[FADCA] FACTS About WL2K

[Jerald A DeLong]

Rick and rest of the group,

It doesn't take infinite "knowledge" to see a pig in a poke but a little
common sense will go a long way.


I could care less about WL2K it obvious that you guys need to re-examine
your topology a bit to really make it useful for emergency
communication.But I can say you guys have made a good effort to provide
some kind of solution for the HAM community.


It would be nice to see our node operator considering other options for
our state that will be more fault tolerant and have a lower risk of
disruption.


So not to disrupt this forum and be subject to personal attack from the
Winlink Development Team I will not comment further. But I do welcome
any email sent directly.



Jerry DeLong

   



On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rick Muething wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> I am telling you simply FACTS that are true and which can be verified and
> which you obviously did not make much of an attempt to get correct.
> 
> You can do whatever you want with them.  I just would appreciate that the
> next time you broadcast your infinite "knowledge" it includes a bit of truth
> about what you are bashing. Then your credibility might be a little higher
> based on responses I have seen.
> 
> Rick KN6KB
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Jerald A DeLong
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:52 PM
> To: Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association
> Cc: Rick Muething
> Subject: Re: [FADCA] FACTS About WL2K
> 
> Rick,
> 
> So are you telling me 4 Internet connected email server will provide
> more fault tolerance and redundancy then 50-100 individual meshed nodes
> connected via Radio and the Internet that can send mail on there own.
> 
> yea, Try again...
> 
> Dedicated Windows Server machines, this scare me even more, let me guess
> running M$ Exchange 2000 or 2003. I am M$ certified for M$ Exchange so I
> am far from being convinced this is a bullet proof system and as stable
> as Linux/Unix running SendMail or Postfix.
>  
> I do work with these platforms every day so I do know the difference.
> 
> My observation from WL2K presentation from the 2010 Orlando HamCations
> stand correct since you agree WL2K is not the only way to send HAM
> email. Then this publication should be corrected and **NOT** mislead our
> HAM community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry DeLong
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 17:25 -0500, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
> > Rick,
> > 
> > So are you telling me 4 Internet connected email server will provide
> > more fault tolerance and redundancy then 50-100 individual meshed
> > nodes
> > connected via Radio and the Internet that can send mail on there own.
> > 
> > yea, Try again...
> > 
> > Dedicated Windows Server machines, this scare me even more, let me
> > guess
> > running M$ Exchange 2000 or 2003. I am M$ certified for M$ Exchange so
> > I
> > am far from being convinced this is a bullet proof system and as
> > stable
> > as Linux/Unix running SendMail or Postfix.
> >  
> > I do work with these platforms every day so I do know the difference.
> > 
> > My observation from WL2K presentation from the 2010 Orlando HamCations
> > stand correct since you agree WL2K is not the only way to send HAM
> > email. Then this publication should be corrected and **NOT** mislead
> > our
> > HAM community.
> > 
> > 
> > Jerry DeLong
> > 
> > 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2707 - Release Date: 02/28/10
> 02:34:00
>