Slashdot Mirror

Moochman writes "I recently discovered this article over at PC Magazine, an excellent and fairly complete review of the Sharp RD3D, aka the 'world's first 3D laptop' (see previous Slashdot coverage here). In addition to rating performance, features, etc, it provides a nice little explanation and diagram of how the no-glasses 3D technology works, and discusses possible eye-strain issues. The biggest disappointment is that even the included 3D games still don't work right." Moochman provides a link to Sharp's information site, too.

Chirag Mehta writes "I just released a freeware service called BotBlock (barebones demo) that lets site owners copy/paste a few lines of PHP code and insert a CAPTCHA image-verification system into any web form. The amount of form spamming by bots is on a rise. While remedies exist for MT blogs, a more efficient solution is to use image-verification or text-identification. Used for a while by sites like Yahoo! (scroll to bottom), Hotmail and patented in 2001 by AltaVista, CAPTCHAs are now being used more widely. PARC also came up with two algorithms Baffletext and Pessimal Print. The technology always existed, but until now required the site owners to install image libraries and understand how to generate images that cannot be OCR'ed. With BotBlock it is like inserting a page counter."

Cycline3 writes "The subject says it all. PC Mag gave the big black cat a five-out-of-five star rating. I really like Panther, but I never would have imagined that this would happen. Pretty cool. PC users take note!"

scrm writes "Plaxo is an interesting new service from Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster. It's a P2P-based add-on to Outlook that confronts the old problem of keeping contact lists up-to-date. Mozilla mail support is on the cards, and yes, the company does 'take privacy very seriously'. Check the press here(1), here(2) and here(3). You can also access your contact list over the web."

A random reader writes: "In an article at PCMag.com, Bill Machrone describes what has to be the coolest printer ever (or close to it). A company called Versalaser sells a printer which uses a laser and can cut/write on everything from paper to wood to stone. Available in 25-50 Watt models, starting at only US$10,000. Great for the geek who must have it all! Unfortunately, Windows drivers only at this time." We mentioned this wondertool before.

zpok writes "PC Magazine did a comparison between a dual 2.0-GHz Power Mac G5 and an equally expensive Dell Precision 650 Workstation running dual 3.06-GHz Xeon processors. Their conclusion: 'we see that indeed the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available.' But of course 'our cousin Ned can build you a better'un at half the dough.'"

zpok writes "PC Magazine did a comparison between a dual 2.0-GHz Power Mac G5 and an equally expensive Dell Precision 650 Workstation running dual 3.06-GHz Xeon processors. Their conclusion: 'we see that indeed the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available.' But of course 'our cousin Ned can build you a better'un at half the dough.'"

axlrosen writes "Web accelerators first came around years ago, and they didn't live up to the hype. Now TV commercials are advertising accelerators that speed up your dial-up connection by up to 5 times, they say. AOL and EarthLink throw them in for free; some ISPs charge a monthly fee. Tests by PC World, PC Magazine and CNET show that they do speed up your surfing quite a bit. They work by using improved compression and caching. The downside is they don't help streaming video or audio." And they require non-Free software on the client's end, too.

tyen asks: "While it's not dead yet (shades of Monty Python), Internet postage on Linux appears to be missing. The biggest player's software is Windows-only, and the other players mimic this requirement. You would be amazed how many businesses will dedicate a computer to printing off postage and shipping labels, why pay an annoying Microsoft tax for such an appliance application? Besides, these Windows-based solutions are heavily GUI-centric, and any integration into Linux-based automated processes would be unacceptably brittle. Has anyone successfully set up their business to print off e-postage from Linux or any other Open Source platform?"

ddtstudio writes "PC Mag has a story about the Sensor Web: 'a cutting-edge application of networked sensor technology currently on the fast track at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).' Not only a new way to test tech, but also perhaps a pervasive and inexpensive way to explore remote places such as Antarctica -- or Mars."

ddtstudio writes "PC Mag has a story about the Sensor Web: 'a cutting-edge application of networked sensor technology currently on the fast track at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).' Not only a new way to test tech, but also perhaps a pervasive and inexpensive way to explore remote places such as Antarctica -- or Mars."

