> I hope you're correct Jon, Last I'd heard, the ARRL editorial staff was > declining submissions based on Unix/Linux software, even for QEX,, on the > basis that no one used it, or would use it. Bob, The QST editors may well reject an article that is of use ONLY to Linux users because, let's face it, we're in the minority -- by a lot -- and QST page space is in demand. Articles that are of more general use but that include Linux support are of course welcome. But I don't think that reasoning applies to QEX at all. It certainly didn't apply during the 5 years I was the editor of QEX. (In fact, we once published the entire HAM-HOWTO.) And I very much doubt it's true of QEX now. Next time I see the QEX Managing Editor I'll ask him. > Seems quite backward when > looked at from the point of view that it's the only OS with native support > for amateur radio applications and services. That's one way of looking at it, although don't you mean "native support for packet radio"? (The most common uses of computers in the ham shack these days are for data-driven applications [logging/contesting programs] and calculation programs [EZ-NEC, et al]. I don't think Linux has particular native support for those classes of amateur radio application that other OS don't.) But another way of looking at it is that the Linux community is more close-knit than the Windows (or Mac) communities. Linux-using hams tend to solve problems and develop neat new stuff and get the word out to other Linux users. And they don't need to have their hands held as much. 73, Jon -- Jon Bloom, KE3Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electronic Publications Manager (Software, CD-ROMs and Web site)
