-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 28 Jan 2008, at 20:07, Andrew Rich wrote:

I am still convinced my new macbook is what i want - a really stable windows with a unix back end

'Cringe!!' - please don't use 'a really stable windows' when speaking of Mac OS-X. Its NOT windows and hopefully never will be. The fact that it will run MrSoftee products better (and faster) than most PC systems is an annoyance at best.

With gpredict, since it works so well under Linux why not make use of virtualisation on the MacBook and run a copy of Ubuntu Linux in a virtual system alongside Mac OSX. That way you could just make use of the standard gpredict package without having to set all its supporting libraries up under Mac OSX.

On 29/01/2008, at 5:46 AM, Charlie Schlieper wrote:

...

Gpredict is the ONLY satellite program I ever got to work with LINUX.

Predict is a standard package under Ubuntu/Debian Linux, and to get it to work is a doddle. The same goes for gpredict.

I've run Predict under Linux / OSX / IRIX / Cygwin.... (Cygwin runs under MrSoftee systems)

The older SatTack 3.5 works OK on Linux and OSX..

...

I do remember having a problem with the NEW daylight savings time changes. This particular program didn't seem to be written for that type of compensation and change, unless I missed something.

Its the operating system that should really take such things into account not the users program.

...

I was still using FEDORA 7 (or Core 7) at the time. I think they took the "CORE" term out finally. I had taken a LINUX 101 course from HP, and was trying my best to learn LINUX. I started with Fedora Core 5.

I've never been a fan of DeadRat - sorry RedHat Linux..

...

somehow falls far short of being sufficient. (I also spent several hundred dollars on LINUX books too.)

You should have looked at the Internet - as 99% of Linux documentation is totally FREE - start by looking for the 'Linux Documentation Project' or just LDP - there are several LDP mirrors around the world.

John

John Heaton, G1YYH AMSAT-UK #5701 http://www.phers.co.uk/

John Magliacane wrote:

--- Charlie Schlieper n5td@vvm.com wrote:

...

I was still using FEDORA 7 (or Core 7) at the time. I think they took the "CORE" term out finally. I had taken a LINUX 101 course

from

...

HP, and was trying my best to learn LINUX. I started with Fedora Core 5.

One of the problems I've seen individuals trying to learn Linux from a feature-rich, point-and-click, distribution is that they tend to learn the details about that particular distribution, rather than the operation of the Linux OS itself.

Personally, I prefer distributions such as Slackware, that install the components necessary to build a complete Linux system, and then get out of the way! :-)

That's a really good point, I often see people get too caught up in a particular distribution rather than the stuff that makes Linux really fantastic.

All OSs (or any complex system for that matter) require a collection of arcane knowledge to get you through common problems. Most of us have a bunch of windows minutia stored in our heads or in someone nearby. I think this makes it difficult to make the switch to Linux.

Ubuntu strikes a good balance. It's pretty and friendly, but it's still a debian distribution, so problem solving is intuitive at many different levels. For example, the following sort of thing works really well:

% sudo apt-get install gpredict

jeff

Hello John, and the other 'x aficionado's

What do you expect....that somehow an arcane set of dribblish semi instructions to install a new TOOL on a computer (your "command line") or a "open the box, pull out the tool, plug it in, and start using it"...which scenario is the average artisan going to use?

Before you run off, foaming and ranting about Microsoft stop and consider this for a moment.

For a living, amongst other things, I work as an engineer, a welder, and a non destructive testing technician. There are well established standards in each of these disciplines, and I can go from one to another without difficulty. I dont' have to stop when I'm welding and wonder, experiment, and hope when I change from 7018 rods from one manufacturer to those from another. I know they will do the job.

When I use a 520K ohm resistor in a project I don't care if it is a linux or microsoft resistor as long as it fits the specs.

When I use a 70 degree probe for ultrasonic testing I don't care who made it so long as it meets the specs and works.

I have also written software (pdp 11 fortran) 6800 machine code 2650 assembler z80 assembler 6502 (microsoft basic) amd 29xx bit slice processors (pl1, assembler and machine)and lately c++ and java for MS for my 'phone.Most of this was for me, but the amd stuff was for telephone exchange users, and I doubt if they cared what the os or program used was. Just as long the tool worked.

The PDP series ran unix, and I still have the original Bell System Journals here at home describing the philosophy and design behind the unix system. I tried over the last few days of re reading these journals to find any reference to the denigrating of any other systems or their users... Are linux users and prophets now straying far from the original tracks for unix?

Finally I use win xp and ubuntu for my amatuer work, and swap happily between them, but as a "tool user" for amateur radio win XP absolutely aces linux for the ease of use and ease of installation of the programs I need.

Maybe you could explain to me why I could update my (paid license...to amsat na) version of satpc32 with a couple of mouse clicks, but took over 5 days to get predict updated, I don't want to know about sudo @33^& <<? just to get one ( maybe) required library that I already had as the really stupid, arcane message finally told me....

