[hfsig] RE: [linux] LinLink

[tattje]

Hi Robert,
I don't quite understand your comments about pactor 2.
It's not expensive because a waveform like that can run on any PC.
LBT is essential in auto-connect systems, but are we discussing these kind
of systems?
I have seen very odd specs of systems like 2400 bits/sec at -10 dB S/N? Wake
up everyone!
I think that going back to specs should be the first thing to do. What is
really needed: high throughput, high prob. of connect ? Look at systems that
are known to survive, by the way pactor 2 is one of them, just as old ccir
625.
The question nobody asked is: what is the bandwidth available? more
bandwidth means more throughput by the way,
I think everyone is just shouting, just take some time to think about what
we really need and what is possible.
Regards
Henk



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org
[mailto:hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]Namens Robert McGwier
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 augustus 2004 5:09
Aan: TAPR Linux Mailing List
CC: TAPR HF Sig
Onderwerp: [hfsig] RE: [linux] LinLink


I cannot even begin to imagine a worse solution than the SCS PTC.  It is a
closed
design,  it is very expensive,  Pactor-II does absolutely NO checking of the
channel for occupancy before transmitting. I could go on but that ought to
be
enough.  They really must have been desperate to choose this approach.
Starting
from scratch would be better.  If you produced a solution that was half as
efficient of spectrum as Pactor-II (even if it were designed by someone that
knew
anything) and it was open and free, no one will use the SCS PTC.  What
happens to
the emergency channels com's if SCS goes out of business tomorrow?  We need
an
OPEN SOURCE, runs on ANY platform, solution for completely versatility.

IMHO,
Bob
N4HY


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-bounces at lists.tapr.org
[mailto:linux-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of wchast at utilpart.com
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:31 AM
To: linux at lists.tapr.org
Subject: RE: [linux] LinLink


dubose at texas.net wrote:
> LinLink

........... Is it similar to WinLink 2000? These guys have been working
this hard here in Florida, I worked with it a bit during the storm, it
appeared to be quite impressive. I guess the idea would be to have some-
thing that both of them will interoperate with. I am no lover of Windows
but seems these guys are on to something, even if it is on a OS that is
a house of cards.

This is the link to their site
http://winlink.org/


Chuck Hast
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To paraphrase my flight instructor;
"the only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask resulting in my going
out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst of torn
and twisted metal."


*****************************************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy any hard copies you may have printed and
remove all copies of the e-mail from your hard drive. Opinions, conclusions
and other information in this message that do not relate to the official
business of Utility Partners, Inc shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.

Visit us on the web at http://www.utilpart.com
*****************************************************************



_______________________________________________
linux mailing list
linux at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux



_______________________________________________
hfsig mailing list
hfsig at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hfsig

================================================================
Deze e-mail is door E-mail VirusScanner van Planet Internet gecontroleerd op
virussen.
Op http://www.planet.nl/evs staat een verwijzing naar de actuele lijst waar
op wordt gecontroleerd.