Friday, January 06, 2006

g3zhi reply to ve7ltd

yes david you do sound very disturbed

not true you said - i hate irlp

not true - i said you hate echoirlp

it is not true - 'IRLP nodes are not locked out of
reflectors for non-technical reasons'

w7aor locked the m1lou node out of 9250 because i
was telling someone how to close a node with 73
and that is the reason w7aor gave for the lockout
w7aor never claimed there was any badmouthing going
on as you have claimed in the past

not true - i was never locked out of the irlp yahoo list

i was locked out by not being allowed to post

not true - the lockout list didn't change in six months
i visited the page most days and i saw the lockout
numbers changing

it was useful information and should be put back

not true - I never said you guys were unqualified

ve7ltd irlp egroup posting 28th november 2003

ATTN all IRLP and EchoIRLP users. It has come to my
that un-qualified individuals are going into IRLP
nodes to
install EchoIRLP,

not true - You posted to the IRLP general yahoo groups and IRLP
( hosted on lists EVERY day for a week or so

i suggest you check - i never posted once.

Sorry, but if you are going to do that, I am always going to be here
to put
things in a clear and concise form, so there is no confusion.

you have nothing to say on the main point made in the newsletter
article - the decline of irlp activity

some uk node owners are talking about closing their irlp nodes down
due to lack of use

for the record i use both irlp and echolink everyday and i have
always supported both

i remind you i was the one that put the case to our government in
1999 and got permission for internet linking in the uk
you should be grateful we have 56 irlp nodes here

i have promoted internet linking around the world in magazine
articles - on the internet and at ham fests so people do want to
listen to what i have to say

you have concentrated your reply on one section of the 9 page ukirlp

the only negative comments i have had about the newsletter as usual
have been from you nate and marshal
all the rest have been very grateful and it has been posted all over
the world

irlp seem incapable of taking any criticism about irlp and that needs
to change as
it maybe something you have to get used to

its just typical of the abuse you get from irlp.

dont forget was the fist to publish all the irlp node numbers and
remember all the abuse i got for doing

you say you have 50 connections to your node a day - i would like to
see the log files
you should be looking at how many nodes have not been used for over 7
over 300 down and 600 idle

you make no comment on the huge decline in activity on reflector
9200 - which i use everyday

my article on irlp was fair and balanced and you should listen more
to irlp users

in view of all the 'not true' i really don't think you know what you
are talking about

your posting has done nothing to improve the reputation of irlp
it has done quite the opposite

Ian G3ZHI - many ham radio links

G4NJI IRLP 5200 Echolink 135909
Rotherham simplex 145.2875mhz

Ian Abel G3ZHI

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cameron - IRLP"
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:18 PM
Subject: UKIRLP Newsletter June 2004


I am very disturbed at your narrow-minded views of my feelings on
Echolink and EchoIRLP, and your lack of proper knowledge of the IRLP system.

You are misinformed, and obviously think that you have to flaunt that to
everyone in the Ham VoIP world. Just so that everyone understands
both sides of all your slander of the IRLP network and the EchoIRLP
project, here are a few "re-clarifications" of the points you covered:

First, I do not hate EchoIRLP. I run it on my node in Vancouver.
Several other IRLP installers and support crew, including Paul VE3SY and
Dave K9DC (both reflector cops, or head-bashers whichever you refer to them
as). I am putting into motions the steps required to make it EASIER for
node owners to install and operate EchoIRLP, by doing all the tricky
compiling work for them. I am also modifying core IRLP scripts to make the
transition to EchoIRLP easier. I will also be distributing EchoIRLP
from the IRLP servers, and helping people install it on their nodes.
This will open a large percentage of the 1400 IRLP nodes as Echolink RF nodes.