If you really, and quite possibly most linux pushers don't, want to make linux a "mainstream" operating system you really, really must make it an invisible process to install and use tools running on it. MS have managed to do this so why can't the much vaunted open source guys managed yet?

Cheers and back to the Sats.

Don, Zl1THO

On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:32 PM, don wrote:

The PDP series ran unix, and I still have the original Bell System Journals here at home describing the philosophy and design behind the unix system. I tried over the last few days of re reading these journals to find any reference to the denigrating of any other systems or their users... Are linux users and prophets now straying far from the original tracks for unix?

No, not really... but times change, and continue to do so. I think you're mistaking his "ho-hum" response to your problems with learning the command line on what he perceives as mediocre operating system, to zealotry. The honest truth is, only a few Linux users and enthusiasts are zealots, the rest are often misunderstood, because they're offering you an M1 Tank, gassed up and ready to go, and you're wondering where the service station and the usual gas pedal and automatic transmission are.

(This analogy is stolen from the essay described below. I can't take credit for it. Read on.)

If you've been around computers since the PDP, and haven't had an opportunity to do so, DEFINITELY read Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was the Command Line", an essay he penned in 1999 regarding operating systems that has a style and flair similar to "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". On it's own, it's a GREAT read.

(Warning: It's long, but entertaining enough that if you're a reader... you'll sit and enjoy. Grab your favorite beverage and a comfy chair. It's that good.)

I recently discovered through the Wikipedia entry for "In the Beginning..." that while I knew the original essay was falling a bit behind the times, and that the fun commentary and metaphors were still very relevant, factual things were getting pretty dated in it.

Another writer, Garrett Birkel has written an annotated/updated version of "In the Beginning..." that he sought permission from Neal to do. It keeps the original up-to-date, but just by notating it... not be rewriting it.

http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/commandline/index.html

Reading it, anyone can gain huge insights into the "OS Business" as well as some very personal insights about why people like/dislike, or use particular OS's -- and perhaps even how silly that all is, when it's all said and done.

Check it out. I don't think any thinking person will be disappointed in it. It's "good stuff" and it won't rot your brain quite as much as the "8 hour Law and Order Marathon on Bravo" or something equally useless on TV. Stephenson even talks quite a bit about why we Americans like watching that versus reading essays like this one, actually... it's pretty insightful.

If you don't have a laptop, buy a ream of paper so you can take it to the easy chair, or buy the book version -- it's been published and Amazon and others carry it.

I got about 1/3 of the way in re-reading it and realized he also made (completely by accident, or maybe better described as "by thinking") some really eerie predictions back before some world events happened that are surprising and amazing. (The essay was written in 1999, two years before 9/11/2001 or more, and he predicts what the Muslim world was already freaking out about against American culture, way back then...)

It also laid out some very obvious reasons that Apple was dying back then (this came out when Mac OS 9 was still the OS on that hardware platform, and the first colored iMac were just released)... and why in retrospect, Apple had to change course in a big hurry... (In fact, they already were changing course internally around the time Neal penned this essay, but it wouldn't show externally for a little while yet.)

It's a great story about culture, technology, and people... and even if you don't agree with ALL of it, there are some observations in it that are just true about how and why OS's came to be the way they were in 1999, and today.

The stories about the giant drill and its use as a metaphor for powerful computing tools, are quite entertaining... the automotive analogies are old and well-worn by other authors, but Stephenson is a professional writer and does them justice, making them more entertaining than usual.

Anyone who claims to be an up-to-date computer whiz who hasn't read this one, probably isn't... they're not keeping up with the big picture or the cultures that created the current (and ultimately the future) software products. You can even see today where both Apple and Microsoft have changed their tunes and neither is completely an OS, or hardware, or application company. Some of his predictions of the Microsoft Research department didn't completely pan out... there have been good and bad things from there since 1999, but there was also massive economic upheaval right after he wrote this (remember he wrote it during the "Dot Com" boom, and funding for a lot of frivolous stuff and good stuff alike disappered virtually overnight about two years later, and in some cases, never to see the lights in the labs on ever again... a lot of damage there on the timeline of computing technology research...)

Very entertaining stuff... I'll stop describing it and just say, go read it! You can probably also find some reasons in here why the "true hackers" of things like many of our beloved AMSAT engineers and designers don't really give a rat's... about what OS they use. They're building things a completely different way from a completely different level of competence, and it comes out as, "Who needs an OS?", which floors a lot of people.

Windows, Linux, MacOSX: They're all just tools... you can know 'em all and have a big toolbox, or beat on things with a pipe wrench (Windows), a nice pretty claw hammer with a nice stainless steel sheen (OSX), or just drive a tank over them (Linux). That one's MY analogy... you'll get it if you read the essay!

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com

Err, the DEC machines that ran Unix were (mostly) '11's and VAXen, and while it may not be in the literature, there was a LOT of denigration of the DEC-provided OS's, like DOS, VMS, RSTS, and RSX.

