[aprssig] The best resolution of ---

[Bill Diaz]

Curt,
  See below:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org 
>[mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Curt Mills
>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 22:16
>To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
>Subject: RE: [aprssig] The best resolution of ---
>

>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:

>> If authors would just
>> upgrade their software to this upgraded APRS
>> spec, then all this bellyaching by the XASTIR
>> crowd would be a non issue.

>If expressing valid concerns about the spec is bellyaching, when
>explain what forum I can express my concerns in, and just how to
>express them so that the powers that be won't get all upset?

>The Xastir list is much more open to suggestions, I must say.  We
>tend not to pounce on people just because they have a different
>opinion.

I doubt that is the case.  When I pointed out the difficulties many users
encountered when trying to install XAstir you refused to acknowledge this
and tried to turn the discussion into an operating systems war.  I was also
"pounced" on by other XAstir users who also did not want to admit that some
users had Xastir install issues.

Why do you insist on insulting all windows users with every post you make on
the sig?  Your tag lines indicate to me that you feel all Windows users are
stupid. 

Based on your posts on the sig regarding XAstir install issues and your
offensive tag line, I find it hard to believe the XAstir list would be open
to any opinions that are contrary to yours.  


The APRS 1.1 spec is not perfect, but it does provide developers with the
information needed to develop applications for todays operating environment.
It also clarifies several issues in the original spec which were ambiguous
or misleading.

APRS still manages to survive despite using technology from the 1980's.  I
am forever amazed with what can be acomplished with APRS using 1200 baud
VHF. The only reason APRS is still viable is because of the published
specifications.

If you choose to implement features which are not spec compliant then not
all users will be capable of receiving those packets.  Unfortunately, this
can get out of hand when developers disregard the spec and implement unique
features which can cause existing applications to fail or to disregard the
non-compliant format.  We have also seen cases when developers implemented
non-compliant features which caused havoc on 144.39 and the APRS-IS.

Like it or not, the spec is what keeps APRS viable today.  

Bill KC9XG

>
>> on.  AND the thousands of existing Kenwood
>> users would still see EVERYTHING on the air that
>> they currently see.  No one loses...


>> Except the XASTIR crowd who wont be able to
>> do as much kenwood bashing...

>Would you mind telling me exactly where I bashed Kenwood?  I believe
>I have expressed valid concerns in a non-Kenwood-bashing way.  If I
>haven't, please point out the text I wrote.


>-- 
>Curt, WE7U.				archer at eskimo dot com
>http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
>  Lotto:  A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown
>Windows:  Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U.
>The world DOES revolve around me:  I picked the coordinate system!"
>
>_______________________________________________
>aprssig mailing list
>aprssig at lists.tapr.org
>https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>