|
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
ARRL has announced a design competition that some of you may not have heard
of. The objective is to produce a CW and SSB transceiver with at least 5 watts of output on 40 meters. Components must be commercially available. The total cost of all components (except key, mic and power supply) must not exceed $50. Any instruments beyond a multimeter must be in the $50. Complete information is at http://www.arrl.org/qst/hbc/. Credit for the original idea goes to N4AUP/9. All components of the entry must arrive at ARRL by next August. The winning entry will be the subject of a QST article. I would hope that the winning entry would also appear in the ARRL Handbook and the "Now You're Talking" book. It would also be desirable for this contest repeat every two years, alternating with an SSB/CW transceiver for a single VHF or UHF band, or perhaps for two bands most suitable for working the low-orbit satellites: something worthwhile for new Technicians to build (such a competition might have a higher limit than $50). The idea that new hams could again build their own stations using money earned after school is very appealing. That was a plausible objective in the 1960s, because of the availability of components from obsolete TVs. Tom, N3IJ |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Those TV's weren't obsolete -- they were "repurposed" -- and don't forget
that you had to purloin your grandmother's a.m. radio for a 365mmF dual variable cap. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Tom Coates wrote:
ARRL has announced a design competition that some of you may not have heard of. The objective is to produce a CW and SSB transceiver with at least 5 watts of output on 40 meters. Components must be commercially available. The total cost of all components (except key, mic and power supply) must not exceed $50. Any instruments beyond a multimeter must be in the $50. Complete information is at http://www.arrl.org/qst/hbc/. Credit for the original idea goes to N4AUP/9. All components of the entry must arrive at ARRL by next August. The winning entry will be the subject of a QST article. I would hope that the winning entry would also appear in the ARRL Handbook and the "Now You're Talking" book. It would also be desirable for this contest repeat every two years, alternating with an SSB/CW transceiver for a single VHF or UHF band, or perhaps for two bands most suitable for working the low-orbit satellites: something worthwhile for new Technicians to build (such a competition might have a higher limit than $50). The idea that new hams could again build their own stations using money earned after school is very appealing. That was a plausible objective in the 1960s, because of the availability of components from obsolete TVs. Tom, N3IJ I would take exception to the "windows" requirement for the PC. They should allow a solution using both "MAC" and "Linux" based PC's especially the later. Linux can run on a 'throw away' computer that is now underpowered for current generation Windows OS. Also Linux is FREE (perfect for a budget project!). I don't run windows on my computer. Currently running Gentoo Linux, but for non-computer gear heads I recommend Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu Linux. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On 2006-09-23, ken scharf wrote:
I would take exception to the "windows" requirement for the PC. They should allow a solution using both "MAC" and "Linux" based PC's especially the later. Evidently, you didn't read this requirement thoroughly. "The software must run on a Windows based PC platform although multi platform support is encouraged." I assume this is to make sure a solution is not done soley on an apple or linux box, thereby leaving out 95% of computer users. I'm a linux user, but let's face it, not including Windoze would exclude way too many people. Not good for promoting ARRL programs. nb |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
notbob wrote:
On 2006-09-23, ken scharf wrote: I would take exception to the "windows" requirement for the PC. They should allow a solution using both "MAC" and "Linux" based PC's especially the later. Evidently, you didn't read this requirement thoroughly. "The software must run on a Windows based PC platform although multi platform support is encouraged." I assume this is to make sure a solution is not done soley on an apple or linux box, thereby leaving out 95% of computer users. I'm a linux user, but let's face it, not including Windoze would exclude way too many people. Not good for promoting ARRL programs. nb Oh I read the requirements. I meant that I didn't agree with them, and I wrote an email to ARRL with that opinion. They replied back to me with your analysis, that they wanted a solution that would be applicable to most computer users, but they also liked the idea of a multi-platform project. Maybe they might open up a category for Linux. The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
"ken scharf" wrote in message
... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support, especially on newer boxes. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the clumsy Linux desktop. But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS. Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything else is harder to use and less capable. Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written. These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including most hams, Windoze serves the purpose. Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer, although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams, the return is close to zero. So why bother? ... |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl"
