echolink 132,000 users in 139 different countries
 

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:57:30 +0100, g3zhi wrote:
There are now over 132,000 callsigns registered in 139 different countries.

There are daily additions, changes and deletions with over 1,000 new calls validated each week.


For more information check

http://web.radio-ham.org/radioham/do...IC_Sep2003.zip

http://www.echolink.org/links.asp

http://www.echolink.org/logins.asp

http://home.insightbb.com/~n9yty/

73 Ian G3ZHI


http://www.qsl.net/g3zhi - has many ham radio links


I usually monitor G4NJI node 5200 simplex 145.2875mhz

Ian Abel G3ZHI
52 Hollytree Ave
Maltby
Rotherham
Yorkshire
S66 8DY

Tel: 01709 799911
Mobile 0776 481 3363

Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

- for one, i doubt he'd care... he's too busy directing his minions to
spread more misery across the planet, while all the time promising
everlasting pleasure when using his products...

- btw, the original bonehead echolink cheerleader has been cross-posting
all over rec.radio* about echolink using a hotmail.com email
address ... which makes echolink even more suspect in my view...

- registration with a callsign and email address just to be able to use
the system? nope, i don't think so...

- proprietary, Windows-based software? nope, i don't think so...

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

- echolink is a novel concept, but one that appears (IMHO) fraught with
danger for abuse... but then again, so are other modes in ham radio...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:43:04 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

- for one, i doubt he'd care... he's too busy directing his minions to
spread more misery across the planet, while all the time promising
everlasting pleasure when using his products...

- btw, the original bonehead echolink cheerleader has been cross-posting
all over rec.radio* about echolink using a hotmail.com email
address ... which makes echolink even more suspect in my view...

- registration with a callsign and email address just to be able to use
the system? nope, i don't think so...

- proprietary, Windows-based software? nope, i don't think so...

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

- echolink is a novel concept, but one that appears (IMHO) fraught with
danger for abuse... but then again, so are other modes in ham radio...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:43:04 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
.. .
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

Hey, if it's just closed to whining Linux dweebs, what's the problem?
Thousands of hams think it's a great deal. I haven't seen any evidence that
the Linux folks are missed.... Not at all!

;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
.. .
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

Hey, if it's just closed to whining Linux dweebs, what's the problem?
Thousands of hams think it's a great deal. I haven't seen any evidence that
the Linux folks are missed.... Not at all!

;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!


Just my opinion............. no flames please !!


73 de Jim K4PYT

Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!


Just my opinion............. no flames please !!


73 de Jim K4PYT

Same argument about the phone patch. It's not ham radio, it's
the telephone. Give me a repeater with a phone patch, and I'll
show you a bunch of appliance operators.


"James Nipper" wrote
Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!

Same argument about the phone patch. It's not ham radio, it's
the telephone. Give me a repeater with a phone patch, and I'll
show you a bunch of appliance operators.


"James Nipper" wrote
Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!

You wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Go get a copy of
Speak Freely, and you'll have 80% of echolink software.

http://www.speakfreely.org/

If you need source code for all of your software before you think
you can safely run it, then get linux.

wrote

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

You wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Go get a copy of
Speak Freely, and you'll have 80% of echolink software.

http://www.speakfreely.org/

If you need source code for all of your software before you think
you can safely run it, then get linux.

wrote

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:49:31 GMT, charlesb wrote:

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
.. .
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

Hey, if it's just closed to whining Linux dweebs, what's the problem?
Thousands of hams think it's a great deal. I haven't seen any evidence that
the Linux folks are missed.... Not at all!

- hee! hee! of course, that's one of the best things about Linux sometimes


;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

- ah! but here's the point: if it were open source, the 'guy' wouldn't
have to write it for those other platforms - and the app would be
better, more secure, etc.

- but hey, i recognize that a proprietary software product is just that -
proprietary... i do have to credit the source for making it free...

- i'll just wait for the open-source version... i doubt the protocols
are intellectual property...

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:49:31 GMT, charlesb wrote:

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
.. .
Tell it to Bill Gates.

wrote

- until you release a Linux client i will *NEVER* use Echolink

- release the source code and you'll have more users, otherwise
echolink remains a 'closed system'

Hey, if it's just closed to whining Linux dweebs, what's the problem?
Thousands of hams think it's a great deal. I haven't seen any evidence that
the Linux folks are missed.... Not at all!

- hee! hee! of course, that's one of the best things about Linux sometimes


;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

- ah! but here's the point: if it were open source, the 'guy' wouldn't
have to write it for those other platforms - and the app would be
better, more secure, etc.

- but hey, i recognize that a proprietary software product is just that -
proprietary... i do have to credit the source for making it free...

- i'll just wait for the open-source version... i doubt the protocols
are intellectual property...

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:38:40 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:
You wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Go get a copy of
Speak Freely, and you'll have 80% of echolink software.

http://www.speakfreely.org/


- thanks for the pointer, but speakfreely is only for Satan's software

If you need source code for all of your software before you think
you can safely run it, then get linux.