HardcoreGamer writes "PC Magazine takes a look inside Mythic's PC MMORPG, Dark Age of Camelot. Camelot, it turns out, is in Fairfax, Virginia where the company keeps 120 dual-processor Pentium servers running Linux for its 225,000 players. An additional 30 servers handle customer support. Mythic claims that it can handle up to 20,000 simultaneous players per server but limits them to 4,000 per server for a better customer experience." Also mentioned is the fact that Mythic's next MMORPG, Imperator Online, "takes place in an outer space being colonized by the Roman Empire."

HardcoreGamer writes "PC Magazine takes a look inside Mythic's PC MMORPG, Dark Age of Camelot. Camelot, it turns out, is in Fairfax, Virginia where the company keeps 120 dual-processor Pentium servers running Linux for its 225,000 players. An additional 30 servers handle customer support. Mythic claims that it can handle up to 20,000 simultaneous players per server but limits them to 4,000 per server for a better customer experience." Also mentioned is the fact that Mythic's next MMORPG, Imperator Online, "takes place in an outer space being colonized by the Roman Empire."

jlouderb writes "Handspring debuted the biggest product at last week's lCeBit show in New York. Lots of news articles were written about the Treo 600, but I actually got to borrow one of the few prototypes for a day." Looks like the only real negatives are that there's no protection for the screen, and no removable battery, otherwise it's a tight little device. It'll be interesting to see the release model in action.

jlouderb writes "Handspring debuted the biggest product at last week's lCeBit show in New York. Lots of news articles were written about the Treo 600, but I actually got to borrow one of the few prototypes for a day." Looks like the only real negatives are that there's no protection for the screen, and no removable battery, otherwise it's a tight little device. It'll be interesting to see the release model in action.

HardcoreGamer writes "Today ATI shipped its Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB DDR-2 card in time for E3 and nVidia announced the NV35-based GeForce 5900 which will be available in June. Early tests seem to say that while nVidia edges ahead of ATI in specific areas, overall ATI still has the better card. The caveat is that the next generation of DirectX 9-based games (like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, demonstrated with ATI at E3) will truly determine which is the better card. Lots of coverage at PC Magazine, PC World, The Register (ATI) (nVidia), ExtremeTech, InternetNews, and Forbes/Reuters. Either way, at $450-$500, serious gamers are about to get another serious dent in their wallets."

HardcoreGamer writes "Today ATI shipped its Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB DDR-2 card in time for E3 and nVidia announced the NV35-based GeForce 5900 which will be available in June. Early tests seem to say that while nVidia edges ahead of ATI in specific areas, overall ATI still has the better card. The caveat is that the next generation of DirectX 9-based games (like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, demonstrated with ATI at E3) will truly determine which is the better card. Lots of coverage at PC Magazine, PC World, The Register (ATI) (nVidia), ExtremeTech, InternetNews, and Forbes/Reuters. Either way, at $450-$500, serious gamers are about to get another serious dent in their wallets."

bigal3du writes "Hardware-Unlimited has posted new information from Intel that they will be delaying the shipment of the new Pentium 4 3Ghz with an 800Mhz FSB. An Intel spokesman contacted Hardware-Unlimited early this morning to let the publication know that performance "anomolies" have been discovered, at the last minute, in validation testing and the processor will be temporarily delayed for shipment. Full details on Hardware-Unlimited.com Forums..." ninenet points to this PC Magazine article which explains the things that characterize the new chip and also mentions the delay.

