Slashdot Mirror

hmmm - i'm assuming you've never used a telephone if you're making comments like that. Telephone service is one of the most reliable things in the US (excuse my ethnocentricity - i've never been outside the US). Ethernet, and networks in general goes down quite a bit more

In fact, several companies (running a google search right now...) have said they were working on getting a "IP Dial Tone" - ie that you know you'll always be online or able to get a connection, like the phone line whose uptime is like 99.999 something percent.

Some links to prove are..

• F5 Labs: Making the Internet as reliable as the telephone network
• Keeping Current on 1998 predictions
  9. IP dial tone will remain IP busy signal through the end of '97. Yes, it is a great idea. Yes, I think it will happen. Just not in 1998. No applications, no infrastructure, too many firms trying to make a "standard" at this point. Much more likely for 1998 will be the explosion of service-level agreements (SLA). However, although these will be misunderstood by users. They are likely to be confused by mixed marketing messages, SLAs that fail to specify true goals, and a lack of metrics for judging SLAs.
• Follow-up to 98 predictions
  Fred Said: "IP dial tone will remain IP busy signal through the end of '97."
  Scoreboard ... Direct Hit. Don't confuse the use of IP for voice services (which has happened) with IP dial tone (which hasn't happened just yet). The ability to plug into the IP network and call away still has a long way to go. Too many technology issues, too many standard bearers and not enough market demand have temporarily derailed this scheme. But, just like computer-telephone integration, it has still got legs for 1999.

David Boyes, a consultant who works with the S/390, managed to boot 41,500 Linux servers on one mainframe. Although he notes that you may not be able to run that many in real life. ;) (if someone can find an actual link for this, please post it)

The story on NetworkWorldFusion News

The story on Fairfax IT

A reprint of the story from LinuxPlanet

I think we may be overlooking something. The NSA is not populated by superintelligent aliens (I have a friend who works there, so they are definately people). Everyone keeps arguing that PGP is unbreakable. But, knowing the keys would help quite a bit. I vaguely remember this was one of the reasons for the 40 bit export version of encryption. The NSA/FBI/CIA wanted to know the keys because the technology was unbreakable at the time. Here's an old article on this.

PGP must know the keys (since they give them out to see if they are factorable in distributed.net), and all they would have to do is give that list to anyone who "asks" for them.
The Government is not superman, but they've got other ways to get what they want.

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2000 /0710ipp.html?nf

" Most of these machines are Windows-based machines, which soon will quite easily support IPv6 (Windows ME) and may already (anyone know if Win98 supports it?). "

Windows 98 does not support it out of the box, and neither does Windows 2000, for that matter. It is possible, though, to download the Windows 2000 patches from here. &nbsp An Intro into Microsoft's take on Ipv6 can be found here

NTT in Japan started using IPv6 commercially in March, according to this article here

I don't see v6 happening on the large scale any time soon, either. The ugly truth is that if you upgrade your network to IPv6, you still need to speak IPv4 with the rest of the world. So, your snazzy-new network's hosts have to go through a protocol translator (a NAT box that does v6->v4 conversion) to access anybody (read: most of the world) that hasn't upgraded to IPv6 as well.

Compare this with using IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT. NAT is more widely deployed and understood, and probably easier to put in place than converting your entire network or setting up lots of v6-over-v4 tunnelling. Sure, you don't have globally visible addresses for each of your hosts. But new services have to be designed taking NAT into account anyway.

Until there are enough IPv6 hosts to make speaking IPv6 useful, there's no incentive to upgrade networks and hosts. The claims of increased security and QoS over v4 are, in my opinion, vastly exaggerated--- just because v6 has a "flow identifier" field doesn't mean anybody's decided something useful to do with it.

See "I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you" from Network Fusion for a "testimonial" from a network administrator who's just as happy not upgrading his network...

disks, tape, cds... they all have a relatively short lifespan. picture storing data in mice, just feed them and keep them warm. ev en if th e parents die the children will have the artificial chromosomes... (that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)

As for your 2nd question, it might as well, but that also has to do with the exact specs of the protocol, which I don't know.