Nate Duehr wrote:

On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:32 PM, don wrote:

...

The PDP series ran unix, and I still have the original Bell System Journals here at home describing the philosophy and design behind the unix system. I tried over the last few days of re reading these journals to find any reference to the denigrating of any other systems or their users... Are linux users and prophets now straying far from the original tracks for unix?

I picked up my first Unix disk by going to Murray Hills and being loaned an RK05 pack to take it back in my van (which had PDP-11 license plates).

73, doug

Err, the DEC machines that ran Unix were (mostly) '11's and VAXen, and while it may not be in the literature, there was a LOT of denigration of the DEC-provided OS's, like DOS, VMS, RSTS, and RSX.

Yes, but also the other way around. I was a student in Berkeley in the mid-70's, when Unix was first being brought into the classroom. I had the privilege and good fortune to be in the first data structures class taught on Unix, instead of the CDC 6400 / punch cards arrangement down in the basement. We got to use "glass TTYs" up on the 4th floor. They had BACKSPACE KEYS. (Think about that for a moment...)

Anyway, during the day, about half of the time, the little PDP-11/45 ran Unix. It crashed a lot. We had them switch over to a more stable, but slower "Turtle Unix" configuration at night, since the sysops weren't always around. But the rest of the time it ran the Dec "RSTS" system, which was rock solid. We thought about complaining, but realized how good we had it, even with the crashes, than our friends with the punch cards.

So, it hasn't always been the wonderful operating system, and as bad as we think some of the current systems are, it could be a lot worse... But that was 32 years ago (ouch!).

Greg KO6TH

_________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan

On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote:

My $.02: Ham radio is one of the few fields in which I have actually been forced to consider dedicating a Windows machine to the hobby because only XP seems to be suitable for most ham-related tasks. But, IMHO, that's not because Windows is necessarily a *better platform* than any of the others for it .. it's simply due to the fact that there are a large number of people writing software for ham applications who write code only for WIndows and refuse to port to any other platform. (Rather notably, ARRL has been pretty cold to Mac owners in its own software offerings, and while I've heard a few rumors that that's in the process of changing, I haven't seen a lot of evidence of it in terms of actual code "on the ground", so to speak.)

With virtualization where it's at these days, it really doesn't matter much. I launch Windows on the Mac for any (dumb) software that requires it, and that's not often... but it's there if I need it. Can do the same on the Linux boxes, but most of those are doing server jobs around here, and I don't use them as desktops very often... with one old laptop being the exception -- it still has a Windows/Ubuntu dual-boot, but it's feeling rather lonely these days, since I can launch Windows on the Mac, Linux on the Mac, etc.

Another area besides ham radio where Windows has an edge on things is the realm of programming microcontrollers. While there finally ARE tools for Mac and Linux, they're still relatively painful if you're just trying to dump a quick timer into a PIC and get on with building whatever it was you were building. gnupic and others have come a long way and are slowly (like all application software) working their way toward making that software fully free and the commercial stuff obsolete... it just takes time and effort by a few "someones"... then it slowly gets done whenever someone has an itch to scratch and wants to do it.

Due to some extremely unpleasant experiences I've had with various versions of Windows in the past, many of which would obviously be repeated if I were to start using either XP or Vista at home, I'm extremely hesitant to bring home yet another machine to run Windows on just for a few ham apps. I've found equivalents that are compatible with Mac OS for a few such tasks, and it's pretty clear that most of what I'd have the most compelling desire to do that can't be done in Mac OS can be done in Linux rather than Windows, but it's been made

And pretty much anything you can do in Linux you can compile or someone can port to the Mac natively... if you haven't seen or played with Fink, check it out... the majority of the Debian Linux packages (arguably the most ham packages ever collected in a single distro, and tons of bright hams working on them) can be downloaded and run from binaries that are already built and in a similar repository structure as on Debian, right into you Mac. Very nice.

very clear to me that ham radio is very much an exclusive Windows-only club at least in some ways. The reason "XP absolutely aces linux for the ease of use and ease of installation of the programs [you] need" is because there are a lot of people out there writing ham apps only for XP and so far none of those have been ported to other programs .. as soon as a critical mass of that user base migrates away from XP, that statement will no longer be true ..

Porting things written for Windows to other OS's is hell. Porting things written for just about any Unix to other Unix-like OS's and even over to Windows is far easier. The tools are just "better" for that.

A wonderful example of cross-platform code that works great on all platforms is RoverLog for us VHF contesting nuts... TCL/TK is out for every platform under the Sun (and even FOR the Sun... Microsystems, that is) Solaris OS... and with that framework underneath, RoverLog works on everything.

It'd be grand if more coders thought like that vs. firing up Visual Studio and writing only for Windows. Agreed. I don't think people do it on purpose though, it's just "what they know". Ham software HOWEVER it's made is better than no ham software!! (GRIN)

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com