Second, I don.t think you have a clue of why people are locked out
of reflectors. IRLP does not believe that putting a 2 second "mute
period" for all link and repeater stations is a solution to a problem like
nodes with tails and courtesy tones. That is how Echolink conference
servers often deal with that issue. It is like masking intermod on the
input of a repeater with a CTCSS tone squelch: Any good repeater owner would
not do that, they would take the machine off the air, and fix the technical
problem before bringing it back online. IRLP nodes are not locked
out of reflectors for non-technical reasons, except for when they are
carrying on local QSOs with no consideration for others on the reflector, often
not knowing they are even connected. The time from keyup to retransmit on IRLP
is in the order of about 150 milliseconds, not the 1.2 seconds that
is average on Echolink. The problem is much more pronounced. The
standards of having no courtesy tone and pulses (or thumping, or pinging) just
makes the IRLP network into a seamless linking system for radios, which
was what is was designed to be from the beginning.

Third, many other programmers and I just spent close to three weeks
modifying and testing new IRLP binaries to make the GSM audio sound
better. The usage of GSM on IRLP is about 1%. This was strictly to
improve the audio for EchoIRLP, as EchoIRLP is 100% GSM. As a side note,
this improved the audio on the ADPCM mode of IRLP as well.

Fourth, the reason why you were asked not to promote EchoIRLP on
the IRLP lists is the following:

- You flooded a perfectly valid tool we set up to allow people to
send email to node owners, without posting the email addresses on the
web. You used that system to send EchoIRLP propaganda to hundreds of node
owners who didn.t want it, and flooded the server off the web. Now we have
had to put restrictions on the service, lessening its usability for

- You posted to the IRLP general yahoo groups and IRLP general
(hosted on lists EVERY day for a week or so, even after being asked
to stop by many people on the list. The message was the same every time.
Try doing that on the Echolink list and see what happens. Notice that I did
not lock you out of the IRLP list, just asked you not to continue promoting
EchoIRLP so aggressively on a list that you had already saturated.

- You don.t seem to understand that people don.t seem to complain
to you when the IRLP list goes off topic. They complain to me. At the
time, I was not even a moderator of the IRLP Yahoo Groups list, and received
over 50 messages asking why you were so persistent in your posting.

Fifth, the reason why I said I would not support EchoIRLP,
especially at that time, is that nobody who supported IRLP was in the production
loop. I had too many things to worry about to start looking at compatibility
issues. The initial alpha stage that the code was at when you
started promoting EchoIRLP was buggy, and breaking several nodes, and we
were left to spend our time cleaning up the mess. It is not unfair that I
warned node owners who had EchoIRLP installed that we would not be able to
help them with their EchoIRLP installations, as even to this date, most
of us don.t have a clue how to support problems with it. I never said you
guys were unqualified, I just said if it broke we could not fix it, and
that you guys were not the IRLP installs and support team, so there was
no confusion.

Sixth, the comment on activity has nothing to do with the stability
or the future of the network. The beauty of IRLP is that it is there when
you need it. The Linux computers just sit and run reliably, without the
need for rebooting. People just now consider it a part of their repeater
all the time, and no longer just a novelty to play with. I still have
over 50 connections a day, and that does not include the 150 Echolink
connections that come up and down without anyone saying anything.

Seven, the "lockout page" you refer to was set up as a beta test
because people wanted to know what reflectors they had been locked out of
after they had fixed their technical problems, so they would know where
they would have to be re-instated. Some people sent us wrong email
information, and never received the lockout notices. For your information, the
"lockout" page was built once, and was not an active page. So
anyone who used it for whatever purposes would have seen static information on
it. Before it was removed, it had not been updated for over 6 months.
It was not an "obscurity" in any way. Nodes that try to connect to a
reflector they are locked out from are told that when they try to connect. We
also reply to all requests to re-instate a node.

So Ian, I am not sure where you get your information, or why you
feel that everyone has to listen to your opinion. Sorry, but if you are
going to do that, I am always going to be here to put things in a clear and
concise form, so there is no confusion.

Dave Cameron - VE7LTD
IRLP System Designer