SeanTobin was among several users who noted that Dvorak's latest column discusses the possibility of Apple going to Intel for future macs. Yeah, this rumor pops up pretty often, but I wonder how long before we'd get binary compatibility between other x86 unix OSs.

ke4roh writes "Space.com offers a list of questions and answers about the events and hardware surrounding Columbia's destruction Saturday. They address suspected causes, foam, tile, and some of the alternatives had NASA known the ship would not be able to re-enter the atmosphere." viewstyle writes "PC Magazine has a pack of stuff put together on the space shuttle accident, as they recognized the fact that the space program inspired a lot of tech people in general. What's pretty cool is the section written by a guy there who worked on the computer components in the shuttle." And naturally, the idea of a space elevator is back in vogue again.

ke4roh writes "Space.com offers a list of questions and answers about the events and hardware surrounding Columbia's destruction Saturday. They address suspected causes, foam, tile, and some of the alternatives had NASA known the ship would not be able to re-enter the atmosphere." viewstyle writes "PC Magazine has a pack of stuff put together on the space shuttle accident, as they recognized the fact that the space program inspired a lot of tech people in general. What's pretty cool is the section written by a guy there who worked on the computer components in the shuttle." And naturally, the idea of a space elevator is back in vogue again.

UVwarning writes with his review of the Philips Streamium MCi-200. "The MCi-200 is an internet micro hi-fi system introduced in selected locations in the latter half of last year. Here is a press release. I've had my Streamium for about 3 months and I really love it, but it is not everything that I thought it would be. For those of you who are thinking of getting one, you need to know the truth about it. The following paragraphs consist mostly of my complaints. If you want a more general and/or lovey-dovey review click here." UVWarning addresses below the unit's performance with various music sources, and has some words about Philips's tech support.

Internet Streams After logging into myPhilips.com with a web browser and adjusting your account settings, the Streamium will be able to connect to myPhilips.com and from there access any radio stations that you have configured. Unfortunately Philips seems to be keeping tight control on which internet radio stations customers can access. Not only are the number of stations relatively limited, but some of them you have to pay for. A couple of months ago, Philip's online FAQ stated, in response to whether or not users can select their own radio stations that are not listed on Philips website, that (and this is the exact quote) "Future software update release will cater for this feature." Now they have changed it to say that "In the future it will be possible to have different online music services accessed via myPhilips.com" So what are they saying? That they will simply have a larger selection available, but will not allow you to select your own? That's a bit annoying, but then I can't really see them being able to charge for premium services and allow users to access any station they want to.

PC Streams The PC-Link feature allows you to stream MP3s from any PC on your LAN. Unfortunately PC-Link software is not only proprietary, but it only runs on Windows and it requires you to download the trial version of MusicMatch Jukebox. This is obviously very inconvenient for a non-Windows user and what I find to be even more annoying than that, is that in addition to their browser requirements on myPhilips.com, there is an OS requirement. You can only access myPhilips.com if you are running Windows or MacOS -- Try it, I'm not kidding! I want to strangle whoever the webmaster of that website is. I have to reboot into my Windows partition every time I want to change some setting on my account.

CDs MP3 CDs / MP3-Pro CDs / CD-Rs / CD-RWs are all supported, however it doesn't seem to like any of the CD-Rs that I burn. They seem to work fine in other players, but when I stick any of them into my streamium, it gets confused and won't eject the CD unless I unplug the power cord and plug it back in (the power button doesn't work in this situation). CD-RWs surprisingly work just fine.

Tech Support When I couldn't get the PC-Link feature to work, I called tech support. Needless to say they were no help. This is a new product to them and I don't think they are used to dealing with software type issues. They kept telling me to unplug and plug all of the cables. Whatever... Later on I figured out on my own that it was because my AT&T Global Network Client that I was using for work had installed a permanent software firewall that I did not know about and so I disabled it and everything was peachy.

