OpenBCM V1.07b12 (Linux)

Packet Radio Mailbox

SR1BSZ

[Szczecin_PL JO73GK]

 Login: GUEST





  
KB2VXA > SURVEY   18.02.06 14:33z 39 Lines 1719 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 49644_NJ2AR
Read: GUEST SP1LOP
Subj: Re: G0TEZ > HTML
Path: SR1BSZ<ON0LGE<ON0DXC<WA7V<N1URO<K2PUT<WB2QJA<KC2COJ<NJ2AR
Sent: 060218/1306Z @:NJ2AR.#CNJ.NJ.USA.NOAM #:49644 [Lakehurst] $:49644_NJ2AR
From: KB2VXA@NJ2AR.#CNJ.NJ.USA.NOAM
To  : SURVEY@WW

Hi Ian and all,

Just for my 2c worth, too bad packet HTML was but a passing fad as was 
color ASCII. They're not hard to deal with, we had fun with CA mostly 
with writing it to begin with, displaying it was easy and done with BASIC 
over DOS. HTML is a tad more difficult to write and requires a bit more 
learning but still easy to display, the simplest being the browser. I see 
so little of it these days but what I do may be classed loosely as art, 
especially the anual Christmas greetings from Italy.

As for the whiners, it takes no more "space" than a somewhat verbose text 
message and is sent in one part quite unlike that bothersome 7+ that so 
many don't know how to compress and send properly. Yeah, they just love 
to send high resolution images in so many parts and if but one doesn't 
arrive (a common problem) the whole thing is useless garbage. Now if a 
small SSTV image can be sent in a couple of minutes in one transmission 
why then do some packeteers insist on such overkill? There's MY gripe and 
yet another reason why my e-mail address appears below. Uh huh, if you 
want you can send a couple of megs to my server and it won't complain a 
bit. Or was that a byte or a baud? Yes kiddies, while I frown on mixing 
packet with Internet the latter DOES have it's uses, just think of the 
possibilities when you keep them separate.

73 de Warren, KB2VXA@NJ2AR.#CNJ.NJ.USA.NOAM
Powered by JCP&L atomic energy.

E-MAIL: warren@kb2vxa.net

**************************************
Preserve the integrity of our network.
Stop Internet forwarding, use RADIO!
**************************************

Message timed by NIST: 18:50 on 2004-Jan-06 GMT



Read previous mail | Read next mail


 03.05.2024 15:26:11zGo back Go up