[hylafax-devel] Re: Hylafax's Goals & Suitable Modems

[Darren Nickerson <darren@hewes.dazza.org>]

>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2000, "Robert" == Robert Hardy wrote:

  Robert> 8o/ If this is true in general (instead of only with the USR 33.6K
  Robert> voicemodem) then why not indicate this in the documentation to
  Robert> prevent others from wasting weeks of banging their head against
  Robert> HylaFAX!?

It's tough to document a moving target like this. And I'm not sure of the 
legality of making claims which might damage a company's reputation without 
having a pile of well-researched data to back it up. Word of mouth is much 
safer ;-)

  Robert> I'm not trying to be negative here. Please don't take this message
  Robert> as criticism of HylaFAX or its developers. Sorry if this turned into
  Robert> ramblings...

No problem.

  Robert> I've been trying off and on for the last ~2 years to get a reliable
  Robert> maintainable server based linux fax solution going. Even some of the
  Robert> existing commercial products have problems.

Yeesh, that's a long time. You should have started and ended with HylaFAX :-)

  Robert> IMHO, the bottom line for your average new HylaFAX user is they need
  Robert> something reliable and low maintenance. Hylafax seems to have been
  Robert> originally designed with this in mind. The current website isn't
  Robert> structured to service this basic requirement.

HylaFAX is not necessarily low maintenance. It's a powerful commercial-grade 
solution which must be nurtured! I'm sorry the WWW site misses your mark, if 
there were more people willing to update it then perhaps life could be 
breathed into the more stale areas.

  Robert> One of the first things I read was the FAQ. Going back now, I see:

  Robert> From FAQ Q002: "HylaFAX supports a wide variety of modems and is
  Robert> designed to support any Class 1, Class 2, or Class 2.0 modem without
  Robert> modification to the source code."

*grin* it's true!!! Many/most modem configuration problems may be solved by
careful and clever application of the flexibility offered by the modem config
files.

  Robert> I think Hylafax is great software, I love the open source concept and
  Robert> the fact that I am able to have this discussion at all. I'm trying
  Robert> to make suggestions to make Hylafax useable for a wider audience. We
  Robert> REALLY need to split Hylafax's purpose into two sections: 1. Existing
  Robert> purpose:  Works with any modem if you spend enough time hacking
  Robert> it. 2. Stability: Works 99% reliably if you use modem X, Y or Z which
  Robert> you can still buy new.

I confess to being surprised that 2. is so hard. I'm still not sure it is. 
I've yet to have a problem getting a modem working with HylaFAX . . . just 
last weekend I got a cheapo no-name hunk of junk flying in class1 just 
swimmingly.  Mind you, I avoid USRs like the plague.

  Robert> Please understand that I'm a bit frustrated at this point. I'm on my
  Robert> third or fourth modem from a couple of different manufacturers which
  Robert> were readily available (at the time). (USR 33.6K External (clearly a
  Robert> bad choice), Practical Peripherals 28.8K external, USR Sportster 56K
  Robert> internal w/ latest roms and others...)

So the Practical Peripherals is the only non-USR modem? May I ask . . . was 
this tried without the RTN patch which messes with some scary stuff, or was it 
on vanilla beta-1/2 or CVS code? As far as I know, that modem should have 
worked.

  Robert> The modem section on the website is incomplete and full of historical
  Robert> information on modems which are either no longer available (i.e.
  Robert> Circa 1993) or simply not sold by vendors in my area (Ottawa,
  Robert> Canada). Some of the information which is listed is unclear. It is
  Robert> difficult to tell if the information from the old models listed still
  Robert> applies to current ones.

Agreed 100%. I nominate you as leader of the modem survey team. :-)

  Robert> Given that Hylafax's goal should be stability, IMHO this section
  Robert> should be reorganized into three categories:
  Robert> 1. Stable class 2/2.0 modems which work nearly flawlessly with 
HylaFAX
  Robert> 2. Hack modems w/ bugs which will work @ 75-90% if you fight with 
them
  Robert> enough i.e. USR Modems, Practical Peripherals Modems, Class 1 based 
  Robert> modems etc.
  Robert> 3. Modems which simply don't work -> Winmodems

Sure!

  Robert> From an maintenance/return on time invested point of view it would 
make
  Robert> sense to simply indicate "If it isn't listed in 1. assume 3.".
  Robert> Obviously one would want to fill 1. ASAP. This would be alot less
  Robert> work than trying to handle info on every modem on the planet.

It's just not true though . . . a lot of crap will do just fine with generic 
class1/2 configuration. And almost every modem will require a BIT of tweaking.

  Robert> After a lot of discussion/reading (and reading between the lines) I
  Robert> gather the following:

  Robert> -There are no fully compliant class 2.0 modems suitable to a
  Robert> multiuser server. (See Zyxel exclusion below.) Surely this can't be
  Robert> true!?  I'm hoping there are several of them which are simply not
  Robert> listed yet.

Not sure about 2.0. I'm running lots in class 2 though, all multitechs ;-)

  Robert> -Zyxel modems don't support trailing @ symbols and
  Robert> should be excluded for high volume environments. See FAQ
  Robert> http://www.hylafax.org/HylaFAQ/Q318.html

Jury's still out on the "@". I've known it to confuse some modems, help 
others. I generally leave it off. I think the contributor's opinion is a bit 
extreme - I agree that result code reporting is important, but I'm not sure 
that @ is the magic bullet.

  Robert> -Class 1 isn't suitable for a server based fax solutions due to
  Robert> strict timing requirements. This eliminates about half the modems
  Robert> listed.

Class1 is fine for a light to moderately loaded server. Class2 is much more 
appropriate to a high concurrency situation.

  Robert> -USR modems do not work properly in class 2.0.

True.

  Robert> We have now have either no information on or have eliminated IMHO the
  Robert> most common modems out there. This leaves Multitech & Telebit brand
  Robert> modems in the FAQ which actually listed as suitable. Both of which
  Robert> seem to be hard to find here and cost significantly more than others
  Robert> which are readily available here.

There's quite a few modems which will work . . . may of them unbranded. It's 
hard to know who's making any modem these days, it makes my head hurt. Aside 
from USRs though, and a clear issue with ZyXEL and RTNs, I've not know of any 
other "absolutely no hope" modems.

  Robert> I'd be willing to do a one off re-write of FAQ Q003 or even
  Robert> write a FAQ Q00X "Which modems are suitable for building a
  Robert> stable fax server?" if we can get the information out of the
  Robert> users/developers. This information is badly needed.

Another modem bake-off is in order. 

  Robert> I'm obviously mostly interested in the currently available modems.

Of course. Perhaps you could get them to donate models for testing ;-)

  Robert> Here that list includes modems from: Acer/A-Open, Creative Labs,
  Robert> Diamond Multimedia, D-Link, GVC, Jaton, Motorola & of course
  Robert> USRobotics/3Com.

  Robert> Does anyone have this information already?

I applaud this effort - I think flexfax@sgi.com will bring many more results though, at least as far as the survey goes.

-Darren



____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Developers Mailing List ____________________
 To unsub: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-devel-request@hylafax.org < /dev/null