HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: Flame war has gone on long enough
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:23:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Followups-To: dev/null


rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
>No flame intended, but wher _is_ the appropriate place?  Is there a sig 
>devoted to these types of discussions.  (Other than advocacy, which seems 
>like nothing but a general purpose crank sig.)

first, there are no "sigs" within Usenet. The term you seek
is _newsgroups_. Get thee to news.announce.newusers.

second, to answer your question, there is no appropriate newsgroup
for this kind of protracted flame/discussion. It belongs in email.

-- 
paul theodoropoulos                                         damiel@netcom.COM
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: Max BPS on a A2000
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:50:16 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

Ray_Hines@dream.uucp (Ray Hines) writes:

>Can some of you tell us more about v.fast?  How fast does it go?

  26kbps full duplex.

  -jack-
From: sgberg@raisin.ucs.indiana.edu (Stefan Berg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Can`t download Sysop Prog. from Supra`s BBS.
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:44:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr6.164445.8501
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

I just tried to call Supra`s BBS (1-503-967-2444) to download
their Sysop Program Application, but after I got the CONNECT
message from my old 1200 Baud modem it just hang me up after
maybe 10 secs. I tried to hit return (and other keys) a couple
times, but nothing appeared. Can anybody help me out? (Please?)

Stefan

P.S. No... my modem is not f*ck up. Otherwise I wouldn`t be able
to call my university and write this newletter here. :-(

-- 
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------,
| Internet  - sgberg@ucs.indiana.edu             //           Stefan G. Berg |
| NeXT Mail - sgberg@arapahoe.ucs.indiana.edu  \X/ AMIGA  Indiana University |
| Bitnet    - sgberg@iubacs                   Undergraduate Computer Science |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: NComm 2.0 at last!
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:42:31 GMT
Organization: The Veronica Lake Fan Club

jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:

> rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
> 
> >net.  Games are some of the _most_ challenging things to program.  You
> >imagine that a program to edit text is harder to code than a program 
> >which animates in 3-d?
> 
>   C'mon Rocker, I expect better from you than sweeping generalizations like
> this!  It doesn't matter one whit *what* you're programming, the effort
> involved will show in the final product.  
> 
>   -jack-

I really don't consider it a generalization, not very anyway.  Ok, sure, 
you could say hey, text adventures are games too, and so where's all 
these whiz bang graphics routines?  My point is (and you know this, I 
think) that applications/"useful" programs are _tedious_ to code, but not 
as _challenging_ as high speed graphical work.  Say you want to code a 
word processor.  Would it be a lot of work?  Yup, of course it would.  
But would it require all that much creative effort, and special problem 
solving?  I doubt it, at least not to the extent that coming up with a 
new and innovative action game would.


"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the 
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know 
it's your place to challenge authority..."

                                          Rockerboy
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: JRComm speed (was: Max BPS on a A2000)
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:44:48 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

>        I see that the Subject line has changed but the point of my
>original post was not JR-Comm's scrolling speed, I could care less whether
>my interactive sessions are 19.2 or 38.4 or 57.6.  It's the raw data haul
>for UUCP etc... that I'm interested in.

  I addressed both, did you overlook that?  Regardless of the data you're
pushing or it's destination, 57.6kbps is not a must-have.  38.4kbps is more
than sufficient.

  -jack-
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:3611 comp.dcom.modems:6800 comp.protocols.misc:358
From: 89u1569@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.dcom.modems,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: New modem transfer protocol
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:58:46 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <1992Apr14.025048.26907@vaxeline.ftp.com>, dwh@vaxeline.ftp.com (David W. Hamaker) writes:
> In article <kujvqgINNi76@news.bbn.com> pplacewa@bbn.com (Paul Placeway) writes:

	Well although I am not very knoledgable in programming I think that
the following protocol would be much faster than any current.
	First D/L strait whithout checking for errors and therfore getting all
blocks as fast as possible. Then run though the file and spot all blocks with
errors. request those blocks alone. then again from those blocks check for
errors. and then we are there. This is for file D/L. If you can see why do we
have to check in every block. we could have blocks of 4K size and then in the
second (error) D/L they will be 2K size and for errors agin 1K size.In 
Zmodem we check every block for errors. We put too much error checking
material. Most of my D/L only have one error in a 500K file but I get 
224cps at 2400 baud. With the above protocol I'd get 300 cps and then 
only get overhead for the errors.
	Oh yea why not add an automatic decompression so I can read the text
files during a long D/L (Well that might be more Amiga specific) but that won't
be part of the protocol I guess but rather on the way the file is D/L by the
terminal program.
	CYA
		Geo T.





