| |
IK6ZDE > BBS 06.05.09 10:08l 137 Lines 5594 Bytes #999 (999) @ WW
BID : 65JIK6ZDE02B
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re^2: Packet Seems Alive to Me!
Path: IZ3LSV<IK6ZDE
Sent: 090506/0810z @:IK6ZDE.IMAR.ITA.EU [Marzocca JN63pq] OBcm1.07b3 LT:999
From: IK6ZDE @ IK6ZDE.IMAR.ITA.EU
To: BBS @ WW
X-Info: Sent with login password
From: VK2TV@VK2TV.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC
To : BBS@WW
>
>
>G6KUI wrote:-
>> From : G6KUI
>> To : BBS@WW
>> Type/status : B$
>> Date/time : 06-May 01:57
>> BID (MID) : 27544_G6KUI
>> Message # : 319685
>> Title : Re: Packet Seems Alive to Me!
>>
>> Path: !GB7LDI!N9PMO!ZL2BAU!GB7PZT!GB7MAX!GB7DBY!GB7DBY!
>>
>>
>> Tony G0WFV wrote....
>> }
>> } Definition of being "on packet"
>> }
>> } Is it...
>> }
>> } a) The ability to connect to the packet network (be that via RF or
>> } t'interweb) and peruse the bulletins, but not neccessarily send a great
>> } deal.
>> }
>> } b) Item a) plus a few SPs to a few friends who are also "on packet" just
>> } to keep in touch now and again when 80m isn't quite making the trip.
>> }
>> } c) Items a) and b) plus actively contributing to the bulletin discussions
>> } that are ongoing.
>> }
>> } d) Items a) through c) plus send out 3 or 4 useful bulletins to seed
>> } interest (thanks G8MNY - some of your technical bulls do catch my
>> } attention and are appreciated, which I believe is the point!)
>> }
>> ....................
The DXCluster and BBS sides of packet are fully integrated in various parts
>> of the country, with a lot of network nodes supporting both.
>> The DXCluster provides something that BBS cannot supply, and that is
>> "instant messaging", both private and public.
...................
>> So there you have it, Packet (Radio) is alive and kicking but invisible to
>> you unless you go out and look for it.
>>
>> 73, Pete G6KUI
>
>Hi Pete,
>
>I think my position in supporting and promoting packet is well known here,
>so I consider myself qualified to make comment on dead vs alive.
>
>I think packet is more dead than alive, but I think we'd be foolish to
>start digging the grave. Sure, the quantity of traffic has diminished, and
>some of what we see might be viewed as questionable by some, but we still
>have, in my opinion, a great tool for amateur radio. If only we could
>learn to use it wisely and productively!
>
>There's been many reasons put forward for the decline in packet popularity
>- cluttered networks (in days gone by), packet policemen, sysop
>censorship, offensive users, delivery speed, and so on. We've heard them
>all, over and over again. Are any of them valid? Maybe, or maybe not.
>Perhaps they're just excuses, and not reasons. Human nature being what it
>can be, it's often easier to come up with excuses than to face reality -
>I'm sick of packet but it will make me look better if I can lay the blame
>for my departure on some lame excuse, rather than just being honest. I
>believe that in many cases departure from packet was due to the fad
>passing. I tried it, I liked it, I stopped liking it - move on to a new
>toy.
>
>From a sysop's perspective it's certainly frustrating at times to be
>running four radio ports for the bbs/node and have just one local user on
>VHF and another one or two on HF. I forward with more bbs's than I have
>end-users, and most of thse bbs's have less users than I do. Sysops are a
>determined, optimistic mob.
>
>I have Rose (fpac) and/or Netrom networking to some overseas countries, as
>well as domestically. The Florida (USA) fpac network is quite extensive
>but I think they're light on for users, just as we are here. Still, the
>network is there for those who wish to try it. I'll keep plodding along
>for now with both the bbs/node and the three aprs ports (1 x VHF and 2 x
>HF) and Igate. It costs me somewhere in the vicinity of $200 a year for
>electricity to run the system 24/7 but since I don't frequent pubs or
>clubs and I don't gamble, my return on that investment is much greater
>than for those who do. It's entertainment, it's educational, it's self
>development, it's satisfying and it helps others. That's good value for
>$200/year.
>
>I've never been interested in DX and consequently haven't seriously
>considered a DXCluster, although my users have access to other clusters
>via the fpac/netrom network.
>
>Your comments on G8BPQ node software are interesting. A majority of FBB
>BBS's running under DOS or Windows also ran BPQ for TNC/modem interfacing,
>but only a small percentage were part of a netrom network, in VK. In the
>early days of packet our licencing authority deemed netrom to not comply
>with ident requirements and that caused the development of a serious Rose
>network in some states. However, netrom network development also took
>place, creating two isolated networks. There was also a small TCP/IP
>network, again, isolated. The licencing authority ruling didn't stop the
>development of netrom networks and nobody was ever cautioned or punished
>for using netrom, to my knowledge. Most netrom networking was X1J or JNOS
>and, later, Linux, rather than BPQ, which would appear to be different to
>the UK experience. Back when I ran FBB 5.15C under DOS (1996 - 1998), and
>also under Win95 (1998/1999) I also ran BPQ and it was faultless, which is
>more than I could say about Win95. I moved to Linux in 1999 and no longer
>had a need for BPQ.
>
>DXClusters aren't the only "invisible" aspects of packet, there is still
>the chance to do some network hopping, "if you go out and look for it".
>
>Maybe I've reached 6k but I don't care, the network is more than able to
>handle ten times that.
>
>Cheers ... Ray vk2tv
To Ray and all other hams talking about packet....
I agree with you..
Thanks for singing that love song to packet radio!
Don't stop keeping alive Packet!
Fabrizio ik6zde
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
