| } > I hope someone good at programing gets interested and writes
| } > a driver for Pactor in Linux. I get my Internet e-mail on Linux and
PLUSTERM/PRPTO runs under Linux in a DOSEMU shell. Suggest you
use the Linux console for best ANSI presentation.
| } (http://www.halcomm.com/). Th
Karl, I own a ptc-II and would not trade it for the world. Data
transfer is twice as fast as any pactor 1 device. It hears and
copies perfectly when I can not even hear the signal. I had to
have my arms twisted pretty hard to spend the money, but let me tell
you it was not a mistake.
It is a fa
Jeff King wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
JK> Quite off topic, but can you recommend any reading material on
JK> FEC. I am looking for a small implementation of FEC for a PIC
JK> microprocessor if you had any 'C' examples that would be
JK> great.
Sorry about the delayed response.
> From: Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FEC, was Re: Digital Modes (was A dose of reality)
> [...]
> Quite off topic, but can you recommend any reading material on FEC. I am
> looking for a small impl
> Is this related to the apparent problem that DAMA master aledgedly cannot be
> done in Linux because the DCD line isn't accessible?
Not as such, DAMA is separate to FlexNet although I too see them as being two parts
of a common whole. But as such, DAMA doesn't imply FlexNet and FlexNet doesn't
On 15-Mar-99 Jonathan NAYLOR wrote:
> I wanted to add FlexNet to Linux a few years ago, and all I got was a
> particularly
> horrible brick wall. In fact the brick wall I got was particularly racist
> in
> character
> I remember. So I decided to do ROSE instead, after discounting Texnet as
> bein
Depends on which part of FlexNet you're interested in 8-)
The AX.25 header compression is documented fairly well
in the flexnet sysop manual, which you can fetch at
every major ham fair in the region (including Friedrichshafen,
Weinheim and Darmstadt).
I've written a description of the internode
Sorry for the delay, I was away in the UK when you replied.
> Jonathan, this is unnecessary flamebait.
Is it ?
> While the FlexNet implementation source code is unavailable,
> the protocol is simple and obviously known enough that
> there exist at least 3 independent implementations.
OK, simpl
On 10-Mar-99 Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>Hi Nate. Another example is the DX Cluster. A Ham made his money
> selling the software with the buyer's callsign inbedded into the binary.
> That way no sharing software. Well after a few years it stopped selling so
> he announced it will no longer be
On 10-Mar-99 Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>
> Hi Nate. Another example is the DX Cluster. A Ham made his money
> selling the software with the buyer's callsign inbedded into the binary.
> That way no sharing software. Well after a few years it stopped selling so
> he announced it will no longer b
Fred_deBros wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
TS> Mike Bilow wrote:
MB> experience has shown that it provokes religious arguments,
MB> but the math is clear.
TS> Eh? That sounds interesting, can you please provide the math?
TS> Tom
Fd> Ah here we go! Everybody take their seat, the cu
Thomas Sailer wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
> FSK and PSK are essentially the same thing as far as this issue
> goes, and you can regard FSK as a special case of PSK. I don't
> want to get into this issue in detail because experience has
> shown that it provokes religious arguments, but
Karl F. Larsen wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
KFL>Mike those very hard words we heard from Hank W0RLI and
KFL> others were not born of a technical consideration, they were
KFL> from money basis. I am not at all sure CLOVER works as well as
KFL> the users would have us believe, but
Mike Bilow wrote:
>
> No, the protocol is abysmal. FEC and ARQ are essential to reliable HF data
> communications.
Hi Mike:
Quite off topic, but can you recommend any reading material on FEC. I am looking
for a small implementation of FEC for a PIC microprocessor if you had any 'C'
example
My my my...but aren't we opinionated? When someone makes a statement as to how
they view something we pat each other on the back in some sort of a mutual
admiration or brotherly ritual if we happen to agree with them. All for one,
one for all. However, If we happen to (heaven forbid) disag
Mike Bilow wrote:
>>experience has shown that it provokes religious arguments,
> but the math is clear.
Eh? That sounds interesting, can you please provide the math?
Tom
Ah here we go! Everybody take their seat, the curtain is going to raise. On
the left we have Tom "Ayatolla since years" from
Mike Bilow wrote:
> FSK and PSK are essentially the same thing as far as this issue goes, and you
> can regard FSK as a special case of PSK. I don't want to get into this issue
> in detail because experience has shown that it provokes religious arguments,
> but the math is clear.
