Slashdot Mirror


America's Hams Embrace Linux

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/"

45 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. America's Hams by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's funny without even trying :)

  2. Bayesian radio by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if Hams are linux users, does that means spams are Windows users?

    --
    Help us build a better map!
    1. Re:Bayesian radio by rekkanoryo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Most likely :)

      I'd be more willing to bet that the CBers are Windows users, though. (Yes, I know you were joking. I chose to ignore the humorous side.)

  3. 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 rekkanoryo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I know you are trolling, but I feel compelled to answer this. Mandrake is easier to use for him, both for the installation and everyday use. With Mandrake (and RH, SuSE, and other similar distros), X configuration is done with the GUI during install. Just about everything he needed was included with Mandrake in the default installation. Less shell work is necessary with Mandrake--in fact, he's not yet found the need to use an xterm. And even if FreeBSD is more "stable," stability isn't everything. Do you think Windows got where it is by being rock-solid?

      Besides, does FreeBSD provide support for ham radio like Linux does? I'm sure the guy wants to eventually integrate everything into one simple solution.

      For him, Mandrake just worked. FreeBSD needed a fair amount more configuration for his preferences in a workspace, but Mandrake could meet them with the installation options. He's more or less a normal user--e-mail, light browsing, Solitaire and Mahjong, etc. Nothing overly deep. Linux distros still have a little way to go to be viable for the masses (like him), but FreeBSD is leaps and bounds behind in being ready for the masses. Just my $0.02.

    2. 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
  4. 40% ? by tealover · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quick, what's 40% of 100 ?

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    1. Re:40% ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      40.

  5. Obligatory "-1, flamebait" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The other 59.999999% use windows (and one person chose BSD, which is dying)

    1. Re:Obligatory "-1, flamebait" by Gherald · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The other 59.999999% use windows

      No, its 59.949999%. You have to allow for the .05% MacOS.

  6. 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 DavidinAla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is just plain stupid. Some versions of Unix -- including the original -- are still proprietary, and that doesn't make them non-Unix. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Either that or your religious attachment to open source is getting in the way of your ability to think rationally. Trying running Mac OS X and pop open a terminal window. You'll find that it's Unix, whether you like it or not.

    2. Re:Stats might have been even higher by DavidinAla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with pride. It's just a simple fact. Mac OS X is as much Unix as Linux or BSD or Xenix or AIX or any other Unix variant. If Mac OS X isn't Unix, then neither are the others. They're all slightly different from the "real" Unix, so they can't be Unix, either, if you think there's only one "standard" Unix. Your comparison of Cygwin running on Win95 is really weak, because it's not the OS, but rather an emulator/environment on top of Windows.

    3. 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.'"
  7. Crystal ball by Nucleon500 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I predict than in the next 6 hours, Linux usage among ham radio operators will jump to 75%.

  8. Re:New Linux Distro? by kb3edk · · Score: 2, Informative

    No need for a new Linux distro - most of the ham interfaces work fine with all distros and are available as RPMs, DEBs, etc. You will find slightly higher percentages of hams using SuSE (because of a tradition of working on ham apps) and Slackware (just for its "tinkerability") distros than in the regular Linux user population, IMHO.

  9. Great idea! by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What a wonderful idea! Let's poll a bunch of people who are, in large part, ELECTRONICS HOBBYESTS, and ask them what OS they prefer!

    HAM radio types are often some of the most technically knowledgable in the world. I'll bet that even the ones that still use Windows know enough Linux to survive. They may even have legit reasons for using Windows (like certain Windows-based EDA software still beats anything on Linux...)

    I have another great idea. Let's poll KERNEL HACKERS and ask what OS they run :P

  10. Nothing can stop Linux now by evilempireinc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank God! With this powerful special interest group behind Linux, nothing can possibly oppose it!

    --
    we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
  11. That's all we need... by fuzzix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ham radio enthusiasts using Linux could give the impression that it's some sort of marginal, nerd OS and that couldn't be further from the truth.

  12. 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.
    1. Re:What's Easier by 2short · · Score: 3, Insightful


      "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"

      There are quite a few boks on the subject, and certainly some web pages. In particular MSDN comes to mind: all the docs and apis you need in one place. You don't know how you would get started, because you've never tried.

      If the abiltity tinker and experiment with your OS is a driving factor, go with Linux, absolutely. (I'd also go with linux based on various other things being your driving motivation) But if you're interested in extending MS lock-in, I mean, uh, writing Windows specific software, you'll find that MS is as helpful and friendly as you could ever hope for. They understand that as mammoth as they are, it's the many third-party developers writing Windows specific code that really make the monopoly thing work. If you want to (or have to) write such code, they really do make life pretty nice for you.