Other
FYI Here are some other internet audio appliances:

• Kerbango (3Com's dead linux-based Internet Radio Appliance)
  
• Audiotron (Turtle Beach/PC streams)
  
• Simplefi (Motorola/Wireless/Internet or PC streams)

IrateSurf writes "PC Magazine has completed a First Look review of the new Apple PowerBook, which is the first notebook from Apple with a 1-GHz G4 processor. The notebook also has a nice price cut, running $2,999 -- that's $200 less than the last high-end PowerBook model."

IrateSurf writes "PC Magazine has completed a First Look review of the new Apple PowerBook, which is the first notebook from Apple with a 1-GHz G4 processor. The notebook also has a nice price cut, running $2,999 -- that's $200 less than the last high-end PowerBook model."

IrateSurf writes "PC Magazine has completed a First Look review of the new Apple PowerBook, which is the first notebook from Apple with a 1-GHz G4 processor. The notebook also has a nice price cut, running $2,999 -- that's $200 less than the last high-end PowerBook model."

inode_buddha was among a handful of folks who submitted linkage to Dvorak's latest column where he talks about Linux being to much like Windows. It's not really a slam, just a challange to be more innovative and look beyond feature creep and UI concepts that are old and tired. Hard to disagree with most of it.

MadCow42 writes "With the professional imaging trade show Photokina opening this week in Koln Germany, digital camera manufacturers are announcing a stunning new lineup of professional digital cameras. These include a 13.8 megapixel monster from Kodak, and a 11.1 megapixel camera from Canon. I'm sure Nikon isn't too far behind, but no news yet on their offerings. These cameras are positioned for the professional photographer, but with list prices from under $4k to $6k, they're not out of reach for the 'pro-sumer' market either. The best news is that new products like this will push prices down on the 4-6MP cameras at the high end of the consumer level." We mentioned the premature release giving Canon's hand away; like MadCow42, I want to see what Nikon has to say.

RichardtheSmith writes " PC Magazine just confirmed that Canon mistakenly announced a new 11-Megapixel digital camera that wasn't supposed to be announced for another two weeks. This caused quite a stir on the digital photography message boards like DPReview, where Canon apparently tried to have all links to the press release taken down. The PC Magazine article is here. The original press release can be found here."

RichardtheSmith writes " PC Magazine just confirmed that Canon mistakenly announced a new 11-Megapixel digital camera that wasn't supposed to be announced for another two weeks. This caused quite a stir on the digital photography message boards like DPReview, where Canon apparently tried to have all links to the press release taken down. The PC Magazine article is here. The original press release can be found here."

Desert1 writes "Carnegie Mellon's renowned computer science department has developed a system which allows for conversation between two different languages called Tongues. Currently this has been used between Croatian and English, perhaps one day they will be able to develop one that will allow politicians to talk to normal folks and be understood." It's been in development for a while.

devmanager writes "A PC Magazine column takes a quick look at some technologies that are ready to change the world. Ranging from practical improvements on existing concepts (a 100 GB removable disc) to brand new (a DNA detector), these devices are all at least at prototype status. There's also a nod to the standbys: a robot and VR glove are both included. The article is interesting mainly from the standpoint that it shows items that really are getting close to production."

devmanager writes "A PC Magazine column takes a quick look at some technologies that are ready to change the world. Ranging from practical improvements on existing concepts (a 100 GB removable disc) to brand new (a DNA detector), these devices are all at least at prototype status. There's also a nod to the standbys: a robot and VR glove are both included. The article is interesting mainly from the standpoint that it shows items that really are getting close to production."

AtariDatacenter asks: "Everyone knows that inkjet printers are cheap, but the cartridges cost a bundle. I was trying to find one with the lowest total cost of ownership for a modest twenty or so pages a week. This PC Magazine article kind of takes this on, but with a small sample group. Are there any printers today that should be avoided? Is ink reducing software like inkSaver as good as they claim?" Inkjets have a lot of drawbacks when it comes to laser printers except one thing: the initial price. When it comes to printing lots of text that you intend to keep for an indefinite period of time, which works out better over the short-term and long-term? I've already had Inkjet printers die after a few years of normal usage, are laser printers any better?

