Lance Lyon wrote: >Hi John, > > > > >>Re: your Electronic Rube Goldberg solution to assure DOS is used - Let >>me know when you get your lash up working 24/7/365 without failure. >>That is what folks are getting using Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc. >> >> > >Are you saying that DOS isn't capable or running mission critical apps 24/7 >without failure ? I'd certainly dispute that! Can't remember the last time >the DOS based comms machine here was rebooted - let's see, moved in in April >of last year & it's never been down (or touched) since then. Doesn't even >have a monitor or keyboard attached anymore (remotely controlled as needed). >It only runs one task (& does that well) - but it's uptime is better than >the RH9 machine (& obviously better than this blasted XP box). The only >other machine that comes close is the eComStation machine which has been >rebooted once since moving in last year. > >I have a lot of faith in the DOS machine, it's ddefinitely a setup & ignore >situation. > I marvel at the interpretation people put on what they see here. But you clearly have one point- 100% uptime with a communications tool. To risk uptime for multiuser multimedia aint worth it to me. And what I have outlined, is such a terminal as you have, only wireless.
And- if you take a look at the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... you can see where terrain and forest problems are common. They also make it plain, that if you dont have LoS, Line of Site, you dont get the service. Frequencies below 250mhz solve that problem. And as you imply, DOS gets the signal, what you do with it then is your choice. Port it to a GUI OS or multimedia presentation hardware. But critical to the whole setup is the ability to use text at the terminal screen and download software solutions.