      In any case, I've got to agree "Ham radio operators use Linux more than the general population" is definitely a no-brainer. Why is this newsworthy? I mean it's obviously Ham-radio booster month here on Slashdot, but why exactly? Did one of the editors just get into ham radio? I don't dipute that ham radio is cool enough, or rather nerdy enough. Based on the Hams I've known it's got a bigger nerd factor than basically anything, but pace yourselves! This at-least-one-Ham-story-every-day just can't stay interesting. As evidenced by this article. Or even this post; I'm just rambling at this point, clearly. Insomnia will do that. Sigh. Why am I still awake?

    2. Re:What's Easier by jargonCCNA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Linux CAME FROM [experimentation]

      Actually, Linux came out of Linus wishing he could have his own copy of Minix without having to pay for it. So, rather than resorting to outright piracy/theft (as in theft of the install disks from the university), he reverse-engineered it.

      --
      Matthew G P Coe
      http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
  13. Hams? by volpe · · Score: 3, Funny

    So... William Shatner uses Linux?

  14. This just in... by CaptainTux · · Score: 2, Funny
    THIS JUST IN TO CNN:

    According to recent reports from our sources it seems that a mass revolution is taking place in the ham radio world tonight. After a short article appeared on the popular Slashdot website the ham radio frequencies were flooded with new users bringing towers, repeaters, and other equipment arount the world to a virtual standstill.

    While we're still trying to determine if this could perhaps be the first radiowave based denial of service attack we were assured by knowledgable users that it most likely isn't. According to someone identifying themselves as BSDZealot, most of the on air chatter seems to consists of people calling each other gay niggers, fucktards, idiots, and making random pro/con statements about the usability of Windows versus Linux. More at 11.

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  15. Hams and Linux by Lxy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is weird because I was asking a guy just today on why so many hams DON'T use linux. Most of them have at least heard of it, if not tried it.

    Hams are technically literate folks who don't pay for anything if they don't have to. If you can build it, why pay someone for it? I'm shocked that most of them can make a radio out of some wire and a resistor because it's cheap, yet choose to pay $200 for a Windows license.

    And as for the poll, I assume the same rules apply on eham.com as /., I quote::
    • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

    So whether or not we should put any stock into a poll on another website and make an article out of it makes me wonder.
    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. Re:Hams and Linux by SuperQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      yep.. I see this too. Many hams I know are not linux/unix users. I also have a hard time finding open source/etc solutions for ham problems. software like radio mobile, echolink, and other usefull ham apps are only available in windows.

      When it comes to packet radio, there is a lot more linux stuff going on.. mostly because packet started before windows existed, and the only OS that networked was UNIX.

    2. Re:Hams and Linux by KC7GR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lxy Writes...

      "Hams are technically literate folks who don't pay for anything if they don't have to. If you can build it, why pay someone for it? I'm shocked that most of them can make a radio out of some wire and a resistor because it's cheap, yet choose to pay $200 for a Windows license."

      Speaking as a long-term hamateur (I've been licensed nearly 26 years), I have some comments on your statements above.

      First, name me ANYone on this planet that doesn't pay for something if they don't "have" to. I can assure you with absolute confidence that this is not a trait that is limited to ham radio folk. ;-)

      Amateur radio, like other hobbies, gives back exactly what you put into it. If you just want to spend a minimal amount on a low-end radio for use on the local repeaters, and chat with others, fine. You'll get that, no problem.

      If, on the other wing, you want your signal to go halfway around the planet, bounce off the moon and land back on Earth at some distant point, or put up your own repeater or APRS station, you're going to need to invest significant $$ in the appropriate hardware (and software, if needed) to do it.

      Considering the high cost of some of that hardware, particularly specialized commercially-made antennas, is it any wonder that many hams (myself included) are tinkerers and kit-builders? Is it any wonder that we're opportunistic as all get-out when it comes to scrounging, and re-utilizing surplus parts to build our own stuff?

      As far as your comments on $200 or so for Windows goes, let me add this. Learning how to tinker properly with electronics, especially radio hardware, takes lots of time. It also takes, in most cases, a significant investment in test and measurement equipment, and many specialized hand and power tools. Oscilloscopes, signal generators, and spectrum analyzers are not cheap, even on the used market, any more than a good drill press or contact crimper is.

      Given that, and given the high degree of difficulty, and the equally high degree of skill, required to write a decent operating system or application software, I would certainly (heck, I did) choose to simply buy available products if they will meet my needs.

      Put it another way; I really don't have the time or skill to write my own OS and software, nor is it something that I would choose to learn. It's enough of a challenge keeping up with what I'm doing on the hardware side (which does, admittedly, include the occasional bit of assembly code for embedded microcontrollers). It's much more expedient, in many cases, to simply buy what is already made that can be adapted to serve my requirements.

      73 de KC7GR

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

  16. The Ultimate by spoonist · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the ultimate in merging Linux with radios:

    GNU Radio

    From the FAQ:

    It does signal processing in free software. This means you can learn from it, and modify it to do new things. The big idea is to give ordinary software people easy access to 'hack' the electromagnetic spectrum, that is, to understand the radio spectrum and think of clever ways to use it.
  17. Let's be honest by $eRvmanIO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a ham and a linux/windows/blah blah blah user, there are many reasons why hams gravitate to linux:

    1. Elitism - Yes, Linux users and Hams DO have something in common.
    2. Technical aspects - speaks for itself
    3. Cheapness - Combine used computer parts from Hamfests and free OS and you got the spirit of Ham Radio operators.

  18. America's Hams? by FsG · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't this be a better icon for the story?

    --
    I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
  19. Re:Geeks using Linux?! by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given such things as i2c and other methods for low level access is it any wonder?

    Hardware access in Windows becomes more abstracted and obfuscated with each release, much to the detriment of things like accurate timing which is essential for things like MIDI and controlling some hardware.

    Linux gives the hacker plenty of ways to poke around with hardware ports etc..

  20. If you thought computer guys are nerds ... by greenmars · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... then you haven't spent time with a bunch of hams. Holy Moly. I got enough geek/nerd time in one hour to last me the whole weekend. Talk about a convention with no girlfriends in sight ...

  21. Re:A Perfect Match by LinuxGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since you said method (meaning radio emission), that also leaves out cell phones, wifi, bluetooth, microwave relay towers, pretty much every communication method except wire or optical fiber.

    I am just taking your flamebait post as a chance to remind you that if it dosen't use wires, hams have probably been involved in development at some stage.

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  22. Linux Kernel Options by Student_Tech · · Score: 3, Informative

    This shouldn't be too much of a surprise I think. The main menu for the Linux kernel has "Amateur Radio" options in it. So they have taken the time to add support for AX.25 (a variation of X.25 used for packet radio) and added it to the kernel as well as drivers for a bunch of interfaces.
    Last time I played with it (about kernel 2.2.12) it worked fine and connected to the rest of the packet users without any problems. Made it really easy to pass packets destined for the AMPR out from my network at home.

  23. Marginally Relevant by Xenoproctologist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Saying "40% use Linux" isn't very meaninful without some form of usage context. I'd be more interested if there were a follow-up poll in which asked what they were using it for...

    * Primary general-use computer
    * Non-primary general-use computer
    * Exclusively for Ham work
    * Saw picture of penguin on back page of my Linksys router or Tivo manual

  24. 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.
  25. 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!
    1. Re:Starting Out... by Atilla · · Score: 4, Informative

      Besides looking on eham.net and arrl.org web sites, you might try to find out where your local ham club is... the best resource for amateur radio information are the amateur radio operators!

      you might be able to find a good starter radio on ebay for under 100 bucks.

      the technician class license is really easy to get, and you don't even have to know morse code to get licensed (general and extra classes require 5 words per minute proficiency). It helps if you have some electronics background, though.

      --
      --- sig moved for great justice.
  26. Why, then... by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...was the most recent Linux ham radio HOW-TO last updated over 7 years ago?

    1. Re:Why, then... by Poeir · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're all running Debian stable. It's still perfectly up-to-date.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
  27. Hams & Linux: Not quite yet. by Teeja · · Score: 5, Informative
    As a ham, I have experimented with Mandrake & Red Hat, but I don't believe the average Amateur Radio Operator will be making the switch to any form of Linux soon. Why? Because hams love radio and are primarily interested in computing as a tool to extend their abilities within radio experimentation.

    Yes, more hams are getting into Linux, mainly because experimentation is in their blood... but the question is "what are hams passionate about?"-- answer: ham radio, not necessarily computing, although integration of the two is occuring at a faster pace now.

    As a ham, I want my tools to work and work well. I want to spend my time on my hobby (radio) and not that much time figuring out how to use or configure my tools (OS's).

    IMHO, linux will begin to rule when it:

    1. Has a more intuitive GUI/Menu with descriptive application names that tell me what the app does.
    2. Has an application installation procedure that my wife can figure out.
    3. When lunatic-fringe linux geeks stop bashing "windoze" simply because it's easy to use.

    What am I running right now? XP
    Why?
    It gives me what I need with the least amount of effort on my part. Call me an "appliance operator" or whatever, but I'm spending more time on what I enjoy: ham radio.

