Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's Hams Embrace Linux

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-huge-surprise dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "The current survey question over on the eham site shows that around 40% of Amateur Radio operators that responded to the survey are using Linux/Unix as an operating system in some form or other. Part of the ham radio charter is to 'experiment and innovate'...seems the tradition is alive and well in ham radio. Some of the comments are interesting as well ...What's Amateur/Ham Radio? See www.eham.net/newham/"

8 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. This is kinda cool... by rekkanoryo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and it ties into a personal experience. A friend of my family's is a ham radio operator. He is experimenting with Linux and FreeBSD. So far it seems that he prefers Mandrake over FreeBSD. So maybe this type of thing could broaden the acceptance of UNIX/Linux substantially, which is always a good thing.

    1. Re:This is kinda cool... by rootofevil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      right, because all the cool kids are firing up their rigs and blasting the morse code while they hop their lowriders down the street.

      gimmie a break dude, what non-geeky person do you know that would consider hooking up a bunch of electronics so they can talk to people around the world at 5wpm? not to mention all the configuration necessary, tweaking the radio, the feedlines, the antenna...

      it really takes a special breed of person to be a HAM.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  2. Stats might have been even higher by sakusha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember "linux/unix" also includes MacOS X, and there were quite a few comments about Macs on that page. They might have gotten even higher percentages, maybe even beyond 50%, if they'd put MacOS X in the survey. Ya know, not everyone runs Intel/AMD.

    1. Re:Stats might have been even higher by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Cygwin is not just a set of Unix programs compiled for windows. Cygwin is first and foremost a compatibility layer which maps POSIX functions to windows functions through the use of a collection of DLLs. THEN it is also a set of Unix programs compiled for it. The core of cygwin includes these DLLs, and a base "filesystem" layout. The Cygwin DLLs link into your programs just like any other loadable, shareable libraries, and they take care of those various functions which are not normally present on Windows, which is why (As you say) it is not an emulator. Programs are Win32 native executables.

      Cygwin has progressed to the point where most software which does not unthinkingly use syntax only valid on one system or another, and which uses gnu autoconf, will simply build on cygwin without trouble, as it should be. Other things have been ported to it.

      Anyway Cygwin isn't Unix, it's a compatibility layer, and Windows is Windows, so it can't be Unix either. Obviously, Windows with Cygwin is a Unixlike operating system. (Mind you, it is quite possible to set it up in such a fashion that the average user could ssh into the system and run X apps, displaying them back to another system's X server, and never really realize that they're interacting with a Windows system. So while it's still not Unix of course, it has a tendency to look like it.)

      The thing is that Mac OS X has a Unix-y kernel. When you boot a modern mac there's some key combination you can use to see kernel messages (sorry, I forgot what it was already, I only used it once) and after mach loads, the Darwin kernel pops up and generally does all the things a kernel normally does. It really does behave like a Unix is expected to.

      Now back to your complaint about Quartz being "integrated very deeply into the system". It is irrelevant. A programmer never need consider Quartz, Aqua, or any of the other brand spanking new APIs which Apple has sensibly tied into the system at a tolerably low level for performance. If you are a Unix type, you can ignore the mac side of things as much as you like, down to simply installing Darwin and ignoring Mac OS X and Mac Apps, and treat your system like a Unix workstation. I understand that XFree runs on Darwin these days. Of course Apple does provide an X server for OSX, though you have to download it separately. So you really get Unix behaving like Unix if you want it.

      I know many hardcore Unixheads like to pretend Mac OS X isn't Unix because of the pretty GUI, but BSD UNIX is in there and you cannot take it out because it provides much of the major functionality of the system. You can choose not to install the BSD Environment but that doesn't remove the Darwin kernel, which borrows heavily from FreeBSD and is (obviously) required for booting the system. I challenge you to demonstrate how having your kernel sit on top of the mach microkernel makes it "not Unix". Does it really matter if all the kernel functionality is in one monolithic kernel, or split up between two (or more) processes? Many people develop user-space drivers for Unix, choosing to provide support for some hardware via a daemon and named pipes or simply some form of IPC. If a Unix distribution shipped that way, would it not be Unix?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. What's Easier by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you want to expirament with radio connectivity between computers, protocalls for use over radio, and other such things, which is easier? Windows or Linux?
    • With Linux, you have full access to source code for the OS, and can EASILY add new protocalls, network interface like things, and other such things you may need for expiramenting. It's all very well documented too.
    • With Windows, you... um... good question. You COULD write drivers, but I don't know how you would get started. I'm sure there are a few books on the subject, and maybe some web pages, but the ease of information could hardly match Linux. I'd guess most things are implemented as programs rather than drivers.

    Add to the fact that many (most?) hams are technically minded, and the fact that Linux and such are free and come with compilers and other such things, and that Linux CAME FROM expiramentation, can we really be that suprised?

    MBCook -KC0QBP

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  4. Well, not quite the same thing by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because HAMs like myself tend to be hardware geeks does not necessarily mean we're software geeks too... though we probably pick it up a lot faster than the average joe. Just the tendency to tinker probably leads some HAMS to linux.

    I'm an amateur operator, and I run windows AND linux. I'll admit, Windows is primarily for gaming, but there are some HAM-type applications that just are not as robust under linux. Here's a good example:

    Winradio is a wonderful piece of scanning equipment, whose software runs best under windows. Yes, I'm aware of Linradio but the software is not as full-featured.

    I'm sure other amateurs can come up with other examples. Personally, I'd like to know how many amateur operators run completely SANS windows. I'd lay even money that Bruce Perens doesn't own a windows box, so there's one...

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  5. Starting Out... by MrEnigma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know there has been tons of Ham Radio stuff posted to /. recently...

    My question, is there a beginners FAQ or anything written up? I'd love to get into it, get my callsign/license and then some equipment, problem is I don't know exactly what all there is to get, or what I need....

    Kind of like *NIX needs a better way to promote itself, sounds like Hams could use this also...

    --
    GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
  6. Elecraft open sources DSP code by niko9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was interested in building a kit radio and had heard of a company called Elecraft. After checking their page today, seems they have open sourced their DSP source code used in some of their HF rigs. Users are free to modify the code and post to web site to share with other users.

    They and TenTec are the last of American made and assmebled hame radio equipment makers left.

    Wonder how this will spur interest in custom DSP desgined radios. There's also a link from the elecraft page to a samll and inexpensive DSP development platform.

    73's

    N2PDB