Eh? That sound
Mike those very hard words we heard from Hank W0RLI and others
were not born of a technical consideration, they were from money basis. I
am not at all sure CLOVER works as well as the users would have us
believe, but since the protocal was held secret you could only find out by
buying a C
w7ntf wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
w> While we are on the topic of proprietary software, remember
w> the big flap in the 80's with a company called
w> SOFTWARE-2000, and their proprietary network node firmware
w> called NETROM (C) ? When Nord> something with all of the atrributes of N
Nate Bargmann wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
> An interesting side issue of this, at least with respect to the UK amateur
> radio licence, is that we are forbidden to transmit codes and ciphers.
NB> Actually we here in the U.S.A. have the same restriction.
NB> Essentially here, it boils
Ron Stordahl wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
RS> I have been reading this thread and wondering if a
RS> description, a user level description would be fine, of the
RS> various modes you have been discussing. Pactor, Pactor I,
RS> Pactor II, Clover, etc.
Basically, they are various scheme
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Tim Salo wrote:
> We should all applaud those who make their object code, source code,
> protocol specifications, and/or documentation freely available. But,
> we shouldn't feel we have a right to insist that everyone ought to
> make their intellectual property freely availa
Al said:
>no legal requirement for the seller of software to provide support
Well, if you are a big company licensing a huge piece of software, your
lawyers will require you to make the software company's lawyers claim
that the source code is in escrow:-)
73 de Alan N2YGK
My observation in general is that efforts like NOS and Linux-Hams
often develops a momentum among the amateur community which
has win-win features for everyone. On the other hand, where would
NOS be today if KA9Q had not disclosed his source?
How much wider spread would be the use of Clover II an
I normally don't get involved in such debates, but...
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Tim Salo wrote:
> We should all applaud those who make their object code, source code,
> protocol specifications, and/or documentation freely available. But,
> we shouldn't feel we have a right to insist that everyone ou
>>Has an authoritative opinion (e.g., by a court) ever been expressed
as to whether a protocol can be protected by copyright? -tjs
I think there was a controlling legal authority when the guy copied (and
broke) the protocol in the White House.
Fred/k1hb
Hi Jonathan, agree with you in total. The DX Cluster has been
cloned well so the protocal as you say is simple and available. The main
problems are in HF packet where, for financial reasons even the protocal
is held in secret. But I think the Proctor II is capable of analysis and
design.
> Is it legal for US hams to run PSK31?? I'm not sure about that, and do
Yes, it is legal. It's a legal modulation type (G1B/D or J2D, depending on
how technical you want to get) uses an authorized code (ASCII) and uses a
documented coding technique (varicode) in accordance with 97.309(a)(4).
>
In a message dated 3/10/99, 0606 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Karl,
While we are on the topic of proprietary software, remember the big flap in
the 80's with a company called SOFTWARE-2000, and their proprietary network
node firmware called NETROM (C) ? When Nord>
Karl Larsen was manually quoted as saying:
> Hi Nate. Another example is the DX Cluster. A Ham made his money
> selling the software with the buyer's callsign inbedded into the binary.
> That way no sharing software. Well after a few years it stopped selling so
> he announced it will no long
On 10 Mar 1999, Jonathan NAYLOR wrote:
> But, the protocol for DXCluster was included in the manual that came with the
> software allowing clones to be written, and anyway its an easy protocol to
> reverse engineer. A few hours watching a DXCluster backbone link will
> provide enough protocol to
Hi Nate. Another example is the DX Cluster. A Ham made his money
selling the software with the buyer's callsign inbedded into the binary.
That way no sharing software. Well after a few years it stopped selling so
he announced it will no longer be supported. But no source code. Nothing.
> Not only do I have *zero* use for proprietary protocols on ham radio, I
> am also finding it much harder to justify the existence of proprietary
> software in ham radio.
An interesting side issue of this, at least with respect to the UK amateur
radio licence, is that we are forbidden to transmi
g the
> victim
> }
> } -Original Message-
> } From: Mark Schoonover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> } Sent: 08 March 1999 19:55
> } To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Karl F. Larsen'
> } Subject: RE: A dose of reality
> }
> }
> } Karl and the Group:
>
>Personally I have never understood what is wrong with HF Packet that could
>not be cured by a lower baud rate, perhaps a change in modulation method to
>PSK etc.