  28. MacOSX is Genetic Unix, Here's Why by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also known as: There and back again, an operating system's tale

    As Apple clearly states in their Darwin FAQ, "Darwin is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems." I think we all agree that BSD is in fact UNIX with a capital UNIX. In fact it is one of two bloodlines for Genetic UNIX, the other being AT&T's progeny. Everything which calls itself UNIX once had to be genetically descended from one of these two codebases.

    As you may or may not know, many if not most commercial UNIX vendors based some releases on BSD, and some on System whatever. SunOS4 is based on BSD 4.something, for example, and SunOS5 (commonly called "Solaris") is System V. So everything today called UNIX is derived from one or another of those sources. It's my understanding that prior to the Open Group getting their grubby hands on the UNIX trademark you pretty much had to be a source licensee to use the name Unix, which was a privilege accorded to Digital, HP, SCO, Sun, and IBM. BSDi was always pretty careful to be called BSDi and not BSD UNIX, as I recall, even though it's based on BSD UNIX.

    I think the strongest argument for Unix being mostly a set of behaviors and not a genetic descendance, however, is that there are clearly two things called Unix; BSD UNIX, and Unix System V. (And the various ancestors, of course.) Then, there's the name UNIX, which one pays for. In order to get it, however, one also has to mimic a certain set of behaviors.

    In any case, you have to make some sort of decision about what Unix really is. If NeXTStep is Unix, then so is Mac OS X. Christ, they're practically the same thing, except the big joke is, NeXTStep ran on PCs. Ha ha, ain't that hilarious. The question of Linux being Unix or not is a lot muddier, certainly it is not Genetic Unix... or at least we hope it isn't or SCO could be partially right :) But where I'm going here is that Linux acts like Unix, it looks like Unix, people who use it are like any other Unix types (now that everyone uses Unix.) I'm not talking about Mac users who never touch the Unix side here, mind you. I know plenty of hardcore Unix types use it as well, and since Darwin is open source, you can do whatever you like to the Unix side of it. Or hell, just run it by itself.

    Your argument about the non-standard kernel, well, that's the best one I could come up with myself. The non-standard filesystem layout doesn't mean anything, Unix filesystem layout has changed a lot over time. The non-standard API is rubbish, it has the standard ones, it just has additional ones. There's no law that says Unix can't be extended, it's been extended plenty over time. A non-standard windowing system? X doesn't make Unix. Unix is one thing, and the X Window System is another thing, which Unix just tends to come with all the time.

    Returning to the question of whether or not a microkernel-based operating system can really be Unix, that is a toughie. As you may know, Mach handles processes, memory allocation, multitasking, et cetera. This is what really raises the question, isn't it? If it were just a HAL-style mini-microkernel like NT's, it would be less of a question I think.

    But let's face it, most of FreeBSD is in there. Big chunks of the kernel presumably made it in as well. After all, there's lots of things that the kernel does besides process management and memory allocation. I think it's fair to say that it's Unix, it's just on top of a microkernel. Big deal. It also has a whole bunch of makeup dumped on top of it as well, but that doesn't make it any less the same old mom. Here's to Apple Pie, the USA, and Unix forever. Call it Unix, call it UNIX, call it a POSIX-Compliant Unix-workalike, I could give a shit. But let's face it, Mac OS X is Genetic Unix. You can't take that away from it, no matter how hard you try.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. 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

  30. The Ham Ethos & Computing by vergil · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This article (which I nearly passed over) caused me to think a bit about the parallels between computer users and their operating systems & radio operators and their use of equipment.



    I've always viewed my friends who are especially into Linux and ham radio (Rob Carlson -- radio callsign KC2AEI -- is one friend of mine who's fluent in both fields) as advanced hobbyists, the type of folks who might have scoured mall Radio Shacks for 6.5536 mhz crystals and dabbled in Heathkit
    catelogues several decades ago. Tinkerers, in other words, passionate about tweaking the miniscule component constituents of their electronics to achieve a personal, customized result.



    On the other hand, the similarities between radio "consumers" and Windows users are too tempting not to make. Unlike the Linux/ham radio enthusiasts, these folks operate their store-bought PCs/radio receivers as black boxes, strictly according to the design intended by the devices' manufacturer and rarely cracking open cases out of curiousity. Of course, I'm painting w/ a broad metaphorical brush here, lumping swaths of individuals into overly generalized categories.

  31. finally! by happystink · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that ham radio enthusiasts are into linux, there is finally going to be an influx of hot women into the open source scene, awesome!

    --

    sig:
    See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.