You know, I got NetworkWorld mag at work today and I thought the artical on the Oxygen Project was much cooler and made me think a lot more about Our Networked Future(tm).(or visit Scientific American

Seer

Here I have a whole bunch of links to further information about wearable computers and "enhanced reality" for anyone interested:

• A Brief History Of Wearable Computing
• Affective Computing
• BBC News: Japan Eyes Wearable PC
• Charmed Technology
• CNET.com: 10 Technologies That Will Take Over - #8
• CNN: Excuse Me, Is That A Monitor On Your Head?
• CNN: MIT 'Cyborgs' Bridge Gap Between Man And Machine
• CNN: Turn On, Jack In, And Geek Out With Wearable PC
• CNN: Wearable Systems May Cut Labor, Save Time
• CNN: Xybernaut Now Has Linux For Wearable PCs
• CNN Poll: Do You Want A Wearable Computer?
• Computer For The 21st Century, The
• ComputerWorld: Wearable Computers - Digitally Attired
• Context-Aware Computing
• CTHEORY: Body Delirium
• DisplayWear Incorporated
• Extreme Computing
• Handykey, Inc. Wearable Computing Page
• Houston Chronicle: Future Phones Home, The
• ICBorg
• Intelligent Information Filters And Enhanced Reality, by Alexander Chislenko
• ISWC- International Symposium on Wearable Computers
• Marvin Elizondo's Wearable Computing Page
• MicroOptical
• MIT-IDEO Wearables Intro
• NetWork Fusion: Armani, Karan, Xybernaut? 02/01/999
• PBS: Scientific American Frontiers Transcripts - Inventing The Future (Aired Fall 1996)
• PC World News: Wearable PC To Debut At Comdex
• PopSci.com Headlines: CyberFashions
• Slashdot Articles: Wearable PCs Under Linux
• Smart Rooms
• TechWearable
• TekGear
• Wearable Computer
• Wearable Computing Intro Page
• Wearable Computing Portal
• Wearable Computing Resource Page
• WearableGear.com
• Wearables Central
• Wearables WebCrawler Search Engine
• Wearables Webring
• WearableTech Corp.
• Wired News: Annotated Reality
• Wired News: Intel Chips In On Future Devices
• Wired News: Waiting For Wearable Wearables
• Wraith Projects
• Xybernaut

Impossible means no one's done it yet.

NetworkWorld Fusion (idg.net subsidiary) has a pretty good feature on this this week, and from what i gathered from it most netadmins/sysengineers *wanted* to go back after people in the process of penetrating their systems, but the overwhelming majority *wouldn't* ... they opted for setting up 'honeypots' and the like to lure the criminals in and monitor them (presumably) long enough to confirm identity/ensure enuf info is gathered for conviction... check it out ... good article.

I can remember someone trying to send me a file on mirc... called links.vbs, about 6 months ago. I never accepted it, but anybody know what i'm talking about?

Hopefully we will see an end to these e-mail "worm" virus. An article at Network World Fusion describes how Microsoft has released a security update for Outlook, which among other things, blocks 38 different file types, like exe, vbs, bat, and others. The funny thing is, scripting is STILL ACTIVATED, unless turned off. Personally, I think scripting is useful, but, for the average user, I feel it should be left off unelss the user turns it on. It does, although, prevent scripts from accessing the address book.

Its funny, "It's a feature, not a bug", yet they issued a patch for it...

M$ would really like to push people off of win9x (for some good reasons)

Maybe if they wanted to do that, they would remove LAN support from Windows: (screw) Me.

submitted a while back but probably dismissed as flamebait, which it is.

--

I've been hearing a lot about WAP these day, the wireless access protocol. I've even seen some WAP-enabled web sites. Overall, I haven't been impressed. Nor, has it made me go out and buy a wap-phone.