wrote: "ken scharf" wrote in message . .. The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support, especially on newer boxes. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the clumsy Linux desktop. But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS. Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything else is harder to use and less capable. Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written. These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including most hams, Windoze serves the purpose. Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer, although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams, the return is close to zero. So why bother? .. Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers for it. Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and effort. If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are often quite good. The system is very stable and works well. 73, Danny, K6MHE |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, xpyttl wrote:
And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Linux- not just for geeks anymore. Mepis distro, even computer illiterates can use it. "This is your office app for letters and spreadsheets, this is your web/file browser, this is your e-mail. Need anything else?" "No, that looks easy enough." You can even make it look and feel like "Windows" if they are hesitant to use something that seems unfamiliar. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl" wrote: "ken scharf" wrote in message ... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support, especially on newer boxes. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the clumsy Linux desktop. But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS. Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything else is harder to use and less capable. Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written. These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including most hams, Windoze serves the purpose. Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer, although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams, the return is close to zero. So why bother? .. Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers for it. Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and effort. If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are often quite good. The system is very stable and works well. 73, Danny, K6MHE Those of us that have gone through the trouble of getting there know the rewards of Linux. I agree, it's not something for everyone, but I would think that if you have the brains to get a ham ticket and build your own gear, you can figure it out. Also Ubuntu, Linspire (and Freespire) provide a brainless install that usually just works. As for hardware support, it's much better than it used to be. Almost every sound card chipset found on today's motherboards are supported. Nvidia and Ati both have Linux drivers for their latest video cards (though they are binary drivers and must be downloaded and installed by the end user....complete instructions on the manufacturer's wwebsites). Intel's own graphics chips are supported directly by the kernel. About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Leroy ) writes:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, xpyttl wrote: And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Linux- not just for geeks anymore. Mepis distro, even computer illiterates can use it. Given that this is about a contest about building a radio, in a newsgroup devoted to the building of radios, I would expect a higher level of interest in Linux. But that said, at this point one could even distribute any needed software along with an existing distribution. Put it on a Live distribution, and people treat the whole thing like an application. Michael VE2BVW |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf
wrote: Danny Richardson wrote: On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl" wrote: "ken scharf" wrote in message ... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support, especially on newer boxes. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the clumsy Linux desktop. But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS. Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything else is harder to use and less capable. Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written. These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including most hams, Windoze serves the purpose. Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer, although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams, the return is close to zero. So why bother? .. Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers for it. Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and effort. If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are often quite good. The system is very stable and works well. 73, Danny, K6MHE Those of us that have gone through the trouble of getting there know the rewards of Linux. I agree, it's not something for everyone, but I would think that if you have the brains to get a ham ticket and build your own gear, you can figure it out. Also Ubuntu, Linspire (and Freespire) provide a brainless install that usually just works. I really don't want to debate this but will add this comment: I did not find that true with Ubuntu. Try playing videos or mp3s without addding a bunch of stuff after the install. Its not a slam-dunk yet. It really a choice thing and we don't all make the same choices. G very 73, Danny, K6MHE [snip] |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
"ken scharf" wrote in message
... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free Not true. A fairer statement would probably be something like "there are significantly more free development tools for Linux than there are for Windows." On Windows, the "express" editions of the Microsoft compilers are free, older Borland tools are free, GCC is free, etc. On Linux, there are plenty of commercial development suite, which in many cases are well worth the money. and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Also not true. Especially with laptops, drivers for Linux are often non-existent. In fact, where I start thinking, "hmm... I should do something with Linux..." the *first* thing I have to consider is whether or not I have a PC around that'll have its hardware fully supported. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Joel Kolstad wrote: "ken scharf" wrote in message ... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free Not true. A fairer statement would probably be something like "there are significantly more free development tools for Linux than there are for Windows." On Windows, the "express" editions of the Microsoft compilers are free, older Borland tools are free, GCC is free, etc. On Linux, there are plenty of commercial development suite, which in many cases are well worth the money. I'm not that aware of how many (and how good) developement tools are there for Linux but...see bellow... and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Also not true. Especially with laptops, drivers for Linux are often non-existent. In fact, where I start thinking, "hmm... I should do something with Linux..." the *first* thing I have to consider is whether or not I have a PC around that'll have its hardware fully supported. My little story.... I have been told that there are laptops out there, with Windows pre-installed, that will not even run DOS or Win3.1 any more. Laptop support for anything other than what software the laptop was designed for is a major problem. I have had vastly more success intalling the earlier versions of Linux on "any" PC laying around. Just like Windoze, Linux has also tightened up its hardware compatibility requirements and particularly in the driver category. I've had, and installed, from Red Hat 4.2 to 5.2, 6.2, 7.3 (problems with 7.4, very buggy GUIs in 7.1,7.2), and mostly failure with one of the Workstation (Taroon, version 3.0) versions (based on the 3.5 inch boot disk with included CD-ROM driver portfolio was changed from a small number of prior CD-ROM drivers to new RAIDs, etc, and the new drivers don't recognize anything older than about 4-5 years, now). And, I was profoundly disappointed. Also, that same Linux (Taroon) required 256 MB of ram to run. It would boot with less (32 mb), but barely get the GUI up. Anything beyond that would run into the swap partition and be slow as hell. Actually both 6.2 and 7.3 (which installed sucessfully less often than 6.2 or 5.2) are pretty good (eg. drag and drop file manager, gFTP, automount-dismount drives, etc). StarOffice 5.1 & 5.2 installed well on 5.2 and 6.2. The problems with 7.3 and prior were the buggy web browsers or they would crash on moderate to advanced websites. I never set up the firewalls, IP chains, or whatever, and some months after I was running it on the intenet, I got hacked (I actually witnessed it as it was happening: hard drive started cranking like mad, and lots of bytes were being downloaded (as could be seen on the download bytes/sec rate meter and graph). By the time I could get to the phone line to disconnect, the bugger downloaded a rootkit somewhere and every time I booted it up, I could see a package of outgoing data (red bars) leave my box (and without confirming green bars) to some unknown point on the internet. At a later point, I nuked the HD and re-installed. As an aside, I still run DOS & Win3.1 for a lot of internet aps. At one time, www.securityspace.com ran free vulnerability tests with hack attacks (I think www.grc.com does too) and could not hack my Win3.1 with Netscape 2.01 dialer (probably because it has no ports for anything but email, ng, ftp, and http protocols), but it could hack my Linux and Win98SE boxes (without ZoneAlarm). Most of the time I access my shell account with a DOS terminal program (dialup terminal mode, not ppp). I think my home box is pretty safe that way (not much is going to cross from Unix to DOS, and I don't keep any vital info in files/folders on my shell directory. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf wrote:
About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3. Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux,
though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3. Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't. =================================== Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you installed that distro on your HD ? 'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format magazine's DVD carried version 6.0 Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:18 +0100, Highland Ham wrote:
About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3. Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't. =================================== Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you installed that distro on your HD ? 'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format magazine's DVD carried version 6.0 They shouldn't be coming "hard and fast" from here on out. Mepis is now Debian-based and will follow that distro's roll-out schedule(s). There can be/will be security updates -- which I believe is A Real Good Thing. The updates are done with ease. But new, full releases will appear less often. 'Tis said, as well, that Mepis release's will each now come with "Long Term Support". Dunno what that means in actuality, but I've gotten damn tired of Mandrake deprecating my installations each time I finally get them fully fleshed out, fine tuned, and stable. Then it is upheaval all over again. I will be moving off the Mandrake ("Mandriva" - yeech!) distro (MDK 10.2 on my primary box), and I have recently installed Mepis 6.0 on my 'down-level' box (was MDK 9.1). Mepis 6.0 installed as slick as you'd ever want an install to go. Recommended. Jonesy -- Mikro$oft free since 1991 -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 *** Killfiling google posts: http//jonz.net/ng.htm |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Leroy wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf wrote: About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3. Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't. There are TWO different flash plugins. Macromedia is NOT supported under linux. There is another pluging also called flash that is. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:39:34 -0400, ken scharf wrote: Danny Richardson wrote: On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:26:24 -0400, "xpyttl" wrote: "ken scharf" wrote in message ... The advantage of Linux is that the development tools are free, and Linux will run on any computer that runs windows. Not entirely true. Linux doesn't always have the hardware support, especially on newer boxes. You can also install Linux on top of windows (on the same computer anyway) and dual boot, so you can have your cake and eat it too (or have your poison and antidote too in my opinion!). And why would you? Why would you suffer the complexity and frustration of Linux if Windoze is working just fine for you? Personally, I fully enjoy having Linux servers an Windoze desktops on my home LAN, and with the magic of Cygwin, I can have Linux tools on my Windoze box, and seamless access to my Linux apps, withough fully suffering the clumsy Linux desktop. But that is just me. Most folks want to use the applications, not the OS. Most hams aren't going to write programs, and the features of Linux will be lost on them, but the complexity sure won't. For them, all they want is a little Digipan and email, why on earth would they subject themselves to yet another set of stuff to learn? As far as i can tell, the only ham app on Linux that is better than what is available on Windoze is gEDA. Everything else is harder to use and less capable. Now, I have a lot of ham apps on Linux that I have personally written. These provide me with functions that aren't easily available on Windoze, and the Linux environment makes it much easier. But I'm not most people. Not too many hams are comfortable writing their own applications, or even if they could, that isn't how they enjoy the hobby. For most people, including most hams, Windoze serves the purpose. Everyone has their own set of needs, and one size doesn't fit all. I suspect there may even be some people for whom the Mac is the best answer, although I can't imagine who they might be. But the getting in price for Linux is still pretty high in terms of learning curve, and for most hams, the return is close to zero. So why bother? .. Excellent response. I too have a Linux system on my shack computer dual-booting with Winders. I removed Linux from my main computer as after several months of searching I could never find a decent driver for my video card and wasn't about to buy another card when there was nothing wrong with one I have except there aren't any Linux drivers for it. Plus setting the sucker up is a PITA. Kind of a cross between DOS and Window '98. Finding extensions, plugins, or what ever you may call them is some what like a scavenger hunt and takes a LOT of time and effort. If one takes the time and endures the learning curve the results are often quite good. The system is very stable and works well. 73, Danny, K6MHE Those of us that have gone through the trouble of getting there know the rewards of Linux. I agree, it's not something for everyone, but I would think that if you have the brains to get a ham ticket and build your own gear, you can figure it out. Also Ubuntu, Linspire (and Freespire) provide a brainless install that usually just works. I really don't want to debate this but will add this comment: I did not find that true with Ubuntu. Try playing videos or mp3s without addding a bunch of stuff after the install. Its not a slam-dunk yet. Ubuntu tries to be a totally free (as in freedom) distro so they don't distribute closed source drivers and plugins by default. As you noticed it's possible but requires user intervention. There are scripts available to do this for your with one click. It really a choice thing and we don't all make the same choices. G very 73, Danny, K6MHE [snip] Yes! choice is good! |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:18 +0100, Highland Ham wrote:
About the only thing I find lacking is Macromedia Flash support for Linux, though there is a GNU project to provide it (gnash). Flash working fine here on Mepis 3.4-3. Even runs my LinkSys WPC54G wireless card when other distros wouldn't. =================================== Question : Do you run 'Simply Mepis' from a live CD or have you installed that distro on your HD ? 'Simply Mepis' upgrades come hard and fast ; last month the Linux Format magazine's DVD carried version 6.0 I originally ran it from a Live CD to test it. It found and set up all of my hardware without any messing about or configuring on my part. After a few days I wiped out Mandrake and installed it to the HD. The only thing I really miss is Midnite Commander...and a partition that got munged when I disregarded previous experience and was bopping back and forth between Partition Magic and QTParted. I could re-write the partion table by hand with a hex editor but it's tedious work and I'm not sure that what's gone is worth the effort. This machine is set up to dual-boot with Win 98, but the only reason I keep it is for one business app that manages my inventory and invoicing. I'm used to the way it works and too lazy to port it over or try to convert it to something else. I have the Mepis 6.0 Live distro but this is working fine. It ain't broke, so I'm not going to "fix" it. But if I decide to build a new laptop with one of those nice 17" screens and a dual-core AMD CPU, that is most likely what will go on it. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:28:05 -0400, ken scharf wrote:
There are TWO different flash plugins. Macromedia is NOT supported under linux. There is another pluging also called flash that is. The Macromedia flash plugin works fine on my Linux box. You can get it from: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get...7_linux.tar.gz or with this shorter URL: http://tinyurl.com/prmdd I think it is closed-source, binary only, so it will probably only work with X86 versions of Linux. Note that Macromedia are called Adobe these days. Anyway, thats enough OT for me. This is turning into a Linux advocacy group :-) 73, Ed. EI9GQ. -- Remove 'X' to reply by e-mail Linux 2.6.17 |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge" NOT about Operating Systems
Folks, all this stuff about Operating Systems is interesting, but it
doesn't apply that much to this "Homebrew Challenge" insofar as the radio part of the radio station specified in the contest. For only $50 in New Part cost, what does everyone think about for the actual RADIO hardware? Just curious...I have no interest in that contest...just a curiosity of what might come up in the next year. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge" NOT about Operating Systems
Ben Jackson wrote:
The cheapest possible starter 40M CW/SSB radio would probably be a kit, not built from a collection of overpriced Radio Shack components. It probably does a lot of work in the digital domain, without regard to ease of modification. It's built on an etched PCB mass produced in such quantities that it's cheaper than bare copper board at the local electronics store. I agree, but I also think many will rise to the challenge, even though the prize is modest. Look for some very clever things--mostly done with IQ phasing techniques. I personally plan to enter with something, and suspect others on this list will as well. Also expect an even better project to follow that builds on all the best from the contest...I'm most interested to see what sort of frequency synthesizers/VFOs come out of this. I'm personally hoping ARRL gets enough entries that they can publish a book or something, and am hoping this will inspire some wonderful new kits and other things for newbies. My design will not use IQ, will have a DSP (probably one of the Microchip 30F4013s in a DIP pkg), but I haven't found/invented a VFO scheme I really like yet (yes, I know the contest allows you to be rockbound, but I'm shooting a little higher). I'll try to set up a brag page and post progress. I appreciate the time given for this contest--even with very spare time people should be able to do something. I suspect ARRL's lab will have their hands full testing everything that comes in ( maybe they will only test the finalists). What fun! 73, Glenn Dixon AC7ZN |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Tom Coates wrote:
ARRL has announced a design competition that some of you may not have heard of. The objective is to produce a CW and SSB transceiver with at least 5 watts of output on 40 meters. Components must be commercially available. The total cost of all components (except key, mic and power supply) must not exceed $50. Any instruments beyond a multimeter must be in the $50. WOW. $50 today is like $10 when I was first licensed 30-something years ago. $50 is just five more dollars than what the 2007 ARRL handbook (paperback) is going to cost! Tim. |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
"Tim Shoppa" ) writes:
Tom Coates wrote: ARRL has announced a design competition that some of you may not have heard of. The objective is to produce a CW and SSB transceiver with at least 5 watts of output on 40 meters. Components must be commercially available. The total cost of all components (except key, mic and power supply) must not exceed $50. Any instruments beyond a multimeter must be in the $50. WOW. $50 today is like $10 when I was first licensed 30-something years ago. $50 is just five more dollars than what the 2007 ARRL handbook (paperback) is going to cost! Tim. That is an interesting perspective. My first handbook, the 1971 edition, had a $4.50 cover price. It was preceeded, by about a month, "How To Become A Radio Amateur", and I can't remember how much that was but obviously not much. The latter book had a single tube transmitter built on a wooden "chassis", though I can't remember if they suggested you scrounge the parts. I have no recollection of the receiver, but it would have been a regen. Michael VE2BVW |
ARRL "Homebrew Challenge"
Tim wrote: $50 today is like $10 when I was first licensed 30-something years ago. Yes, but electronics follow a strange economy...some parts such as batteries and pots haven't changed price much, but most are much cheaper. You can now buy a`stereo FM receiver for $3.00 at Wal Mart. In the sixties that would have cost at least $30.00. But today's integrated radios have darn few parts that can be removed/reused. $50 is just five more dollars than what the 2007 ARRL handbook (paperback) is going to cost! Well, if it's any consolation, you will probably get lots more from the handbook--in terms of weight, at least. Regards, Glenn Dixon AC7ZN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com