[aprssig] The best resolution of ---

[Curt, WE7U]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Bill Diaz wrote:

> >If expressing valid concerns about the spec is bellyaching, when
> >explain what forum I can express my concerns in, and just how to
> >express them so that the powers that be won't get all upset?
>
> >The Xastir list is much more open to suggestions, I must say.  We
> >tend not to pounce on people just because they have a different
> >opinion.
>
> I doubt that is the case.  When I pointed out the difficulties many users
> encountered when trying to install XAstir you refused to acknowledge this
> and tried to turn the discussion into an operating systems war.  I was also
> "pounced" on by other XAstir users who also did not want to admit that some
> users had Xastir install issues.
>
> Why do you insist on insulting all windows users with every post you make on
> the sig?  Your tag lines indicate to me that you feel all Windows users are
> stupid.

I'm sorry you don't see the humor in it.  It's not intended to
insult Windows users, it's intended to be a slam on Microsoft.  I've
explained that before.  Sorry I hurt your feelings.

I do have strong feelings about that company and their practices.
It's my right to express them in any way I choose as free speech is
still allowed in this country.

FWIW: I've helped quite a few Windows Xastir users.  One or two of
the people that were asking for help back then _did_ come over to
the Xastir list as I requested and received help from me and the
other developers/users.  I still don't understand why you are
against people asking client-specific questions and receiving help
on a client-specific mailing list.  That stuff doesn't belong on
here.  Too much stuff comes across here already and the people will
receive more help and more specific help on the mailing list devoted
to that client.  It only makes sense.

If you have some problem with me directly, feel free to express it
direct to me and quit bothering the poor people on this list.


> If you choose to implement features which are not spec compliant

Note that I didn't.  When I implemented those features they _were_
spec compliant.  More so than any other client application out there
I might add, with the possible exception of APRSdos which had a
headstart on us.

Where'd all this "Curt or Xastir implemented some new feature which
will kill all of APRS or obsolete all the Kenwoods!" stuff come
from?

I'm asking for Base-91 compressed objects to be added back into the
spec.  They were there for years, they're used in the real world,
properly implemented in Xastir (and were in APRSdos).  These packets
get dropped by any hardware/software that don't support them,
including Kenwoods, although it appears the european D700E Kenwood
_does_ support them, so it shouldn't be hard for them to add that to
new models of the D700A.  Over time more of them could support more
of the spec that way.  What a concept!

--
Curt, WE7U.   APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto:    A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows:  Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me:  I picked the coordinate system!"