On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 12:51?PM Jan PA3GJX via <jancats60=[email protected]> wrote:
Huh?
?
I am a bit disappointed about your answer John. In my opinion it is not a good reflection for a outstanding preforming protocol on HF, to use the amount of users on a system.? ;-). In Europ the Robust Packet Network brings joy and experimenting opportunities. The BPQ software adds al lot of opportunities combining it with Robust Packet.
?
John was simply reporting that Robust Packet is rarely used by Winlink, which is what Mauro was asking about. VARA, however, is widely used in that context. Are you saying that only Robust packet is an
"outstanding performing protocol on HF", but VARA is not?
?
By the way, not understanding Why are people so intent on pushing proprietary modes in this hobby?? ?Could it be the other way around?? Why not let your fellow hams get interested in high performance digital communication. American hams have until recently been restricted by law to use more data throughput hence pactor 4.? It has nothing to do with so called "expensive" modems. But ancient thinking.?
There are plenty of American hams using modes such as VARA and RP - plus some have the expensive modems also. The discussion here was specifically about Robust packet usage by Winlink. There's no need to jump to conclusions. I think the main issue with Robust Packet is with those already using VARA - for them is there really a reason (or room) to run another high performance protocol?
That said, I fully respect those who want to operate using open, non-proprietary protocols. I don't think that stance is a matter of "ancient thinking".
