:)
Honestly, as I'm not terrible interested in the remote capabilities, I'm
more than willing to make an inquiry to TenTec on Monday. No hurry, by
no means.. if it's never resolved, so be it.
I'm using the latest firmware/boot loader, I re-flashed, just for the
fun of it.. same situation. As soon as I can find my 512mb CF flash
card, I'm going to make a video so someone can tell me what I might be
doing wrong..
As for trivial or not, if I had built things 5 years ago with the
intention of having a more dynamic network, changing from .0.x to .1.x
would be absolutely trivial.. but there's countless changes I'd have to
make including bind IP configs in lots of daemons, /etc/hosts on each
box, and the like..
But anyhow, I'm VERY pleased with the radio, and I thin I initially
outlined this problem as being minor. It's not really worth further
discussion unless perhaps someone has encountered the same problem.
Thanks again!
Jeff - W4GPL
Gary Hoffman wrote:
> Well Jeff, I'm not trolling for a dispute :)
>
> I agree that it would be better otherwise. I note that some posters say
> that it is in fact different...so we have some question even about the
> facts, or if all versions of the radio are the same.
>
> Ten Tec....you listening ? Care to straighten out the facts ?
>
> In any case I said it was trivial because DHCP served devices (like most
> PC's) will get themselves a new address just by being power cycled. And
> then, changing a fixed IP address on a computer is only a few mouse clicks,
> as you already know.
>
> Perhaps "trivial" was too strong a term, but a few mouse clicks cannot at
> least be called difficult.
>
> I have some 35 users on my system, most of them wireless, located up to a
> mile away. We have outdoor antennas and amplifiers. We change address
> blocks pretty much weekly, as one of several security measures and to help
> keep people from pirating our bandwidth.
>
> As you said, a matter of perspective.
>
> 73 de Gary, AA2IZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Iddings" <jeff@iddings.us>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni VII - I feel like such a n00b...
>
>
>> Gary Hoffman wrote:
>>> Reconfiguring the local non-routable address block used from
> 192.168.0.xxx
>>> to 192.168.1.xxx is a trivial task, as you know. I often change mine
> for a
>>> variety of reasons.
>>>
>> Trivial for who? With all due respect, I have no less than 12 devices
>> already on my 'home' network. Two other geeky roommates equals a lot of
>> network devices.
>>
>> It would be trivial for TenTec to fix this bug. All a matter of
>> perspective.
>>
>> Jeff
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|