Support for the older browsers is possible, but it adds a level of
>> complexity (specifically a level of testing) which I would prefer not to do
>> if I could get away without it.
>>
>> To be clear:  Almost all of the functionality of the upcoming products
>> won't require these functions.  A specific example of something that might
>> require this is setting up the scripting functionality as I'm looking at
>> various technologies which would work best if I could run a chunk of
>> webassembly code in the browser as part of the code editor.  However, other
>> than editing a script, the rest of the functionality would work fine.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> 
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] -48 VDC supply needed

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

There are 2A ones (actually 2.5A) on the PacketFlux Web site if you can
stand a laptop style one.

On Mar 18, 2018 2:02 AM,  wrote:

> Looking for universal input (AC 85-240 volts)
> Isolated 48 VDC output.  1.5 amp continuous.
> I can go din rail, prefer not to.  There is always meanwell.
> Pricy...
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa confirms the USA is weird

[Bill Prince]

5/16" is 0.3125". That maps to .793cm or 7.93mm.

Call it 8mm and be done.

bp


On 3/17/2018 3:33 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
So... I'm Canadian and mix metric and us units all the time. But isn't 
it weird to have a combination of metric and US in one piece of hardware?


http://backhaul.help.mimosa.co/backhaul-install-b24-installation-mounting-alignment

10mm *and *a 5/16"?

This will drive Europeans nuts.

At least with a radiowaves 1' or 2' dish you know it is all SAE and to 
forget the metric tools...

Re: [AFMUG] Require Recent Web Browser?

[Steve Jones]

Ditto this, as expected... as in doesnt do something ot shouldnt

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 10:58 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> As I see it, the only time it might be a problem, is if I'm using a field
> laptop that lives in the truck and doesn't get updated very often... but as
> long as the basic functions work with old browsers, it really shouldn't be
> a big deal.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about the 5-10% of people running old browsers. It's easy to
>> tell customers to use a modern browser to gain full functionality. It's
>> easy and free to upgrade browsers.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A bit of a survey here
>>>
>>> A couple of features I'm looking at for current/future products would be
>>> much easier to implement using a certain feature found only in relatively
>>> new web browsers, aka, Chrome/Firefox/Edge updated within the last year.
>>>
>>> One specific browser feature I'm looking at is webassembly.  Various
>>> tools out there indicate that around 87% of the installed/active browsers
>>> on the internet are recent enough for native support.   Most of the
>>> browsers gained support for this feature early to mid last year.   With
>>> autoupdates being the rule instead of the exception, anyone on a recent
>>> auto-updating web browser should support this.  I'm mostly concerned about
>>> 'the rest'.
>>>
>>> Support for the older browsers is possible, but it adds a level of
>>> complexity (specifically a level of testing) which I would prefer not to do
>>> if I could get away without it.
>>>
>>> To be clear:  Almost all of the functionality of the upcoming products
>>> won't require these functions.  A specific example of something that might
>>> require this is setting up the scripting functionality as I'm looking at
>>> various technologies which would work best if I could run a chunk of
>>> webassembly code in the browser as part of the code editor.  However, other
>>> than editing a script, the rest of the functionality would work fine.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> 
>>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Epmp 3000

[Jerry Head]

I would take it in a heartbeat.
900mhz.

On 3/13/2018 7:11 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
To be fair by the time Cambium (really Motorola) gave up there was 
very little point left in it.   Having a 450AP slow down enough to 
talk to a 2X FSK radio at 14Mbps meant you might as well not put up a 
450AP.    We are finding it painful to have 430SM’s on 450 AP’s for 
the same reason and are having to pull those off the network due to 
the capacity hit on the AP’s.  It’s nice that we can do that 
gradually, but there is no way I would want to have FSK SM’s on a 450i 
or 450m AP.


Mark

On Mar 12, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Matt Mangriotis 
> wrote:


We’re good at it… we can’t work miracles!

Matt
*From:*Af >*On 
Behalf Of*Josh Luthman

*Sent:*Monday, March 12, 2018 11:04 AM
*To:*af@afmug.com 
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Epmp 3000
*cough* FSK and OFDM combo with integrated GPS *cough*

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Justin Wilson > wrote:


FYI, Cambium is very good at this.  Look at the 400 series.  430
would connect to 450 which gave longer life to the 430s.  You
didn’t get all the cool features of the 450, but the clients
worked.  ePMP is following the same philosophy.  If anyone out
there is wanting to try ePMP can hook you up with some great
promotions. I am certified Cambium consultant and have some
pretty cool options for folks new to ePMP.
Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net 
www.mtin.net


www.midwest-ix.com




On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Darin Steffl
> wrote:
This is from the horse's mouth. It says Q1 for compatibility
with ePMP 2000.
This document is from January though so maybe that firmware
will be a little later like Q2.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Mike Hammett
> wrote:

In Vegas it wouldn't, but they must have agreed to make
it happen. Hopefully that's not the reason behind the delay.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions




Midwest Internet Exchange