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/"
It's funny without even trying :)
So if Hams are linux users, does that means spams are Windows users?
Help us build a better map!
Quick, what's 40% of 100 ?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
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.
I predict than in the next 6 hours, Linux usage among ham radio operators will jump to 75%.
Litigious bastards
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
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Thank God! With this powerful special interest group behind Linux, nothing can possibly oppose it!
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
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.
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.
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
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
For the ultimate in merging Linux with radios:
GNU Radio
From the FAQ:
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"