Here's an article from NetworkWorldFusion entitled Ericsson brings ads to mobile 'Net phones". It states:
The ad services will be delivered through Wireless Application Protocol and other wireless standards and networks, Ericsson said. With future higher bandwidth wireless network technologies on the horizon, the ads will be similar to today's television commercials, incorporating rich media, full-motion video and animation, Ericsson said.

Oh well, I never watch TV. I used to have a free ISP, but the ads kept making me dizzy, too much motion, and the ads were never targeted to my interests. One less thing for me not to get, even if they do become free or dirt cheap.

I've been hearing a lot about WAP these day, the wireless access protocol. I've even seen some WAP-enabled web sites. Overall, I haven't been impressed. Nor, has it made me go out and buy a wap-phone.

Here's an article from NetworkWorldFusion entitled Ericsson brings ads to mobile 'Net phones". It states:
The ad services will be delivered through Wireless Application Protocol and other wireless standards and networks, Ericsson said. With future higher bandwidth wireless network technologies on the horizon, the ads will be similar to today's television commercials, incorporating rich media, full-motion video and animation, Ericsson said.

Oh well, I never watch TV. I used to have a free ISP, but the ads kept making me dizzy, too much motion, and the ads were never targeted to my interests. One less thing for me not to get, even if they do become free or dirt cheap.

Using TCP/IP over ethernet, PC class hardware maxes out at ~30Mbs. If you don't believe me, check out the Network World article in the 7/5/99 issue.

Even an HP-UX N class server could only push ~750Mbs.

Kinda sad, isn't it? :-(

Using TCP/IP over ethernet, PC class hardware maxes out at ~30Mbs. If you don't believe me, check out the Network World article in the 7/5/99 issue.

Even an HP-UX N class server could only push ~750Mbs.

Kinda sad, isn't it? :-(

Using TCP/IP over ethernet, PC class hardware maxes out at ~30Mbs. If you don't believe me, check out the Network World article in the 7/5/99 issue ). Even an HP-UX N class server could only push 762M bit/sec (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/1101unixfeat.ht ml). Kinda sad, isn't it? :-(

If you look at the "score card and net results" link off to the side, Red Hat scored 6.35 while UnixWare scored 6.10 overall. In the important benchmarks, Red Hat scored 6.7 to UnixWare's 3.3 in File Services, 7.4 to UnixWare's 7.5 in Network Benchmark, and 7 to Unixware's 5 in Security.

Granted Red Hat was mentioned last in the "wrapping up" section, but in the actual table of rankings it's third not last.

It simply amamzes me that all these people can claim to have read the article and not know the NOS were indeed ranked. Then they go on to criticize the poster that he was indeed wrong. Whatever happened to double checking before you disagree?

There is also a bit on their methodologies at http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2 000/0124how.html

Tuning Parameters http://www.nwfusion.com/rev iews/2000/0124revtuning.html

And, the results In MS Excel format! http://www2.nwfusion.com/download/012 4nos.xls

There is also a bit on their methodologies at http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2 000/0124how.html

Tuning Parameters http://www.nwfusion.com/rev iews/2000/0124revtuning.html

And, the results In MS Excel format! http://www2.nwfusion.com/download/012 4nos.xls

There is also a bit on their methodologies at http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2 000/0124how.html

Tuning Parameters http://www.nwfusion.com/rev iews/2000/0124revtuning.html

And, the results In MS Excel format! http://www2.nwfusion.com/download/012 4nos.xls

There is also a bit on their methodologies at http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2 000/0124how.html

Tuning Parameters http://www.nwfusion.com/rev iews/2000/0124revtuning.html

And, the results In MS Excel format! http://www2.nwfusion.com/download/012 4nos.xls

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2000/0 124ipv4.html

Scalability counted for 20% of the total, NT scored 8, RH scored 6. Probably due to the problems mentioned about the RH system under load

Security was 10%, NT got a 9 here. Maybe due to the encrypted file capabilities in NT2000?

