Day Brown wrote: > [...] Yes, there are Hams using packet. But even if just ascii email, > I dont think that the bandwidth they now have would support nearly > the numbers of email users.
Why is data sent via wireless at low data rates over extended periods any less viable than the "5 minutes per day via long-distance" over 56Kbps (or less) modem speeds? True, you'd get more sent in 5 minutes (though I suspect THAT number is optimistic), but they'd have hours at no additional charge. Using compression and other (readily available) techniques, along with queueing of messages, and quite a bit flows in a short period. > They are also into long-range continental communication, whereas the > hardware needs of a local COOP ISP would be much more modest. The same technology works equally well at shorter distances, but of course at lower speeds, it'd be a less attractive option than local dial-up for example. So you'd use it to avoid tolls. Why's that a problem? Some users might connect via dial-up, others via ham radio, and others via fiber. IT STILL WORKS. > And yes, there are the BBS people, and a communitarian effort to > organize internet access. Not to mention the ham bbsen. > [...] Your Kharma may vary. I tried that, but nothing ever installed > properly on any of the distros I tried it on. While I have no doubt that you've encountered problems, that's a far cry from "it can't be done." Recognize your own limitations and attribute it to that. But please don't turn around and claim that such things can't be done without updating to a current distribution. You're apparently expecting a new distribution that will run on a 486 with low memory, and offer features comparable to those you'll get on a full-blown P4 or better. Not likely. BUT if your true goal is to get the most out of that older hardware, well then there are plenty of ways to get it done... IF YOU ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE EFFORT. > Like with document formats, there is a proliferation of Linux archive > formats, and one of the problems I had was that I needed to upgrade > the archive tools. Which needed an upgraded compiler, which needed a > more uptodate library, when when downloaded needed an new archive > tool. As mentioned in another thread, any debian distribution should be able to handle all dependencies well. That's a feature of debian. > [...] The speed limit on US 65 a couple miles from my home is 55. > Everyone goes 64. But of course, we have a culture clash. The > hillbillies were the first to figure out what it meant when people > from the government arrive saying they were there to help. But I will > repeat yet again Bob- that it aint *my* scheme. I am simply > mentioning the result we have already seen with CB radio. If it's not *YOUR* scheme, why do you continually come back to it when any number of other, viable and LEGAL and VIABLE schemes to do the same thing are pointed out to you? > I had no interest in disobeying regulations, and even sent in the > card that came with my CB. But just like folks drive fast, they > ignored the FCC too. And given that *fact*, I look at the way > hardware prices are falling, power output increasing, and software > proliferating, and see that the FCC will loose control. That's a political debate, not a technical one. IF you indeed are looking for solutions, THEY ALREADY EXIST. If instead you just want to debate the merits and shortcomings of existing communications regulations, there are probably better forums. You do need to be clear about which you desire. > The problems I have had with the internet interface dont seem to be > that rare, so there will be others motivated to get around the whole > setup... and come up with, among other things, bootleg wireless > connectivity. Does it exist? Sure. Is it the only, or even most practical way? No. Are you after a solution, or just arguments? > Which will work whether the FCC likes it or not. Will work whether > saboteurs or Murphy's law crashes the internet or not. Kazinsky cases > are not only illogically angry, they are creative. And if the net > crashes, sure Hams will try to fill in, but I have visited some ham > links recently, and it looks to me like the interest in ham radio > communications, like with the BBSes, is waning. Wait... now you want a system to back up the Internet as a whole? Not just your little gang? > Well, I could try to write my own operating system in binary too. Why > spend hours of my own time trying to track down the problem when I > can get a new distro install disk for 5 bucks? Presumably for the same reason one might prefer a car that can actually be maintained without advanced diagnostics and computer hookups. Independence. The satisfaction of "knowing how it all works." Bull headed obstinance. > > [...] Wrong. It was designed to provide a network to operate in the > > event of total meltdown of centralized control. I would think that > > would be appealing to you. > > We seem to live in different Virtual Realities. The original network > that I know about was between university mainframes doing defense > research. And the specific research was ...? It was NOT "setup by government to facilitate the functionality of organizations" -- at least not if you meant that to imply that it was to support "big business." > > Been done. All of it. Back in the 1980s. On pre-486 systems. At > > 1,200bps and slower. Wireless. No need for the bloat of 16MB RAM > > and a 486 and any stinkin' TV frequencies. No need for connections > > to any central network, unless you want it. > > It looks to me that gray market SURVPCs are around capable of much > faster speeds. Uhm, yeah. Of course. It it was already done at SLOWER speeds, then surely even older systems now (which are 10 years newer than those I described) can do it FASTER. > Let me try to be clear. I live in a region which has lots of ranters. > Given my choice between rule by the ranter and the government, I'd > take the latter. So you're not actually after a solution, just a platform to rant? > But I dont think it's upta me. You are arguing with the messenger > cause you dont like the message. No, I'm trying to tell him that what he professes to desire exists, and that I and others have done it using hardware and technologies FAR FAR older than those he's proposed using! > People who live in rural areas live with regulations which were > written by people who live in urban areas. They aint really happy > about that, and since in a democracy, the majority rules, and the > urban majority is 98%, rural folks have no choice but to rant. Doesn't explain farm subsidies and the like, but OK. But you can also DO something about what you started out talking about -- namely use older hardware and technologies to build a "separate" Internet-like communications system. > [...]There are no seatbelts in it, and the antique car nuts would go > ballistic if regulations were applied. Which is exactly why I put the "in some jurisdictions". So, keeping with the analogy: One some roads (ISPs), newer technology is mandated, whereas with others it's not. YOUR ISP may require specific ppp options your software doesn't support. You COULD update the ppp software, but you chose not to. That doesn't mean your older distribution CAN'T do it. > [...] So, I am somewhat skeptical that all the goodies presented to > us now will be all that durable either. Yet you resist maintaining the usability of your existing system (distribution.) Odd. > And if people find out that they can use their PC to wirelessly > communicate in their local area without paying a phone bill- they > will. whether the FCC likes it or not. The numbers will be so vast > that the Ham bands will be ignored, along with their limits on > bandwidth, and of course... speed limits. They wont need a design > from me. Ah, so this is a fictional work in progress? Some grand prediction of "that which is yet to come?" You certainly seem to have convoluted goals, and a resistance to actually accomplishing anything that would WORK for people today! 1. People CAN use their PCs to communicate wirelessly in their local area (as well as world-wide) with no recurring costs. Today. Legally. WITHOUT violating FCC regs, or stepping carelessly on legitimate users. 2. If these are the same numbers that simply give up and upgrade their distributions whenever they can't figure out something, I seriously doubt they'll be up to what you describe. 3. They certainly do not need a design from you. - Bob
