Terry Dawson wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

 TD> It really doesn't matter the significance. I've already
 TD> registered the "Radio Amateurs Guide" (RAG) as a project
 TD> with the LDP coordinator. I've done nothing with it for a
 TD> couple of years because really, it wasn't clear to me that
 TD> there was a significant enough audience to make the effort
 TD> worthwhile. 

 TD> I've spoken to some publishers and found no interest in
 TD> publishing such a book, so in the absence of an audience I
 TD> haven't bothered. 

 TD> I'd be interested to know if the ARRL would be interested in
 TD> publishing something of this nature?

It seems a good project for the ARRL.  One option might be to serialize it in
QST over a period of time, perhaps as an irregular recurring feature to take
updates into account, and then publish a periodic compilation either in the
Handbook or otherwise.  A lot of this would depend upon the length.  At the
risk of suggesting myself into a project, it might be worth considering a
Linux-specific feature in the ARRL Handbook in connection with the "computers
in ham radio" coverage, of which the present Ham HOWTO would be a logical part.

Another option might be to approach some of the equipment manufacturers, such
as Kantronics or PacComm, who have shown an interest in publishing specialized
books of this kind in the past.  The downside is that quantity printing demands
tend to preclude updating the book with sufficient frequency, as has been the
unfortunate fate of similar works such as Ian Wade's "NOSintro" book.

 TD> I agree completely. I'm pleased you haven't made the mistake
 TD> of confusing the HAM-HOWTO with a generally useful document
 TD> for introducing Linux users to Amateur Radio.

 TD> Certainly I'd like to generate another document which did
 TD> qualify as a HOWTO document, and did serve to achieve this
 TD> goal, but not until the existing HAM-HOWTO has been dealt
 TD> with in an appropriate manner. 

So the problem is that the Ham HOWTO needs to be expanded, not contracted!
 
-- Mike

Reply via email to