> 
> -Dave Hamaker
>  cfcl!dwh@apple.com
>  dwh@ftp.com
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: NComm 2.0 at last!
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:30:46 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:

>Why did they become doorstops, Jack?  That is another consideration.  
>They died because they were old, and for a few dollars more you could get 
>a 16-bit or better machine.  They _should_ have died years before, but 
>they were kept alive by the underground.

  I'm not concerned with why they became doorstops so much as with *when*
they became doorstops, as in how many weeks/months after purchase.  There's
a substantial difference between units sold and units in use.

  As for your vaunted underground, it may have been "alive" in their eyes,
but as a viable platform for generating income for the rest of the home
computer industry, it had died several years before.  You were playing with
a corpse, you just didn't realize it because you were out of touch with the
rest of the loop.  

  You see, that's the problem, this dweeb-elite is a parasite, it's not at
all beneficial to the rest of the community.  There's no documented or even
visibly demonstrative proof that there is any material benefit realized from
their existence.  It really doesn't matter what kind of New Age, neo-hippie
anti-establishment rhetoric you choose to hide behind either, the simple
fact of the matter is that when you engage in this sort of practice you are
taking something without giving back in return.  An imbalence such as this
leads to a breakdown, it always does.

  -jack-
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:3600 comp.dcom.modems:6773
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:05:43 +0100
From: kai@nicedel.north.de (Kai Schlichting)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: HELP!  Zmodem/SupraFax
Organization: Archimedes !RUCP Users

huebnere@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Huebner) writes:

> Advice needed:  After upgrading to a SupraFax v.32bis modem, I am having
> problems with previously problem-free Zmodem transfers.  Since upgrading
> when I Upload files using Zmodem, I recieve a lot of ZACKs which degrade
> the throughput to an unacceptable level (about 1100 cps with a 14.4k
> connection).  The protocol doesn't consider the ZACKs errors but it
> causes a temporary halt in the transmission.  The ZACKs seems to become
> more frequent, but the transfer does completel eventually.  This has
> occurred with both V.32bis and V.32 connections.  What I am hoping is
> that someone knows what modem commands or s-registers to change in order
> to fix this most annoying problem.
> 
> <stuff del>
hmm,does the prob occur with other transfer proto's as well (X,Y-modem)?
As you mention UPLOADS only, my idea is that the CTS signal dropping
(indicating that the modem can accept no more data) doesn't stop your
computer from sending. It's likely to act so,when (on high speed connects)
when the modem has a full buffer for the first time ,
it drops CTS and your comp doesn't stop sending data and the other side
gets <garbled data>.
(Maybe modem cable ? xon/xoff on the computer hw ? xon/xoff in the term
prog ? Have you tried it on another amiga/pc/whatever ?)
bye,Kai.

--------------------------------------------------------------- 
Tel.:  +49 421 556803 (voice)
E-mail: kai@nicedel.north.de (private UUCP site)
       j08i@dhbrrz41.bitnet (not valid;gets forwarded to rs550)
       j08i@rs550.zfn.uni-bremen.de (University)
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re:  Max BPS on a A2000
Distribution: world
Date: 4 Apr 92 14:13:22 EST
Organization: Private UUCP "Twig" Node

