"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
...

I run only code that I write myself, based on open and documented
standards. FlexNet is therefore totally uninteresting.

Well, that is your personal preference... You understand of course that with
most hams, the personal preference will run to issues like ease of use,
utility and performance. Most of them are unaware of programming - related
"protocol war" issues. They just want good performing software, easy to set
up and run.

But in any case,
it cannot get more throughput than what I mentioned in my other reply.

I'll have to take your word for that. You generally know what you are
talking about, so it's not like it's a big stretch for me to do so, eh?

Did I mention that the code we run here also has adaptive parameter
settings?

No, I don't remember seeing anything about it, though I do remember reading
somewhere that the adaptive parameter concept has been around for quite a
while. I briefly studied expert system programming in college, many years
ago so that concept can't be called "new" either... Putting the two of them
together in order to make packet radio both simpler and better performing is
a relatively new thing though, brought to us by the folks in the FlexNet
group.

This stuff is not rocket science, and one can in fact do as well
as can be done using open protocols.

In theory, I'm sure it could... So far in the real world; no bananna.

No need to get stuck with a
protocol that is basically unsupported and undocumented.

FlexNet is supported and documented (for users) and there is a FlexNet API
(for programmers)... That's all the support and documentation I have any
need for, and much more than most hams would care about. They just want to
get on the air and operate, and don't put in a lot of time worrying about
whether they can diddle with the code.

For my part, I am glad that FlexNet cannot be diddled with. Just look at the
mess with *NOS and Linux to see why. Too many junior programmers out there,
all full of clever new ways to screw up. I know for sure that if I busted my
hiney for months to produce some good software, I would not want a bunch of
pencil-necked geeks transmogrifying it and putting it out with my name still
on it, upsetting and confusing users with dozens of bogus versions of the
software that might or might not work. That is basically the position of the
authors of FlexNet, and it makes very good sense.

There have been two concentrated efforts to replicate FlexNet's A.I. so far,
with AGW packet engine (proprietary) being a much higher quality, popular
product than X-Net (open-source), which worked out to be too buggy,
disorganized and complicated to gain any popularity. Neither one of these
succeeded in replicating the performance edge you get with FlexNet, though
AGW comes close, from what I understand. So while it may be true that
FlexNet's adaptive parameter system is not "rocket science", apparently
folks have been having a harder time trying to replicate its function than
you seem to expect.

The big drawback with AGW packet engine is the price tag. Why pay extra to
use an imperfect knock-off of higher quality, better performing software
(FlexNet) that you can get for free?

AGW gets a lot of LandLine-Lid types to use his software by making it easy
to set up a gateway with AGW... The FlexNet people on the other hand do not
encourage people to hook FlexNet up to non-ham stuff at all- which makes it
less popular with the "non-ham" types, I suppose. You *can* of course hook
FlexNet up to non-ham stuff but nobody is encouraged to, or given a helpful
"how-to" tips on how to do it by the authors. There are of course
LandLine-Lid FlexNet users, but generally I have found that there are very
few of them. FlexNet is not "PC" among the LLL "non-ham" set so they
generally avoid it, going for AGW instead. Conversely, "non-ham" stuff is
not "PC" within most of the FlexNet community either, so it all works out fo
r the best.

Remember that the question about throughput was put forward by someone who
identified themself as a beginner. He didn't mention anything about wanting
to re-write the code. Currently there are only a two packages that offer
optimised performance coupled with easy, simple setup that would fill that
persons' stated requirements. There's FlexNet, and it's expensive knock-off
AGW... Naturally, I recommended FlexNet to my fellow ham.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL