Slashdot Mirror

Ranks just above Extra class and requires network certification

For those not familiar with amateur radio certification, "Extra Class" is the highest level you can attain under the current FCC certification system. However, of not, if you want to communicate in the VHF band then all you need is the lowest certification, also known as a "Technican Class" license. All that requires is one 35 question test about radio theory, FCC rules, and general practices.

Over the last few weeks, I've been compiling a list of links regarding operating Amateur Radio with Linux . There is a lot the little penguin can do over the radio waves including bouncing data off the space station and routing IP traffic through your local mountain top.

Lots of folks, when they get their Ham Radio license, end up purchasing a little handheld radio with not much range.

Those little handhelds might have better range than you give them credit for. It's just line of sight. A coworker of mine was very excited last week when he managed to pickup the International Space Station (ISS or Alpha) on his 2 meter handheld unit. This is a communication of over 200 miles, but you can see the thing going over. Granted, this isn't like the round the world bounces you can do with HF, but it's still pretty darn exciting.

The space station and data applications for amateur radio caused me to start putting together a web page on how to operate with Amateur Radio over Linux . There is a lot of software, hardware, and resources available out there. It's not hard to get a license to operate in the 2 meter bands these days, so it's something worth exploring.

Over the last few weeks I've been assembling a page of links converning working with amateur radio using Linux . I've managed to assemble a collection of links covering things such as:

• Hardware that works with Linux
• Linux software available
• Protocols and standards
• Books with reference information

This started after I read about how it is now possible to exchange data through and talk with astronauts on the International Space Station. I've started working on my own license which is really quite easy to attain. It's just one 35 question test which most people should be able to prepare for in under a month with just one or two books.

With luck, in a few months, I'll be ready to flood the airwaves with my own useless drivel. With a little more luck, I'll manage to get a postcard from space.

This project follows in the footsteps on a previous effort I took to compile a comprehensive list of links regarding Bluetooth on Linux Thanks to SlashDot, this page managed to stay in the top ten list of the Bluetooth Top Sites list for all of April.

Over the last few weeks I've been assembling a page of links converning working with amateur radio using Linux . I've managed to assemble a collection of links covering things such as:

• Hardware that works with Linux
• Linux software available
• Protocols and standards
• Books with reference information

This started after I read about how it is now possible to exchange data through and talk with astronauts on the International Space Station. I've started working on my own license which is really quite easy to attain. It's just one 35 question test which most people should be able to prepare for in under a month with just one or two books.

With luck, in a few months, I'll be ready to flood the airwaves with my own useless drivel. With a little more luck, I'll manage to get a postcard from space.

This project follows in the footsteps on a previous effort I took to compile a comprehensive list of links regarding Bluetooth on Linux Thanks to SlashDot, this page managed to stay in the top ten list of the Bluetooth Top Sites list for all of April.

Is VoIP secure?

By FCC rules you can not encrypt or otherwise obscure the meaning of communications over the amateur bands. The frequencies are there for hobby use and not business use.

Over the last few weeks I've been putting together a list of links about amateur radio over Linux. The whole area is an interesting convergence between open projects. It looks like I'll have to add another link for IRLP.

This is very, very likely. I saw a USB 2.0 card at Circuit City last week. It had four external ports and one INTERNAL port. I also own a FireWire card. That card has three external ports and the board etchings (but no hardware) for an internal port. It is very easy to imagine IDE having to compete with one of these standards for internal connection of periperals down the road.

It is very easy to imagine a future machine with only USB 2.0 ports inside and out for connecting up all peripherals. Slots won't go away, but their need and number could be vastly reduced. Now, if traditional peripheral boards such as sound cards and modems could be packaged as modules that can be installed without opening the case, we will be another step closer to truly consumer friendly computers.

Shameless plug time: Information on using Linux and Bluetooth together is available. Please help keep Linux at the front of this technology.

It's possible you have a bad handset. I've used Sprint for years (since the Sprint Spectrum system started in DC) and have been very happy with it. I'm using a Samsung flip phone and get good coverage most places I travel to. However, someone I work with has the exact same phone and thought the coverage was bad. I put my phone right next to his and got a good signal. It turned out he had a bad handset.

About the only thing that will make me get rid of my current handset is when ones with Bluetooth capability finally hit the street at a reasonable price.

I fear the only thing this will really change is how fast Sprint can drain your wallet. Sprint already charges $10/month for their "wireless web" access. They'll probably charge even more (on top of airtime) for access to high-speed data.

I have Sprint PCS, and I love it, but all the tack on charges for new services makes them less than appealing. Only a miniscule percentage of people will ever use these facilities because of the cost.

My dream is still to see my cell phone act as a wide area gateway for my PDA and laptop using Bluetooth short range wireless tech. However, if it costs $1/minute, it won't be worth it.

First, learn a little more about USB 2.0 here:

http://www.usb.org/developers/data/usb_20g.pdf

I really feel that USB 2.0 will be the dominant player in a few years. This won't be because of technical superiority as much as entrenchment and having a clear upgrade path.

As long as the cost of USB 2.0 PC interfaces comes down to close to that of USB 1.1, there will be no reason for motherboard manufacturers to not put the interface out there. The 2.0 ports can still talk to 1.1 hubs and peripherals, so in the beginning the end user will not see a difference.

Once enough machines are out there with USB 2.0 interfaces you will see some peripheral manufacturers start to migrate over as well. People will always have a mix of 1.1 and 2.0 components being that they will coexist on the system using the same string of cables. However, in time, 2.0 ports will be the only thing you find on new PC motherboards.

Now, think in terms of a motherboard manufacturer. This is a commodity market and cutting costs is essential. These motherboards already support USB 1.1. They know they will be replacing the 1.1 ports with 2.0 ports. These manufacturers are going to ask themselves, "why should I put two incompatable high speed interfaces on the board?" To take it to a further extreme, in a few years I expect to see many motherboards coming out without old fashioned serial and parallel ports. Even the keyboard and mouse ports could be endangered if the cost of the USB keyboard and mice come down.

Firewire is likely to be out there for a long time to come. It will probably dominate the A/V world being that USB was never targeted to that market. However, except in high-end situtations, I don't think we will ever see a lot of motherboards including direct FireWire support. It will remain an add-in card for most people.

Microsoft will eventually support USB 2.0. They are just going to wait until real hardware shows up. This is the same scenario they are taking with Bluetooth support. Intel or other hardware manufacturers will release add-on software for Windows to handle USB 2.0 until Microsoft integrates it into the OS. It has been done before and it will be done again.

And Digianswer has announced that they will promote the creation on Bluetooth Drivers for Linux and I believe they announced that they plan to open their source code in the future.

Sorry to disagree here, but Digianswer appears to be more interesting in getting the open software community to help them develop a closed driver. This quote from the announcement makes this pretty clear:

"The source-code will, under no circumstances, be freely available."

I'll lay odds on the Axis stack being the standard interface for Linux with a mixture of open and closed hardware level drivers that bind to the bottom of it. There is already a USB driver out there and some support for various PC Card adapters.

Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .

The typical range would be something like 10-15 feet, not the 150 feet you can get out of 802.11B.

Actually, base station class devices such as LAN access points have a range up to 100' or 200' (sorry, can't remember which right now). These devices require more power than a handheld would provide, but will be used to bring point of presence service to larger areas. I imagine the convention floor was using devices of this level. The potential for too many people in too short of range goes up quite a bit. Still, I imagine it was more trouble with the 1.0 to 1.1 spec conversion than range and population issues.

Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .

Left to themselves, vendors are likely to come up with all sorts of imcompatible implementations (as they've already done). However, if Microsoft provides the de facto standard implementation, every vendor will write to that "standard".

This is very similar to how the TCP/IP interface under Windows evolved with WinSock. In the early days, each TCP/IP utilties vendor had their own IP stack. If you bought a 3rd party application, you had to check which stacks it supported. When WinSock came out, that all changed. Apps could be written for only one interface. However, this did kill off the various IP stacks. Probably not a great loss, but it is of note.

Bluetooth will likely have a similar evolution. The value-add will be in the higher level apps rather than the core protocol stack.

Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .

until there's atleast an x86 motherboard out there with a Bluetooth transceiver built into it!

Would you settle for a laptop? I believe Sony and at least one or two other companies have announced models that include integrated Bluetooth capability. I'll lay odds we will see PC motherboards with Bluetooth within a year.

Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .

There have been a lot of these "poof" events lately. Product pages at both Intel and 3Com have gone away. Motorola still has a products page up, but it provides next to no information. The only idea I can offer up is that when these products were based on the 1.0 Bluetooth spec and were pulled to retool for the 1.1 spec.