In article <James_Mcormond.1059@jammys.amiga.ocunix.on.ca> James_Mcormond@jammys.amiga.ocunix.on.ca (James Mcormond) writes:
>Nope.  If you want anything higher than 38.4k, you've got to expand in some
>way.  I do have my internal port locked at 38.4k on my A3000, and its
>useable, but it hogs alot of speed on my system, so i prefer to leave it on
>my multi-serial board (only locks at 19.2k).
>
>Considering the ports are only rated for 9600bps, the fact you can lock it
>at 19.2k, is pretty good :-)
>
>Jammer

        This has got to change.  Commodore must be working on the serial
speed in some sense but it really is senseless to have these unbuffered
(nearly) FIFOs on the serial port AND HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS.  I don't
intend for this to be another doom and gloom -MB- type post, merely a plea
to Commodore.  I only have a stock B2000, and while more speed would be
nice sometimes (ie. DTP screen refresh, UUCP uncompressing) I don't find it
a necessity yet.  I am planning on buying a high speed modem soon (I may
decide to wait for V.fast though) and I think it's senseless to limit a
56.7kbps+ modem to 9600 or 19.2k even.  It' also stupid to have to go out
and buy eight serial ports to get one that handles high-speed without being
a processor hog.  I'm kind of surprised that one of these hack-em-up
companies hasn't come out with a daughterboard or hack of some sort for the
serial port.  If it worked, you can bet I'd be a customer.  Please
Commodore, how about an ECS FIFO? :-\?  (Sorry, my best attempt at sad
puppy-dog eyes :-)


--
 Craig Lemon VE3XCL - Kitchener, Ontario. Amiga B2000  OS 2.04  UUCPv1.15D.
 +1 519 741 0297    +1 519 578 7817              | Silly people!  We all
 clemon@lemsys.UUCP clemon%lemsys@xenitec.on.ca  | know that the Universe
 IP/Packet: ve3xcl@ve3xcl.ampr.org [44.135.84.51]| revolves around UUNET!
From: dac@dacami.UUCP (David Culberson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re:  NComm 2.0 at last!
Distribution: world
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:33:35 EST
Organization: My home system.

  I don't think that the A500 was a bad idea.  I had to struggle to be
able to afford my Amiga 2000.  I don't pirate, and I know how to use my
computer.  Being rich doesn't make you a good user; if it does, then why
do so many mega-corporations pirate?  There are many companies out there
who could afford to buy seperate copies of software, but that run one copy
of software on all of their machines.  This is as much pirating as copying
a game off of a friend is.

		David

--
( dac@dacami.UUCP - cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!dacami!dac ) Amiga//
( - David Culberson - )  Have any old computers or terminals for sale?\X/
From: dvsg0223@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Salamon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: VLT 5.517 bug with FR BYPASS
Keywords: vlt, bug
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:33:02 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jaharkes@cs.vu.nl (Harkes JA) writes:

>Well I have had the same problems whenever FR_Bypass 'bypassed' the
>2.04 asl requester. I thought it was because I 'kick' my 2.04 roms
>into memory. VLT does not seem to be the error... FR_Bypass is...

I never had the problem before with FR_Bypass, but who knows (I have an
A3000, so maybe that is the difference).

Anyway, my solution was to switch the the Magic File Requester.  It  not 
only looks better, it also works with VLT correctly.

David

--------------------------------------------------------------
David Salamon                Physics Graduate Student (Slave)
d-salamon@uiuc.edu           University of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reid_Bishop@a68k.denver.CO.US (Reid Bishop)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: HELP!  Zmodem/SupraFax
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:58:03 GMT
Organization: The Arvada 68K BBS- Westminster, CO

In a message dated Mon 13 Apr 92 04:27, Bobl@bobsbox.rent.com (bob Lindabur
wrote:

 BL> I don't know what the max DTE on the
 BL> Commodore board is.  Can someone enlighten me? I want to use a board
 BL> that will allow me to set DTE speeds up to 57k.

The maximum DTE speed of the A2232 board (from Commodore) is 19.2kbps.