- ???? that was the point, and yes, having the source code for all
my software *is* important... i will not be held hostage by
orphaned versions, forced upgrades, hobbled 'crippleware'
or other such nonsense... i want to know what's going on...

- and yes, even though i don't use the monopoly's software i can still
'safely' run it inside a VMware session...

- perhaps wine emulation would work?

wrote

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:38:40 GMT, Gene Storey wrote:
You wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Go get a copy of
Speak Freely, and you'll have 80% of echolink software.

http://www.speakfreely.org/


- thanks for the pointer, but speakfreely is only for Satan's software

If you need source code for all of your software before you think
you can safely run it, then get linux.

- ???? that was the point, and yes, having the source code for all
my software *is* important... i will not be held hostage by
orphaned versions, forced upgrades, hobbled 'crippleware'
or other such nonsense... i want to know what's going on...

- and yes, even though i don't use the monopoly's software i can still
'safely' run it inside a VMware session...

- perhaps wine emulation would work?

wrote

- no way to access the source code to see what's underneath the client?
nope, i don't think so...

wrote in message
...

;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because
that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux
too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the
Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball
system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

- ah! but here's the point: if it were open source, the 'guy' wouldn't
have to write it for those other platforms - and the app would be
better, more secure, etc.

That's why it wasn't written open source. It's a "Winders" program.

I suppose the author must think that those open-source programmers are so
skillful and productuive that they would finish it up before he possibly
could, so he didn't worry about those oddball platforms that hardly anybody
uses. The open-source guys have probably already written it by now anyway,
but we just haven't heard about it yet. Yeah, I bet that's it. Yep. - And
it will port right over to my Commode C64. You betcha!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


Charles Brabham, N5PVL

wrote in message
...

;-) Just yanking your chain. It's written for "Winders" because
that's
what over 90% of all hams use. The guy could have written it for Linux
too,
but then he'd feel obligated to write it for the C-64, the Amiga, the
Mac,
and all the other third-weenie stuff. If you do it for one odball
system,
they expect you to do it for them all, so the author drew the line at
"Winders".

- ah! but here's the point: if it were open source, the 'guy' wouldn't
have to write it for those other platforms - and the app would be
better, more secure, etc.

That's why it wasn't written open source. It's a "Winders" program.

I suppose the author must think that those open-source programmers are so
skillful and productuive that they would finish it up before he possibly
could, so he didn't worry about those oddball platforms that hardly anybody
uses. The open-source guys have probably already written it by now anyway,
but we just haven't heard about it yet. Yeah, I bet that's it. Yep. - And
it will port right over to my Commode C64. You betcha!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"James Nipper" wrote in message
...
Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!


Just my opinion............. no flames please !!


I think that you are absolutely right.

I was disgusted to hear about the ARRL president getting on that hokey setup
and pretending to be operating as a ham. - Honoring the 9-11 victims *as a
ham* by getting on a non-ham setup that would be guaranteed to go dead
during any emergency precisely because it is based on non-ham stuff. Why
couldn't the guy get on W1AW and actually use radio? Is utilizing a non-ham
setup that is no good for emergency communications really an appropriate way
to honor the memory of those people *as a ham*? I don't think so. Instead, I
wonder what kind of message he was sending when he turned to the non-ham
stuff to communicate with other hams *as a ham*. I think the man should be
ashamed of himself.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"James Nipper" wrote in message
...
Exactly what does echolink and the internet have to do with ham radio ?

Yes, most of the users of echolink may be hams, but they are using the
internet to communicate, not ham radio. I am sure that is fun to some
folks, but it is far removed from ham radio !!

As I type this message, I am using the internet. Many hams will see this
message. But I AIN'T Hamming !!!!!!!!


Just my opinion............. no flames please !!


I think that you are absolutely right.

I was disgusted to hear about the ARRL president getting on that hokey setup
and pretending to be operating as a ham. - Honoring the 9-11 victims *as a
ham* by getting on a non-ham setup that would be guaranteed to go dead
during any emergency precisely because it is based on non-ham stuff. Why
couldn't the guy get on W1AW and actually use radio? Is utilizing a non-ham
setup that is no good for emergency communications really an appropriate way
to honor the memory of those people *as a ham*? I don't think so. Instead, I
wonder what kind of message he was sending when he turned to the non-ham
stuff to communicate with other hams *as a ham*. I think the man should be
ashamed of himself.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
Same argument about the phone patch. It's not ham radio, it's
the telephone. Give me a repeater with a phone patch, and I'll
show you a bunch of appliance operators.


A phone patch does the exact OPPOSITE of echolink.

--

... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
Same argument about the phone patch. It's not ham radio, it's
the telephone. Give me a repeater with a phone patch, and I'll
show you a bunch of appliance operators.


A phone patch does the exact OPPOSITE of echolink.

--

... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net