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

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.

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.

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

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!).

"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?

...

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

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.

"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.

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.