Anyone else doing remote TNC's or anything interesting like that?
Anyone else doing remote TNC's or anything interesting like that?
Well, I just picked up a whack of old TNCs at the Dayton Hamvention. I've now got a fair bit of gear to test my packet radio stuff for Synchronet
with the next time I'm in the mood for it (hopefully soon.) Not sure if what I'm doing is interesting or not, though.
Well, I just picked up a whack of old TNCs at the Dayton Hamvention. I've n got a fair bit of gear to test my packet radio stuff for Synchronet with the next time I'm in the mood for it (hopefully soon.) Not sure if what I'm doi is interesting or not, though. :D :D :D
I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.
I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.I was wondering.... I hear folks can use packet on 2 meters, but best I
I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.
I was wondering.... I hear folks can use packet on 2 meters, but best I
know of no one uses data on 2 meters around here... I'm assuming I'd hea
a beeping sound? I'm looking around for a used TNC after hearing you can
pick one up for about $20. Of course, there are other issues I'd have,
will have to find me a 4-pin connector and make me a proper cable for my
Baofeng UV-3R. But first the TNC and conector... Only thing about 2
meters, you won't be reaching many people ...
This is the thing - I think what some people may want is to host their Synchronet BBS as-is (ie. with the exact look and feel that it presents to
a user who's telnetted in) via packet. That's an understandable goal, and it would certainly look a lot nicer than most any packet BBS available at the moment. However, bear in mind that most TNCs don't send a packet until the user hits enter (or buffers in as much data as the spec allows in a packet.) This means that a lot of things that aren't line-based (full
screen editors, editable input fields, lightbar menus and other cursor-positioning stuff) wouldn't translate very well at all.
But it's not yet clear to me if I should care about Synchronet being able
to communicate with other packet BBSs. I think there's some value in that, but I'm not sure if anybody else feels the same way. We could just make
our own thing and ignore the rest. Would like to know what other people's thoughts are on this.
I can't get my TNC to work in kiss mode. But I am using the first version o his script and people here seem to like it.
It give you full access to the TNC, so at times I have to reset it because i was placed in to a strange mode.
Once I get a TNC that works in KISS I can not wait to use the new version of the script, and maybe get the BBS on the RF side, even if it is black and white since no one wants to move from 1200 baud.
If I were doing it, I would likely do:
1) Telnet support (line mode)
2) "standard" message passing support
3) Kludge lines in standard message passing for Synchronet "stuff"
4) QWK packet over packet.
Number four I would likely do only when there was another Synchronet BBS around... I would be unlikely to set up two systems just so they could talk each other.
Once I get a TNC that works in KISS I can not wait to use the new versionDude, if I had the setup to contact your BBS via packet radio, I'd call it
of the script, and maybe get the BBS on the RF side, even if it is black
and white since no one wants to move from 1200 baud.
How about FTP over packet?4) QWK packet over packet.
But it's not yet clear to me if I should care about Synchronet being able
to communicate with other packet BBSs. I think there's some value in that, but I'm not sure if anybody else feels the same way. We could just make
our own thing and ignore the rest. Would like to know what other people's thoughts are on this.
That's the biggest problem with simply letting people use your TNC in terminal mode - they can dick around with the settings at will.
As for 1200 baud, well, I think a lot of people would like to move on. Unfortunately there are many reasons why it was the most common mode during packet's heyday. Moving up to even 9600 baud, many radios needed modification in order to work with a 9600 baud TNC.
I've been looking around here and there at transceiver and modem ICs and
may eventually get to work on building cheap (ideally $100 or less) data radios for UHF.
At the same time, I'd like to mess around more with low speed digital modes on HF. Lots of fun to be had there, and with this BBS community being fairly geographically diverse, it may be easier to find people to work with on HF than elsewhere.
Either way, at the moment, unless you was located near Brookhaven, MS.
I wouldn't bank on me reaching you on 2 meters... So, until I get a 10 meter
and TNC, or something else to reach you...
Re: Hello people
By: Diamond Dave to echicken on Tue May 29 2012 20:52:21
I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on
2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.
Yep - I have, and I've tried many different things. I'm getting a lot closer to having a decent packet setup for Synchronet. Allow me to elaborate in great detail. :D :D :D
Number four I would likely do only when there was another Synchronet BBS around... I would be unlikely to set up two systems just so they could talk each other.
I guess that depends on whether we want to do this on HF or not, and how feasible that is. If so, I'd certainly be interested.
How about FTP over packet?
Also, would it possible to use the telnet gate and rlogin gate over
packet to link packet to internet?
I say we forget what was done in the past, and make a packet BBS as close to dial up system as we can.
Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.
No reason to stick to the old way of packet.
I plan on setting up a different frequency and running a digi-repeater at 79 feet. No longer 200 baud, 2400 or 4800. Yeah, you might need to tune your radio/tnc. But wake up hams, and get back to building and playing with new stuff.
So my 2 cents. We have a killer BBS system now, no reason to reinvent how i works. Just make it work over RF..... People can learn how to use it. It so much better then the commands and different junk you have to do now to connect and send messages over old packet style BBSes.
I use a Motorola Radius or GM300 VHF radio, and have had luck at 2400 and 48 using the mic jack and handset audio.
HF BBS would be killer!
Thanks for that - I learned some things. I probably wouldn't have any useful input until I actually logged into some packet BBSes myself and got a feel f the way things are done traditionally.
Well, my current HF rig would not be very usable for any sort of automated work... if you can't support ALE, it's not likely you'll be able to have an automated sked.
Manually tuning up every X often and waiting out a 300bps transfer would be nightmarish I think.
I say we forget what was done in the past, and make a packet BBS as closeYou got my attention! If I get this 10 meter I'm wanting to get and
to a dial up system as we can.
Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.Like a REXW for Packet Radio, or a BinkD for packet radio? Should not be
I plan on setting up a different frequency and running a digi-repeater at 7900 feet. No longer 200 baud, 2400 or 4800. Yeah, you might need toWith Synchronet's Java, this could become better than ever! In fact, for
tune your radio/tnc. But wake up hams, and get back to building and
playing with new stuff.
Manually tuning up every X often and waiting out a 300bps transfer would be nightmarish I think.
That's true. Then again, you'll be moving on to an SDR eventually, which should make this sort of thing easier. :|
Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.Like a REXW for Packet Radio, or a BinkD for packet radio? Should not be
a big deal...
With Synchronet's Java, this could become better than ever! In fact, for
the guru's that expanded out the java before, why not create some TNC
commands for Java? If nothing else, sure we could just make a class and
have something like:
TNC.init('COM2:');
TNC.callsign('KF5QEO');
TNC.listen(myanswer());
TNC.connect('W5WQ');
if (!TNC.isconnected) {
writeln('can not connect!');
}
tncconnect('KF5QEO');
tncwrite('Welcome to Synchronet BBS');
We can then work on re-writing the menus and stuff to check for type of connection and if TNC use the tncwrite or TNC.write, otherwise use java's writeln, etc. to send to the serial port or internet....
Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
---|---|
Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
Users: | 93 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 00:55:24 |
Calls: | 5,204 |
Files: | 8,493 |
D/L today: |
18 files (18,046K bytes) |
Messages: | 353,643 |