Anyone who does have working links for Bluetooth products, please send them to me to be put on my Bluetooth on Linux page. Also, consider visiting the Bluetooth topsites list to keep Linux high on the links list.

I haven't seen anything about IBM shipping a USB Bluetooth adapter, but they are shipping a PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter. There is information (and pricing) for it on CNet. I ran across this product during my searces for support of Bluetooth under Linux.

A quick hunt through IBM's website turns up the PC Card adapter under their wireless products section, but no mention of USB. My guess would be they don't have anything shipping yet.

It's a little early in the life cycle to be declaring Bluetooth dead and buried. The hardware is only just now starting to show up. Software is under active development. Even though Microsoft is sitting on their back side, other companies are developing Windows support for Bluetooth. There is also work underway to support Bluetooth under Linux. I've already seen reports of success connecting Linux and Windows machines using Bluetooth for file transfers.

Microsoft is not making a mistake in holding off in shipping Bluetooth enabled versions of their OS. They are making a mistake in not commiting openly to providing Bluetooth support as a service pack after the product ships and Bluetooth standards settle down. This can probably be written off as another marketing blunder.

There is a big difference between Bluetooth and Betamax. Bluetooth is an open standard. Sony wanted to collect a royalty of use of Betamax. If you had drawn a comparison between Fireware (with Apple) and Betamax it would have been more appropriate.

More resources on what Bluetooth is (and is not) is available from a Bluetooth topsites list which contains a few dozen links to Bluetooth sites.

Bluetooth also provides a higher level abstraction than 802.11. When printing over a standard network you have to know the model of printer at the other end. With Bluetooth it's possible to use a standard printing "profile". This keep you from having to carry 200 printer drivers on your PDA to handle any situation you walk into. Similar profiles exist for other environments such as file transfer and serial port tunneling.

For those wanting more information, I have a page on using Bluetooth with Linux. Also, you can get more information about Bluetooth in general at a Bluetooth topsites list that is available.

Microsoft isn't alone here. Several vendors are getting squirrely when it comes to Bluetooth support. 3Com had an actual products page for Bluetooth up until about a week ago. Now, the link just circles back to their home page. Intel took their Bluetooth info down somewhere before that.

I've been collecting links for Bluetooth under Linux for the last few weeks. Oddly, some of the information is going away as fast as new information is coming online. The good news, however, is that with Microsoft's latest move we will see Bluetooth for Linux support well before Bluetooth for Windows support at the kernel level. If Microsoft doesn't include support, it will be up to each individual vendor to come up with their own OS API implementation.

For people wanting to get more information on Bluetooth, there is a topsites list of links to information resources. Please, help to keep the Linux links high on the list. :)

In addition to the Axis page, I've tried to gather together as many links regarding Bluetooth running on Linux here. So far, there isn't a lot of material out there, but it's growing fast.

I apologize for not having a link for backup, but part of my online wanderings last week ran across mention that issues around Bluetooth in France and Japan had been settled. This is just conjecture, but it might have something to do with the power of the signal as much as the frequency it is operating on.

A quick online search ran across a number of articles with headlines such as "France legalizes Bluetooth". Here is one link talking about it. Hopefully, that settles the issue. I'm not sure what the current status of 802.11 in France is.

Just for the hell of it, here is another shameless plug for my Bluetooth on Linux information page. Our favorite free operating system will be on the front line of new wireless technology.

Publications doing reviews of the IBM and Toshiba Bluetooth adapters have run them in close proximity to 802.11 equipment. Much to the reviewer's surprise the two sets of equipment ignored each other with no noticeable interference.

Neither product is always transmitting, so if both happen to transmit at the exact same time then each will look like RF noise to the other. In theory, if both systems were VERY busy this could be a problem. For the most part, this does not appear so.

I've bee trying to research these products as they pertain to Linux for the last week. Most the the fruits of this search are available in a web page of links and comments.

Oddly, Intel took their main Bluetooth page down. The nearest thing I could find was their Personal Area Connectivity page, which mentions Bluetooth. I found this last week while researching links to build a page about Bluetooth with Linux implementations.

Rix, do you (or anybody else) have a link for any information presented by this IBM guy? I'm putting together a web page of information on Bluetooth being used with Linux, and would be curious as to what IBM has to say. So far, the only information I have from them is a Bluetooth PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter that costs way too much.