I think they could have used a little finer grained ranking mechanism. But, overall it looks like a fair evaluation.

What I would like to see is a comparison of NOS's on mid to low end systems. I think that is where Linux really shines, in the small office all-in-one server.

So, even though Win2000 is the slowest of the bunch (even slower than SCO's UNIXWare, according to this artile), it "Tops the field," but the benchmarks tell the true story. So, if you just skim the first few paragraphs of this article you'll walk away thinking Win2000 is the OS to beat. But by actually reading the article, you'll see the whole picture. Why do I think this is more of an advertisement for Win2000, than a serious article?

Because you don't seem to be willing to listen to the many weaknesses currently present in Linux that must be addressed if you want to claim superior technology. Lots of these are being worked on, but they aren't shipping yet. The GUI management interfaces in Linux aren't as good, neither are the performance monitoring tools which are woefully obscure. Red Hat Linux lacks ACLs which can accept/deny permissions to files on a per-user basis. Kerberos is a pain to learn about and install. Scalability still isn't great on the 2.2-based kernel series. The IP stack on the 2.2 kernel still isn't multithreaded. Storage management isn't that great without journalling filesystems which have been in the works on Linux for at least a year and have long been on NT. Distributions like RedHat aren't shipping ReiserFS as supported software AFAIK. The article and the associated scorecard show you the criteria and weightings.

(Is anyone doing GUI performance management tools, BTW? I've seen at least alpha code and efforts for everything else except that one...)

Would you trade all these things away to get 10-15% better file performance? I would.

There *are* things that Microsoft can't match (freedom, etc.) and we have to keep improving our ability to articulate those benfits of that, but technologically, Windows2000 does raise the bar for Linux to beat. We don't want to end up like Netscape, vaguely cooler but not as strong technically.

Less talk, better thinking, more good code.

--LinuxParanoid, paranoid for Linux's sake

As it turns out Netware only had 4 parameters changed. Win2K had a bunch of registry editing and patches. At least they point out that "Registry hacking ranks right up there with kernel modifications, neither for the inexperienced system administrator."

Yeah, where does it say RedHat finished last? If you check the Scorecard and NetResults you'll see that RedHat scored a total of 6.35 while SCO scored a total of only 6.10.

Hmmmm.

Anyhow, this article was rather good for CNN. Generally even handed, aside from the fact that they scored Win2K too high for some things in the breakdown (Security most notably. I'll believe Win2k is more secure when I see it. This isn't a CNN fault though, it's a fault of the testers.)

Oh yeah, and making scalability the most weighted factor with 20% overtaking either file services benchmarking or network benchmarking... Is this really justified? To someone who is not necissarily a layperson, but definitely not a sys admin guru, this seems a bit excessive being that it's worth so much of their score and Microsoft has the highest score (Along with SCO, but they scored so poorly on other things they're not a microsoft contender in this test.)

Think about it this way: people who say NOS must believe that the alternative is DOS... both wrong.

Thanks!

As you'll see from that article, it's originally from Network World, not CNN (hey, click on www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/1220eto ys.html for both the article and our own links).

Our audience consists mainly of network managers at large companies, i.e., the kind of people who worry (or who should worry) about things like DoS attacks. If you keep reading the article, you'll see we used the etoys case as a hook on which to base a more general article on the issue.

-- Adam

Adam Gaffin
Online Editor, Network World

I remember this mention in a study done by avalon.net two years ago. This piece gives some more detail regarding frequencies at cross purposes.

As it mentions, a T-1 loop running in parallel to your POTS pair can also cause drop-out in your DSL frequency spectrum.

I remember this mention in a study done by avalon.net two years ago. This piece gives some more detail regarding frequencies at cross purposes.

As it mentions, a T-1 loop running in parallel to your POTS pair can also cause drop-out in your DSL frequency spectrum.