Very recently, a sysop stated that this upper limit has been raised to not
only 38.4, but 57.6kbps with the newest serial.device provided by
Commodore.  I find this highly unlikely, as my tests showed this not to be
true.  I'd like others to comment about this if they know anything.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.991

...........................................................................
 /\  /\  \  /       | Reid Bishop- Cust. |INTERNET: rbish@a68k.denver.co.us
/  \/  \. \/. MICRO | Suppt & Prgrming   |    UUCP: csn!a68k!rbish
Suppt BBS: The Arvada 68K BBS (303) 424-6208 * 310 Megs * AMIGA * 1:104/224
From: dlove@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Dave Love)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: NComm 2.0 at last! pirate trash NOT!
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:17:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <6qywiB9w164w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
>ewilts@mr.gov.bc.ca (Ed Wilts) writes:
>> 
>> Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that you're entitled to steal i
>> There is no such legal concept as "sharing" commercial software.  It's theft,
>> plain and simple.
>It is _not_ theft, and it is _not_ stealing.  It is copyright 
>infringement, which is a different beast altogether.  What's so hard to 
>understand about _that_?

A rose by any other name...

Not hard to understand at all.

>
                                          Rockerboy

+=======================================+===============================+
| "Nearly any man can handle adversity, | Dave Love                     |
|  but to test a man's character,       | dlove@cbnewsf.att.com         |
|  give him power." - Abraham Lincoln   | +1 303 850 8918               |
+=======================================+===============================+
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:3471 comp.dcom.modems:6488 comp.protocols.misc:339
From: dwh@vaxeline.ftp.com (David W. Hamaker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.dcom.modems,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: New modem transfer protocol
Summary: I got the same idea over five years ago and have a design using it.
Keywords: TransQ Tmodem protocol modem XPR transfer
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:36:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: vaxeline.1992Apr9.233616.19735
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA

(This is a reposting of article <1992Mar24.223127.8469@vaxeline.ftp.com>
originally posted Mar 24; there were posting problems here.)

In article <l9ktxg=@rpi.edu> husaim@aix.rpi.edu (Mohammad Mughees Husain) writes:
>I'm posting this for a friend of mine who's into programming.  Since
>he has no net access, you can send replies to this address with
>the subject: to Dan or post to the net.
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>This morning while I was trying to convince myself to get out of bed, I 
>thought of a new method to transfer files....  With this protocol one WILL 
>be able to transfer at 100% of their modem speed and STILL have error 
>correction!!! ...
>
>...The CRC is created at the receiving end and sent back to the transmitter.
>...If the CRC is wrong, the block is re-sent....
>
>                                       Dan Lorusso
>...


I think this is a wonderful idea because I had the same insight over five
years ago.  I then did extensive design work on a file-transfer protocol
built around the idea, producing a specification document about fifty pages
long.  I did my best to publicize the design in appropriate forums, hoping
to find someone interested in implementing it (I think the design would
best be implemented by someone working from the specification, since I
would likely implement what I meant rather than what I said).  I have been
unsuccessful in recruiting anyone to do so.

Dan would probably be interested in seeing the spec.  I'd be happy to email
it to anyone who sends me a request (I don't believe in sending 150K bytes
without an OK from the receiver first).  If I'm real lucky, Dan or another
of you will decide it really should be implemented and will attack it.

I believe it is best for protocols themselves to be open and all the work
I have done here is explicitly in the Public Domain.  This does not mean I
have any objection to proprietary _implementations_, however.  If Dan wants
to do shareware/demoware, that's fine.  If someone wants to use my protocol
in a commercial product, that's fine too.  I will answer questions/provide
clarifications about the contents of the spec without charge, regardless.

Please use my non-commercial address, cfcl!dwh@apple.com, for correspondence
on this subject.

-Dave Hamaker
 dwh@ftp.com
From: huebnere@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Huebner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: Term 2.1 problems
Keywords: term 2.1 speech problem
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:36:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr16.032147.3322@descartes.waterloo.edu> djkucera@descartes.waterloo.edu (Dylan Kucera) writes:
>
>    I cannot seem to get the SPEECH option to work in Term 2.1!
>Is there a bug?  Have I not set something up?  I put the "Speak on" from
>the preferences menu, but it doesn't want to yack at me about anything!?