NewmansDaddy writes: "According to a PCMag article, 'When the OLEDs are working as a display, you apply electricity to the materials and they emit light. It turns out, however, that if you apply light to these devices, you can get them to produce electricity; in other words, they will run backward...'"

cpfeifer writes with the review below of O'Reilly's 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide; he warns that this is not a book for everyone setting up a casual home wireless network, but says it's excellent for its intended audience. Read on for his complete review. 802.11 Wireless Networks : The Definitive Guide author Matthew S. Gast pages 443 publisher O�Reilly & Associates rating 9/10 reviewer cpfeifer ISBN 0-596-00183-5 summary A thorough survey of the features, issues and potential solutions of deploying 802.11 based wireless networks.

The Scenario

For a lot of folks, implementing an 802.11 network involves selecting and purchasing an access point and adapter cards, and installing or compiling the proper drivers. From there, we are off and running, usually in under an hour. However for the few, the proud, the sysadmins of the world it's a whole different ballgame. Sysadmins need a deeper understanding of network technologies to be able effectively design, deploy and debug them.

What's Bad?

Most of the book is right on the mark when it comes to the sysadmin audience, however chapters 8 (the PCF, for contention free service), 10 (the ISM PHYs) and 11 (802.11a overview) are only of interest to folks who are implementing 802.11 hardware, IMHO. These chapters contain very low-level material about the 802.11 transmission protocol, and will not be generally useful since equipment manufacturers do not provide access to this layer. A dead giveaway that you can skip over chapter 8 is the phrase "The PCF has not been widely implemented." If it's not widely implemented, chances are you won't have the option of using it in a deployment.

After this bellycrawl through the weeds, chapters 12 and 14 give click-by-click instructions for installing two commercially available 802.11 access point/client adapter pairs on your Windows box. The selected products are Nokia's A032 Access Point along with their C110/C111 and Lucent's Orinoco (formerly WaveLan) Access Point and client adapter. It's worth noting that these are two of the most expensive 802.11 solutions available on the market and have enhanced features that are not present in other models. These chapters are simply rehashed vendor installation documentation for these products and provide very little added value. There's nothing that I hate more than paying $30-$50 for a book which repackages documentation that is freely available on the web. Skip these chapters; the rest of the book is excellent.

What's Good?

This book starts off with six strong chapters that cover the 802.11 protocol specification, why WEP is vulnerable, and some upcoming security specifications. The first six chapters are invaluable reading for any sysadmin that is planning (or already responsible) for an 802.11 deployment. This is your ammunition when users come and ask why the wireless network is slower than the wired network with fewer users (preventing contention adds more overhead in wireless) or why they really really should tunnel every wireless connection over SSH (because WEP is fundamentally flawed). The chapter that covers the current WEP implementation demystifies the "40 bit" vs. "64 bit" key-length sleight of hand that some vendors play. The standard WEP key length is 64 bits. However, 24 of those bits are used as WEP's initialization vector for the RC4 cipher. These bits aren't encrypted in an 802.11 packet, so by sniffing 802.11 traffic you can examine the IVs of the packets and see how many distinct keys are in use, and even retrieve the actual key once you have captured enough packets. AirSnort retrieves WEP keys by implementing the Fluhrer/Martin/Shamir attack (orig paper, Stubblefield paper). Chapter 16 covers using tools such as Airsnort and Ethereal to analyze the 802.11 traffic on your network. Remember to use your powers for good and not evil.

The final 3 chapters address deployment, analysis and tuning of 802.11 networks. These chapters, combined with the first six are the heart of this book and the whole motivation for buying the book. The analysis chapter has a particularly wonderful section about gathering user requirements with respect to 802.11 specific issues (security requirements, roaming ...) and a very practical section about physical installation that clearly illustrates the author's mastery of integrating 802.11 technologies into an existing infrastructure.

