[aprssig] APRS DOS a time for change?

Brian Webster bwebster at wirelessmapping.com
Fri Jan 11 14:09:33 EST 2008

    I've been active in APRS for years and have watched posts about the
different clients and their non-implementation of certain features. I agree
with most of your discussions on the features and their intended purposes.
The question in my mind now is, why after all these years of pointing this
out, has APRS DOS not been ported over so that it could be run properly
within a windows environment? While I understand the original purpose of
staying with DOS to use older computers that were more cost effective, I
question the need for that any more. Those machines are mostly gone and
windows in one form or another is our reality on "old" computers. Even the
throw away computers hams can pick up for free or next to nothing have
windows or Linux, not DOS. The idea of hanging on to DOS as the operation
system is even harder for some of us who used to know the commands we
needed, but over the years have forgotten what we used to know.
    I like all of the features and the implementations you keep mentioning
APRSDOS has, I just don't like the idea of having to dedicate a computer
with an OS that I can barely remember how to run, and that I also lose the
multi tasking capability on the same machine. As much work as it would be to
code APRSDOS to Windows, I think the time has come. Maybe the idea of making
it open source to allow for others to do the work could be an idea?
    With Ui-View code being locked up now, and as you have mentioned needing
plug-ins to change the functionality, this push would be a good idea at this
point. I personally always thought features such as the decaying packet
rates for objects and positions that didn't change was a great idea. Many of
your original features obviously didn't get implemented properly. I think
one of the main reasons your program features did not get implemented in the
prevalent clients, was the software author's understanding of all the
features. Even so, because the "user interface" was what the end user
preferred and expected, these client programs took hold. Your program got
left behind and with it many of the features APRS was intended for. I'm not
trying to start a flame war here, just pondering a point that seems to be
hitting me right in the face. I guess what I am trying to say is that if
APRSDOS was a windows program you might get more people to use it and thus
the features. Rather than just point out all of the problems with the other
clients APRS operators are using, let's give them a reason to do it right.
Roger is gone, you are not. We CAN fix this situation, IF we rethink the
problem and the approach to a corrective action. Just my thoughts......

Thank You,
Brian Webster N2KGC

More information about the aprssig mailing list