RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Digital (https://www.radiobanter.com/digital/)
-   -   JNOS message question (https://www.radiobanter.com/digital/8103-jnos-message-question.html)

Gene Storey October 21st 03 03:01 AM

I think you need to start taking your medications again. Your head
must be about ready to explode with so much blood out of circulation.

Anyone who thinks FEMA needs Hams to do its job is severely
crippled in the brain department. They laugh when a bunch of old
men show up with their talkies to help in an emergency, and to get
them off their back, they assign them to the chuck wagons, or water-boy
stations. FEMA is equipped to drive into any town and blow away
any problem. That one rig they have can instantly hook-up to the national
infrastructure outside the disaster area, that Hams are left scratching their
asses.

Hams missed the boat on microsats. They were the first in space with that
concept, and then they threw it away, and spent all their money (millions)
on the Phase-III pig that is mostly off on any pass over the US.

I've asked at our club how many are going to buy the AOR digital
voice modem (designed by a UK Ham), and they all just laughed and
asked what could it do that our repeater or BBS can't! After telling
them how it would improve long distance communications, and voice
quality in the same space as SSB, they just shrugged. Who cares!
SSB is good enough they said. Hoo-rah said the amen corner...

Sorry, Mr. Director, it's a dead hobby. Made up of dead people in line
to get their SK award from the ARRL (who hasn't changed leadership
in 20+ years).

Gene, ex-Ham

"charlesb" wrote

Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security
and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying
to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability.




Hank Oredson October 21st 03 03:02 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:_h0lb.21760$iq3.493@okepread01...
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives,
you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help
you in your cause if you are serious.



Oh my!
A PEDANTIC and LEGALISTIC Land Line Lid at that!
"I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me, nyah nyah!"

--

... Hank

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



Hank Oredson October 21st 03 03:02 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:_h0lb.21760$iq3.493@okepread01...
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives,
you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help
you in your cause if you are serious.



Oh my!
A PEDANTIC and LEGALISTIC Land Line Lid at that!
"I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me, nyah nyah!"

--

... Hank

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



Gene Storey October 21st 03 03:12 AM

I don't think you've ever been to a drag strip old man, so I'll
pass on trying to figure out what the hell you're whining about now.

"Hank Oredson" wrote

What do you think about the guys who bring jet airplanes
to the meet and then tell you your racers are boring, slow,
and the wave of the future is airplanes. Then he gets all over
the strip and won't go away and you don't get to race anymore.




Gene Storey October 21st 03 03:12 AM

I don't think you've ever been to a drag strip old man, so I'll
pass on trying to figure out what the hell you're whining about now.

"Hank Oredson" wrote

What do you think about the guys who bring jet airplanes
to the meet and then tell you your racers are boring, slow,
and the wave of the future is airplanes. Then he gets all over
the strip and won't go away and you don't get to race anymore.




Jeff Camp October 21st 03 03:28 AM

No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game, you have to do more
than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
had a better rf path than you did.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:_h0lb.21760$iq3.493@okepread01...
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court

directives,
you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to

help
you in your cause if you are serious.



Oh my!
A PEDANTIC and LEGALISTIC Land Line Lid at that!
"I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me, nyah nyah!"

--

... Hank

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





Jeff Camp October 21st 03 03:28 AM

No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game, you have to do more
than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
had a better rf path than you did.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:_h0lb.21760$iq3.493@okepread01...
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court

directives,
you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to

help
you in your cause if you are serious.



Oh my!
A PEDANTIC and LEGALISTIC Land Line Lid at that!
"I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me, nyah nyah!"

--

... Hank

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





Hank Oredson October 21st 03 04:21 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...
No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game,


What game? Why would I want to "win"?

you have to do more


I don't "have to" do anything.

than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
had a better rf path than you did.


My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you.
Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ...
You know all that, but you lie about it.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.


Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing
the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid

Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care?

--

... Hank

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



Hank Oredson October 21st 03 04:21 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...
No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game,


What game? Why would I want to "win"?

you have to do more


I don't "have to" do anything.

than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
had a better rf path than you did.


My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you.
Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ...
You know all that, but you lie about it.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.


Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing
the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid

Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care?

--

... Hank

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



charlesb October 21st 03 04:32 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.


Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
problem anymore. Things start working better.

This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by persons
hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
still be a good idea.

Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about what
amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
emergency communications is being undermined.

Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this area
should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum.

Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio equipment
have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon, this
would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
protecting it from vandalism.

Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a re-energized,
faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
like that.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL







charlesb October 21st 03 04:32 AM


"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.


Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
problem anymore. Things start working better.

This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by persons
hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
still be a good idea.

Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about what
amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
emergency communications is being undermined.

Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this area
should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum.

Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio equipment
have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon, this
would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
protecting it from vandalism.

Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a re-energized,
faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
like that.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL







Gene Storey October 21st 03 05:01 AM

Yea.

"charlesb" wrote

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass.




Gene Storey October 21st 03 05:01 AM

Yea.

"charlesb" wrote

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass.




Jeff Camp October 21st 03 05:39 AM

Actually, there wasn't an RF path on UHF or VHF between Omaha and Des
Moines. I'm not sure what hf frequency RVX was on, but I was on 14.098 and
he wasn't there. I'm not lying about anything. RVX never told me he didn't
want to forward.

As for what you've done for the last five years, I think that you've spent a
lot of effort spewing out negative opinions on everything rather than
mentoring hams who want to learn more about packet networks or maybe showing
them how to forward using HF. The guy who helped me set up my HF port spent
many hours teaching me how things worked, why they worked, and how HF
forwarding is different from VHF. It was a great learning experience and
I'm looking forward to getting back on an HF network.

Here's a question for you. I have a good friend who's a ham. He has a
microwave path from Omaha to Des Moines on a frequency that is shared
between ham radio and other services. Ham frequency, ham license. If I
forward over that link would you call that acceptable? By the way, his
company is an ISP and the link is his backbone connection to Des Moines, but
he's a licensed ham and he's running over frequencies allocated to both
amateir radio and other services.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP



"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...
No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game,


What game? Why would I want to "win"?

you have to do more


I don't "have to" do anything.

than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You

probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and

I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out

the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about

a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like

I
had a better rf path than you did.


My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you.
Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ...
You know all that, but you lie about it.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit

around
and whine.


Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing
the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid

Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care?

--

... Hank

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





Jeff Camp October 21st 03 05:39 AM

Actually, there wasn't an RF path on UHF or VHF between Omaha and Des
Moines. I'm not sure what hf frequency RVX was on, but I was on 14.098 and
he wasn't there. I'm not lying about anything. RVX never told me he didn't
want to forward.

As for what you've done for the last five years, I think that you've spent a
lot of effort spewing out negative opinions on everything rather than
mentoring hams who want to learn more about packet networks or maybe showing
them how to forward using HF. The guy who helped me set up my HF port spent
many hours teaching me how things worked, why they worked, and how HF
forwarding is different from VHF. It was a great learning experience and
I'm looking forward to getting back on an HF network.

Here's a question for you. I have a good friend who's a ham. He has a
microwave path from Omaha to Des Moines on a frequency that is shared
between ham radio and other services. Ham frequency, ham license. If I
forward over that link would you call that acceptable? By the way, his
company is an ISP and the link is his backbone connection to Des Moines, but
he's a licensed ham and he's running over frequencies allocated to both
amateir radio and other services.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP



"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...
No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game,


What game? Why would I want to "win"?

you have to do more


I don't "have to" do anything.

than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You

probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and

I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out

the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about

a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like

I
had a better rf path than you did.


My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you.
Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ...
You know all that, but you lie about it.

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit

around
and whine.


Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing
the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid

Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care?

--

... Hank

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





Jeff Camp October 21st 03 05:58 AM


"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit

around
and whine.


Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
problem anymore. Things start working better.


Great. I'm glad it's working for you. What does that have to do with my
gateway? What would you say if internet forwarders decided not to allow any
stations that forward via RF links because they're so slow compared to
internet links?


This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by

persons
hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
still be a good idea.


I think you'd have a hard time claiming interference. You still haven't
answered my question. By non-ham links do you mean forwarding with non-ham
systems or do you mean travelling over links that are not amateur radio
(such as the internet)?



Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about

what
amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
emergency communications is being undermined.

That's great. Eventually they might even upgrade to something faster than
1200 baud. Put things in perspective. Manufacturers stopped shipping 1200
baud modems in 1988 because they were obsolete technology. Why would you
build a new network on something like that?

Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this

area
should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum.


I looked at your forum. Doesn't look like you have any takers.

Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio

equipment
have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon,

this
would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
protecting it from vandalism.


I didn't see QST, but the AES catalog I got about a week ago has some radios
from Icom that are digital and even have ethernet ports. Looks like
manufacturers are promoting digital voice, not abandoning it. I think
Alinco has had an HT with digital capability for a couple of years. Yaesu
is selling it's WIRES interface. Do you think you can get one of those
things passing digitized voice over a 1200 baud packet link?

Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.


You're a real poet.

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a

re-energized,
faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
like that.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


Go for it. Re-energize America's packet radio infrastructure. I'm glad you
have a cause to keep you busy.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP




Jeff Camp October 21st 03 05:58 AM


"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...

If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit

around
and whine.


Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
problem anymore. Things start working better.