So What's In It For Me?

If you're an sysadmin and implementing 802.11 technologies is on the horizon, this book is a solid reference of the current state of 802.11 solutions, both good and bad. It pulls no punches in presenting issues and weaknesses with the current solutions and documents forthcoming standards that are being proposed or developed to address them. If you're considering a smaller deployment at home, the security aspects of the text are still applicable, but the design/deployment sections are more rigorous than you will need. There is a bit of starch (repackaged vendor installation documentation) and unnecessary details (knowing that 802.11 frequency hopping uses Gaussian frequency shift keying is good for impressing women at parties, but doesn't really impact the design/deployment of an 802.11 network) but the other chapters redeem themselves and make this a very valuable text.

Table of Contents

1. Preface
2. Introduction to Wireless Networks
3. Overview of 802.11 Networks
4. The 802.11 MAC
5. 802.11 Framing in Detail
6. Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)
7. Security, Take 2: 802.1x
8. Management Operations
9. Contention-Free Service with the PCF
10. Physical Layer Overview
11. The ISM PHYs: FH, DS, and HR/DS
12. 802.11a: 5-GHz OFDM PHY
13. Using 802.11 on Windows
14. Using 802.11 on Linux
15. Using 802.11 Access Points
16. 802.11 Network Deployment
17. 802.11 Network Analysis
18. 802.11 Performance Tuning
19. The Future, at Least for 802.11
20. 802.11 MIB
21. 802.11 on the Macintosh
22. Glossary
23. Index

You can purchase 802.11 Wireless Networks : The Definitive Guide from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cpfeifer writes with the review below of O'Reilly's 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide; he warns that this is not a book for everyone setting up a casual home wireless network, but says it's excellent for its intended audience. Read on for his complete review. 802.11 Wireless Networks : The Definitive Guide author Matthew S. Gast pages 443 publisher O�Reilly & Associates rating 9/10 reviewer cpfeifer ISBN 0-596-00183-5 summary A thorough survey of the features, issues and potential solutions of deploying 802.11 based wireless networks.

The Scenario

For a lot of folks, implementing an 802.11 network involves selecting and purchasing an access point and adapter cards, and installing or compiling the proper drivers. From there, we are off and running, usually in under an hour. However for the few, the proud, the sysadmins of the world it's a whole different ballgame. Sysadmins need a deeper understanding of network technologies to be able effectively design, deploy and debug them.

What's Bad?

Most of the book is right on the mark when it comes to the sysadmin audience, however chapters 8 (the PCF, for contention free service), 10 (the ISM PHYs) and 11 (802.11a overview) are only of interest to folks who are implementing 802.11 hardware, IMHO. These chapters contain very low-level material about the 802.11 transmission protocol, and will not be generally useful since equipment manufacturers do not provide access to this layer. A dead giveaway that you can skip over chapter 8 is the phrase "The PCF has not been widely implemented." If it's not widely implemented, chances are you won't have the option of using it in a deployment.

After this bellycrawl through the weeds, chapters 12 and 14 give click-by-click instructions for installing two commercially available 802.11 access point/client adapter pairs on your Windows box. The selected products are Nokia's A032 Access Point along with their C110/C111 and Lucent's Orinoco (formerly WaveLan) Access Point and client adapter. It's worth noting that these are two of the most expensive 802.11 solutions available on the market and have enhanced features that are not present in other models. These chapters are simply rehashed vendor installation documentation for these products and provide very little added value. There's nothing that I hate more than paying $30-$50 for a book which repackages documentation that is freely available on the web. Skip these chapters; the rest of the book is excellent.

What's Good?