 Speech on 2.1 works fine, I am using it regularly.  Not necessarily 
because its useful (it is, sorta) but mostly because its cheap, clever,
and its something I've never seen a Mac/IBM Terminal do!

 Possible problems why you're isn't working: 
1) you have to have SPEAK: device mounted.  I am fairly certain the standard 
startup-sequence does this but maybe you removed it at some point to save 
a little memory?  Typing "assign" should list SPEAK at the bottom under
Devices, and you'll need the narrator.device in your devs: directory.

2) You might be mis-interpreting the meaning of the feature.  At first
when I played with Term I thought this option was to speak all incoming
text (like in the movie Wargames, remember that?), however, its really just
there to inform you of system events such as Carrier Lost, Connection
Established, Download Complete, and so on.  

3) Lastly, note that Speak preferences are saved separately from other
Prefs.  You'll have to click the save button in the Speak Pref's box
since Project/Save Prefs doesn't cover this. 

 Basically if the "Speak!" button causes the Ami to say "This is Term Speaking"
then everything is setup correctly.  As the docs state, its mainly useful
if you have Term pushed back to a rear screen while download or redialing.

-- 
| Robert E. Huebner                   | "Death is nature's way of telling  |
| huebner@sage.cc.purdue.edu          |  you to slow down"                 |
| huebner@aerospace.aero.org          |   - Unknown Author                 |
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: NComm 2.0 at last! pirate trash NOT!
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:54:25 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:

>It is _not_ theft, and it is _not_ stealing.  It is copyright infringement, 
>which is a different beast altogether.  What's so hard to understand about 
>_that_?

  If you choose to use the narrow, archaic definitions of theft and copyright
infringement as a crutch to rationalize piracy, go right ahead.

  It doesn't make it, or you, right however.

  As times, technology and society changes, so must the definitions of the laws
that we govern ourselves by so that unforseen situations can be incorporated
within.

  There's no way you can deny the simple fact that a person can derive some
measure of benefit through the use of a particular program.  If the program
in question was acquired without paying for it (for lack of a better term)
and the person derives *any* benefit, leisure or productivity (or any other
quantifiable gain that you want to gauge it by), then the person has in effect,
"stolen" that benefit since there was no reciprocal gain realized by the 
person(s) who caused that program to exist.

  Until some new term is coined that defines this scenario we have to rely on
the only other term that tangentially describes this, theft.

  Although the benefit the person obtained might not be material, and the 
original copy of the program that they copied is not misapropriated, there
still was a measurable gain realized that was not paid for.  If you define
that benefit as an intelectual object then you certainly can apply the term
and definition of theft to it.

  -jack-
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:3506 comp.dcom.modems:6587
From: huebnere@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Huebner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: HELP!  Zmodem/SupraFax
Summary: Zmodem producing unwanted ZACKs during upload
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:03:04 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

Advice needed:  After upgrading to a SupraFax v.32bis modem, I am having
problems with previously problem-free Zmodem transfers.  Since upgrading
when I Upload files using Zmodem, I recieve a lot of ZACKs which degrade
the throughput to an unacceptable level (about 1100 cps with a 14.4k
connection).  The protocol doesn't consider the ZACKs errors but it
causes a temporary halt in the transmission.  The ZACKs seems to become
more frequent, but the transfer does completel eventually.  This has
occurred with both V.32bis and V.32 connections.  What I am hoping is
that someone knows what modem commands or s-registers to change in order
to fix this most annoying problem.

My active profile is identical to the IBM/Amiga factory configuration (at&f2)
provided in the modem memory except for atx2, atl, and atw1.  I am using
the Zmodem implementation from JRComm.  Have tried toggling Overdrive mode,
32/16 bit CRC, and the size of the "Window" all to no avail.  Any advice
appreciated.
Organization: Freshman, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:17:50 -0400 
From: Kian Tiong Soh <ks5g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Newer version of BaudBandit wanted (or else)
Distribution: world

Does anyone know where I can find AmigaElm.  It is supposed to be an
offline mail reader....

Thanks a lot.

SOH
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:3470 comp.dcom.modems:6487 comp.protocols.misc:338