Great. I'm glad it's working for you. What does that have to do with my
gateway? What would you say if internet forwarders decided not to allow any
stations that forward via RF links because they're so slow compared to
internet links?


This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by

persons
hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
still be a good idea.


I think you'd have a hard time claiming interference. You still haven't
answered my question. By non-ham links do you mean forwarding with non-ham
systems or do you mean travelling over links that are not amateur radio
(such as the internet)?



Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about

what
amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
emergency communications is being undermined.

That's great. Eventually they might even upgrade to something faster than
1200 baud. Put things in perspective. Manufacturers stopped shipping 1200
baud modems in 1988 because they were obsolete technology. Why would you
build a new network on something like that?

Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this

area
should contact me at , or post at the new USPN Forum.


I looked at your forum. Doesn't look like you have any takers.

Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio

equipment
have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon,

this
would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
protecting it from vandalism.


I didn't see QST, but the AES catalog I got about a week ago has some radios
from Icom that are digital and even have ethernet ports. Looks like
manufacturers are promoting digital voice, not abandoning it. I think
Alinco has had an HT with digital capability for a couple of years. Yaesu
is selling it's WIRES interface. Do you think you can get one of those
things passing digitized voice over a 1200 baud packet link?

Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.


You're a real poet.

The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a

re-energized,
faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
like that.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


Go for it. Re-energize America's packet radio infrastructure. I'm glad you
have a cause to keep you busy.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP




Jeff Stillinger July 16th 04 11:20 AM


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



Jeff Stillinger July 16th 04 11:20 AM


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



Steve July 16th 04 11:46 AM

In article ,
(Jeff Stillinger) wrote:


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



http://www.oldos.org/history/o2/os.html

Steve


Steve July 16th 04 11:46 AM

In article ,
(Jeff Stillinger) wrote:


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



http://www.oldos.org/history/o2/os.html

Steve


Steve July 16th 04 12:36 PM

In article ,
(Steve) wrote:

In article ,

(Jeff Stillinger) wrote:


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS
if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



http://www.oldos.org/history/o2/os.html

Steve


Hmm, forget that one, try here...

http://www.geocities.com/orabanic015651/dos.html

or here,

http://www.peteweb.com/oldos.php

Steve


Steve July 16th 04 12:36 PM

In article ,
(Steve) wrote:

In article ,

(Jeff Stillinger) wrote:


/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS
if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)



http://www.oldos.org/history/o2/os.html

Steve


Hmm, forget that one, try here...

http://www.geocities.com/orabanic015651/dos.html

or here,

http://www.peteweb.com/oldos.php

Steve


Charles Brabham July 16th 04 04:41 PM


There is a Linux version of FBB, by the way. If you don't like DOS, don't
run it.

Charles, N5PVL


On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS
if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.




Charles Brabham July 16th 04 04:41 PM


There is a Linux version of FBB, by the way. If you don't like DOS, don't
run it.

Charles, N5PVL


On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS
if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.




Hank Oredson July 16th 04 07:24 PM

"Jeff Stillinger" wrote in message
...

/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.



Install minimal Windows 95 / 98 / 98SE / ME.
Edit appropriate files (msdos.sys e.g.) to boot to command line.
et voila you are running DOS version 7.x.
This will work just fine.

If you really really need DOS 6.22 or DOS 3.2 or whatever,
go to eBay and pick up a copy or visit your local thrift shops
and paw through the old computer junk. Of course you could
also run freeDOS (surprise! It's free!) or Caldera DOS or
any of various other flavors. They also work just fine, and
can be downloaded or purchsed.

Google for "purchase dos 6.22" and you will find dozens
or perhaps hundreds of places to purchase dos ;-)

--

... Hank

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



Hank Oredson July 16th 04 07:24 PM

"Jeff Stillinger" wrote in message
...

/usr/bin/dosemu

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.



Install minimal Windows 95 / 98 / 98SE / ME.
Edit appropriate files (msdos.sys e.g.) to boot to command line.
et voila you are running DOS version 7.x.
This will work just fine.

If you really really need DOS 6.22 or DOS 3.2 or whatever,
go to eBay and pick up a copy or visit your local thrift shops
and paw through the old computer junk. Of course you could
also run freeDOS (surprise! It's free!) or Caldera DOS or
any of various other flavors. They also work just fine, and
can be downloaded or purchsed.

Google for "purchase dos 6.22" and you will find dozens
or perhaps hundreds of places to purchase dos ;-)

--

... Hank

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



Steve May 26th 16 03:21 AM

JNOS message question
 
Jeff Stillinger writes:

/usr/bin/dosemu

I think you just scared me. that still works..?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


DE KB6IBB :-)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com