How about CSMA/CD (in AX.25) which is not really suitable for HF, even at
lower baud rates and with other modulations. Unless you
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>
> If PactorII is only twice as fast as PactorI then the MFJ 1276 TNC
> that on their web site (www.mfjenterprises.com) at $139.95 from AES is a
> steal! And to be honest Fred, if I find pactor to be effective I may well
> pay for pactorII and sel
Mobile: 146.52 & 28.470
Long: 32.85380 Lat: -117.00980 Grid: DM12LU
=
>--
>From: Jonathan NAYLOR[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 6:02 AM
>To:tpm
>Cc: linux-hams
>Subject: Re: A
Exactly Bob. All you have to go on is the rave reviews given by
users who paid a $1000.00 for PactorII. With PactorI you can buy hardware
that works for $150.00 and it is completely documented. The performance is
adequate for a local Mountain Zone network to have been in service for 4
yea
Hi,
Actually, Victor F1BIU has demonstrated three years ago at the REF-Union
Annual meeting in Villepinte a 10GHz high speed link with multiplexed
signals including ATV, digitized voice and packet radio. Thus the
technique already exists. We just have to use it for amateur band
occupation.
This
m: Bernard Pidoux[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 8:17 AM
>To:Mark Schoonover
>Cc:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Karl F. Larsen'; Victor Hassine
>Subject: Re: A dose of reality - 10GHz high speed networks
>
><>
>Hi,
>
&
TECTED]>; 'Jonathan NAYLOR'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 'linux-hams' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: A dose of reality
>Is it legal for US hams to run PSK31?? I'm not sure about that, and do
>highly agree that proprie
I have been reading this thread and wondering if a description, a user level
description would be fine, of the various modes you have been discussing.
Pactor, Pactor I, Pactor II, Clover, etc.
Personally I have never understood what is wrong with HF Packet that could
not be cured by a lower baud
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Tomi Manninen wrote:
> Agreed. Amateur radio is supposed to be about experimentation. I don't
> see much space for experimentation with proprietary protocols.
> Proprietary protocols have no place in amateur radio! (I feel better
> now... :)
Amen!
Bob Nielsen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Damian A Ivereigh wrote:
>
> >
> > I am looking at another modem manufacturer for HF operation: Halcomm
> > (http://www.halcomm.com/). Their modems natively use the CLOVER
> > protocol, but also have a "P-mode", which is claimed to be 100%
> > compatibl
On 9 Mar 1999, Jonathan NAYLOR wrote:
> publicly available. There is already a Linux version which uses the
> sound card, I can't remember the FTP site (or the WWW site for it).
The webpage of the Linux version´s author is found at
http://wwwcip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/user/hsreiser/hamra
OTECTED]>; 'Karl F. Larsen' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 3:43 AM
Subject: RE: A dose of reality
>Why should you be any different that side of the pond ?
>In the UK we have already lost huge chunks of 13 cms, 3 cms, due to lose
>part of 70 cm
Tomi Manninen was quoted by hand in Lotus Notes saying:
>
> Agreed. Amateur radio is supposed to be about experimentation. I don't see
> much space for experimentation with proprietary protocols. Proprietary
> protocols have no place in amateur radio! (I feel better now... :)
>
You mean like Fl
On 9 Mar 1999, Jonathan NAYLOR wrote:
> An aside from PACTOR, another HF mode that is getting popular is the
> latest development from G3PLX (AMTOR man), its called PSK31 and is
> publicly available. There is already a Linux version which uses the
> sound card, I can't remember the FTP site (or
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> The problem here is that both PACTOR-II and CLOVER are proprietary
> protocols. I guess after using Linux for nearly five years I have a
> real problem with that (also APRS).
Agreed. Amateur radio is supposed to be about experimentation. I don't see
much
On 8 Mar 99 at 6:47, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>
> The End of VHF/UHF
>
> Karl Larsen K5DI
>
> March 7, 1999
>
>
> Last summer the President of ARRL spoke at the Alamogordo NM
> Ham-fest and said the ARRL legal team is busy daily around the year
> fig
If PactorII is only twice as fast as PactorI then the MFJ 1276 TNC
that on their web site (www.mfjenterprises.com) at $139.95 from AES is a
steal! And to be honest Fred, if I find pactor to be effective I may well
pay for pactorII and sell this cheap one.
