ok, so qemu-system-sparc finally runs netbsd 9.2, on qemu version 610, machine sparcstation 5, with 256m ram, host aarch64
installs with factory eprom only and runs with open firmware only with command line:
../../../qemu-6.1.0/build/qemu-system-sparc -m 256 -drive file=hdisk.img,format=raw,media=disk -cdrom NetBSD-9.2-sparc.iso -boot c
"but" looks really good ... retro ... dm for install instructions, not enough room here ...
@abortretryfail @hobo @publius I have used it in the past, I do not use it now; I have used it indirectly in the past, as well (messages gatewayed from VHF packet to HF cross-state links). I have also used HF not-quite-traditional packet modes like WinLink indirectly.
These days the only digital I do is either RTTY with an actual Teletype Model 28 or "modern" modes. HF packet is ... not interesting, and kind of painful.
@dervishe I haven't read that book, but I feel like Kenn Amdahl's There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings might fit in here.
We already have digital modes that are hundreds of Hz wide to achieve effective bitrates in the double digits. We also have modes that are only a few Hz wide and achieve usable communication under horrendous propagation and noise conditions. Higher symbol rates would be yet another avenue to push the digital envelope.
@publius @abortretryfail As far as I can tell, the resistance to lifting the symbol rate limit and moving to bandwidth-only limits is purely "get off my lawn" resistance from amateurs who do not understand or are not interested in digital modulation beyond morse code and _maybe_ RTTY.
My daily driver is a CE 200-V and my RTTY machine is a Teletype Model 28. I understand the lure of those days. However, amateur digital doesn't need to be artificially held back.
@publius @abortretryfail Restrictions on amateur service typically have a purpose, however, and it is not clear that the symbol rate restriction is anything but a leftover from times when symbol rate and bandwidth were much more closely allied than they are with digital signal processing and direct quadrature modulation transmitters. 1/2
@publius In other words, it's perfectly allowable to use 300 bps packet with 700+ Hz bandwidth, but NOT a modern encoding that might provide 1 kbps or more in that same 700 Hz.
@publius I ... know all of that? I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.
Amateur modes below at least 70 cm (maybe only 1.25 m?) have an artificial symbol rate limit in addition to their bandwidth limits. This means that modern modulation schemes which can achieve a higher symbol rate in the same bandwidth as older schemes are prohibited from doing so if they exceed the allowed rate (300 bps below 10 m, 1200 bps on 10 m, etc.).
This ruling temporarily lifts that artificial limit.
@claudiom ImageMagick is so handy, I use it in loads of scripts and such to do things like this on the fly. Similar tools in this category (for me) are psutils, pdftk, and netpbm.
This is very interesting. Symbol rate limits have been very contentious in the amateur community for reasons I don't quite understand (but I think can be summarized as "get off my lawn"), and some proposals to do just this have failed to gain enough traction recently.
> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as USB Type-C, or as people have recently taken to calling it, USB-C, is in fact, USB 2 or USB 3. USB-C is not a system unto itself, but rather a connector of the multi-functional data interface made useful by USB 2, USB 3, USB Power Delivery, Audio Accessory, Debug Accessory, HDMI, DisplayPort, MHL, Thunderbolt, and vital physical layer components comprising a full system as defined by USB-IF.
> Many computer users run a version of the USB every day. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of USB which is widely used today is often called "USB-C", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically USB 2 or USB 3, developed by the USB-IF. There really is a USB-C, and these people are using it, but it is just a connector to the system they use.
@ajroach42 ... and almost everything they play is poppish, and I'm not poppish. So I wait a long time, disappointed in what I hear, to find something that gets me excited.
Or else I go to Bandcamp and I hit up the reviews of artists I really appreciate, or the social media feed of the artist themself who says "I"m really grooving to [...]" and in twenty seconds I'm listening to something new AND I LIKE IT.
I don't think we ever "win" this way, because Spotify is Really Easy, but ...
@ajroach42 Related perspective ... I now buy much of the music I buy on bandcamp/etc. or directly from artists. That doesn't mean it's necessarily an open content license, BUT I sure appreciate it when it is.
I'm not going to not buy the next Mighty Mighty Bosstones album, but I'm unlikely to FIND the next Mighty Mighty Bosstones in the mainstream media release system. Why? It's just harder. I have to buy a streaming service and "wait for it to come around on the radio".
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko