"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
"charlesb" wrote

If you really wanted performance, you'd be going with #1.

Amiga?

TI 99/4A of course!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In rec.radio.amateur.misc charlesb wrote:
A lot of the Linux stuff is like that. When you wander away from the
mainstream, this is to be expected. Part of the problem is that most
software for Linux is open source, written by junior programmer wannabees,
then re-hacked by other "programmers" who are no better.

... So the third-weenie OS is loaded up with third-weenie software.... Is
that a big surprise?

You don't quite "get" open-source, do you?!

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

In rec.radio.amateur.misc charlesb wrote:
A lot of the Linux stuff is like that. When you wander away from the
mainstream, this is to be expected. Part of the problem is that most
software for Linux is open source, written by junior programmer wannabees,
then re-hacked by other "programmers" who are no better.

... So the third-weenie OS is loaded up with third-weenie software.... Is
that a big surprise?

You don't quite "get" open-source, do you?!

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

"charlesb" writes:

If you really wanted performance, you'd be going with #1.

Amiga?

TI 99/4A of course!

Rat shack coco. My first glass tty for rtty was a coco with the
chicklet keyboard. A little bit of code to sample the center
of each pulse 7 times 1 msec apart to determin if mark or space
increased copy significantly over the model 28. The coco was also
a hell of a lot quieter than the 28 :-)

// marc

"charlesb" writes:

If you really wanted performance, you'd be going with #1.

Amiga?

TI 99/4A of course!

Rat shack coco. My first glass tty for rtty was a coco with the
chicklet keyboard. A little bit of code to sample the center
of each pulse 7 times 1 msec apart to determin if mark or space
increased copy significantly over the model 28. The coco was also
a hell of a lot quieter than the 28 :-)

// marc

In rec.radio.amateur.misc Marco S Hyman wrote:
You don't quite "get" open-source, do you?!

Heh... open-source does not automatically equate to good. Or it
shouldn't, anyway. As in just about anything, 90 percent is crap.
There's some good open source stuff out there, but I've not found much
for amateur radio.

That's true, however, there seemed to be an implied message that all
open-source was junk, at least compared to the excellent-quality (s******)
stuff from Redmond...

On the plus side, what is avaiable makes minimalists such as
myself happy. I'd rather have 10 programs that do one thing well
rather than one program that does 10 things. I seem to be in the
minority in this respect.

// marc

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

In rec.radio.amateur.misc Marco S Hyman wrote:
You don't quite "get" open-source, do you?!

Heh... open-source does not automatically equate to good. Or it
shouldn't, anyway. As in just about anything, 90 percent is crap.
There's some good open source stuff out there, but I've not found much
for amateur radio.

That's true, however, there seemed to be an implied message that all
open-source was junk, at least compared to the excellent-quality (s******)
stuff from Redmond...

On the plus side, what is avaiable makes minimalists such as
myself happy. I'd rather have 10 programs that do one thing well
rather than one program that does 10 things. I seem to be in the
minority in this respect.

// marc

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

Pär C wrote:

Why do they all rely upon the kernels AX.25 ?
Kiss mode is limited to packet radio (at least with
the TNC's that I've got) and why would I want to run
packet radio on hf ? Pactor is better for hf and that
means I can't use any of all those "terminals" that
really rely upon the kernels ax.25 to do all the work.
Why pay lots of money for a competent controller and
then make it really stupid by using kiss ?

They don't.

If you have a PTC data controller then take a look at kptc.
It's a KDE (X-windows) client to drive a PTC in just the way that you want.

You can find it at: http://kptc.sourceforge.net/

I found it by looking at: http://radio.linux.org.au/

regards
Terry

Pär C wrote:

Why do they all rely upon the kernels AX.25 ?
Kiss mode is limited to packet radio (at least with
the TNC's that I've got) and why would I want to run
packet radio on hf ? Pactor is better for hf and that
means I can't use any of all those "terminals" that
really rely upon the kernels ax.25 to do all the work.
Why pay lots of money for a competent controller and
then make it really stupid by using kiss ?

They don't.

If you have a PTC data controller then take a look at kptc.
It's a KDE (X-windows) client to drive a PTC in just the way that you want.

You can find it at: http://kptc.sourceforge.net/

I found it by looking at: http://radio.linux.org.au/

regards
Terry