My plan is to run this s
An aside from PACTOR, another HF mode that is getting popular is the latest
development from G3PLX (AMTOR man), its called PSK31 and is publicly available.
There is already a Linux version which uses the sound card, I can't remember the
FTP site (or the WWW site for it). It is more like RTTY than
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Damian A Ivereigh wrote:
>
> I am looking at another modem manufacturer for HF operation: Halcomm
> (http://www.halcomm.com/). Their modems natively use the CLOVER
> protocol, but also have a "P-mode", which is claimed to be 100%
> compatible with the PACTOR protocol. So hope
PactorII: Expensive? It is a complete system, dual packet radio ports,
remote radio control port, hf all-mode, fax, modem, ISDN etc. The only
thing it doesnt have is an IRDA portnot that expensive!
Paccomm doesnt sell it anymore. Someone else sells the SCS model here.
I sell my SCS model pac
ED]]
} Sent: 08 March 1999 19:55
} To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Karl F. Larsen'
} Subject: RE: A dose of reality
}
}
} Karl and the Group:
}
} I do see some possibilities in what Karl is saying. Loosing 70cm??
} Possible given enough time, loosing 2m? Kinda doubt it. What indu
arch 1999 19:55
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Karl F. Larsen'
Subject: RE: A dose of reality
Karl and the Group:
I do see some possibilities in what Karl is saying. Loosing 70cm??
Possible given enough time, loosing 2m? Kinda doubt it. What industry
would want 2m?? Consid
I didn't know they were interested in Linux s/w, but you're right they
seem happy to give out the docs - they just emailed them to me (in
Word format though!).
Damian
James Jefferson wrote:
>
> For what it is worth I have a complete HAL P38 (I believe) technical
> manual. The proprietor was ver
For what it is worth I have a complete HAL P38 (I believe) technical
manual. The proprietor was very interested in linux software for it, so I
had a manual in the mailbox by the time I got back from Dayton last year.
If I recall correctly a DSP downloader, along with the normal interface
code wou
Hi Damian, Don't buy that expensive TNC just for Pactor. I
ordered the MFJ model 1276 TNC which has both pactor and 1200 baud packet.
I assume that both are on a e-prom which MFJ said is version 3.0 and the
latest one. I plan to use it with minicom until I understand it better.
W
Hmm. That's very interesting. I figured the Halcomm was cheap,
compared to anything from SCS anyway, but maybe not. Do MFJ or AES
have a web page that can give me more info?
Thanks
Damian
Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>
> Hi Damian, Don't buy that expensive TNC just for Pactor. I
> ordered th
Hi Deni, well the pactor II seems not too popular yet. I have talked with
some users and also aske PacComm and they no longer make the PTC-II but it
was expensive. I wish if it's that good it was better documented. My guess
since it was invented by 2 Germans that it's well known over there...:-)
ka6wke-1 145.05
Mobile: 146.52 & 28.470
Long: 32.85380 Lat: -117.00980 Grid: DM12LU
=
>--
>From: Karl F. Larsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:47 AM
>To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
The ptc-II by SCS is a bit expensive, but you can not beat the
performance. On HF, it will print what you can not hear. If you dont
believe me, ask the fellows who use and swear by them. A driver for
the ptc-II would be a great benefit, unfortunately, I do not write code.
73 - deni - wb0tax
O
Yes I too have heard great reports about the ptc-II stuff. However it
way out of my price range (I need two of them for a link in
Indonesia). Since my HF rigs are costing about $600 each, buying a
modem at $2000 each seems a little over the top.
Damian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The ptc-II by
Karl F. Larsen wrote:
>
> The End of VHF/UHF
>
> Karl Larsen K5DI
>
> March 7, 1999
>
[snip]
>
> I hope someone good at programing gets interested and writes
> a driver for Pactor in Linux. I get my Internet e-m
>>...PACTOR II which seems to be the very best HF system but can't yet get
a price from PacComm for the modem. - Karl F. Larsen
PactorII is absolutely amazing. I link solidly through rtty noise with 100w
and a dipole to HB9 on 14085 QRR. Usually I do not hear the other station!
Throughputs are i
The End of VHF/UHF
Karl Larsen K5DI
March 7, 1999
Last summer the President of ARRL spoke at the Alamogordo NM
Ham-fest and said the ARRL legal team is busy daily around the year
fighting companies that wa
67 matches
Mail list logo
