Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[hfsig] RE: [linux] LinLink

tattje tattje at planet.nl
Sat Aug 21 20:00:20 UTC 2004


Hi Walt,
Please try again, I did not see it.
Still robust AND highspeed is not compatible.
But I miss more, like how much latency in the system is allowed, can we have
long interleavers, or should it be a burst system?
Regards
Henk

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org
[mailto:hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]Namens Walt DuBose
Verzonden: zaterdag 21 augustus 2004 0:21
Aan: TAPR HF Modes SIG Mailing List
Onderwerp: Re: [hfsig] RE: [linux] LinLink


What specs are you talking about?  I can give you what I think the
DHS/FEMA and ARRL are looking for in a highspeed, robust, sound card
modem and message system.

In fact, I think I sent this out earlier this week.

Walt/K5YFW


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

_______________________________________________
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.






More information about the hfsig mailing list