This book starts off with six strong chapters that cover the 802.11 protocol specification, why WEP is vulnerable, and some upcoming security specifications. The first six chapters are invaluable reading for any sysadmin that is planning (or already responsible) for an 802.11 deployment. This is your ammunition when users come and ask why the wireless network is slower than the wired network with fewer users (preventing contention adds more overhead in wireless) or why they really really should tunnel every wireless connection over SSH (because WEP is fundamentally flawed). The chapter that covers the current WEP implementation demystifies the "40 bit" vs. "64 bit" key-length sleight of hand that some vendors play. The standard WEP key length is 64 bits. However, 24 of those bits are used as WEP's initialization vector for the RC4 cipher. These bits aren't encrypted in an 802.11 packet, so by sniffing 802.11 traffic you can examine the IVs of the packets and see how many distinct keys are in use, and even retrieve the actual key once you have captured enough packets. AirSnort retrieves WEP keys by implementing the Fluhrer/Martin/Shamir attack (orig paper, Stubblefield paper). Chapter 16 covers using tools such as Airsnort and Ethereal to analyze the 802.11 traffic on your network. Remember to use your powers for good and not evil.

The final 3 chapters address deployment, analysis and tuning of 802.11 networks. These chapters, combined with the first six are the heart of this book and the whole motivation for buying the book. The analysis chapter has a particularly wonderful section about gathering user requirements with respect to 802.11 specific issues (security requirements, roaming ...) and a very practical section about physical installation that clearly illustrates the author's mastery of integrating 802.11 technologies into an existing infrastructure.

So What's In It For Me?

If you're an sysadmin and implementing 802.11 technologies is on the horizon, this book is a solid reference of the current state of 802.11 solutions, both good and bad. It pulls no punches in presenting issues and weaknesses with the current solutions and documents forthcoming standards that are being proposed or developed to address them. If you're considering a smaller deployment at home, the security aspects of the text are still applicable, but the design/deployment sections are more rigorous than you will need. There is a bit of starch (repackaged vendor installation documentation) and unnecessary details (knowing that 802.11 frequency hopping uses Gaussian frequency shift keying is good for impressing women at parties, but doesn't really impact the design/deployment of an 802.11 network) but the other chapters redeem themselves and make this a very valuable text.

Table of Contents

1. Preface
2. Introduction to Wireless Networks
3. Overview of 802.11 Networks
4. The 802.11 MAC
5. 802.11 Framing in Detail
6. Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)
7. Security, Take 2: 802.1x
8. Management Operations
9. Contention-Free Service with the PCF
10. Physical Layer Overview
11. The ISM PHYs: FH, DS, and HR/DS
12. 802.11a: 5-GHz OFDM PHY
13. Using 802.11 on Windows
14. Using 802.11 on Linux
15. Using 802.11 Access Points
16. 802.11 Network Deployment
17. 802.11 Network Analysis
18. 802.11 Performance Tuning
19. The Future, at Least for 802.11
20. 802.11 MIB
21. 802.11 on the Macintosh
22. Glossary
23. Index

You can purchase 802.11 Wireless Networks : The Definitive Guide from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

paradesign writes "In an 'E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac', John C. Dvorak makes the claim that the Macintosh should be discontinued. He adds, 'I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that.' Worth a read, but keep in mind where its published." I am not posting this as a Dvorak basher to make people realize he is clueless, although plenty of people will accuse me of that.

Slashback with more on handheld everything-boxes, a softer review of the new Sharp Zaurus, raising money for open technologies, Gateway's singing cow, and getting around with alternative root servers -- all below. Enjoy. Update: 04/12 06:41 GMT by T : There's an update below in the part on alternate root servers, too. A double-barrel of Mossberg. Dave Aiello (author of our recent review of Handspring's Treo all-in-one handheld) writes with nice update for anyone thinking of shelling out for one: "Walter Mossberg did a comparative overview of the Handspring, Kyocera, Samsung, and RIM integrated PDAs and phones in the first edition of 'The Mossberg Solution' (a new column he is writing)."

Speak of the devil -- Arrgh writes: "PC Magazine has posted a more favourable review (4 out of 5 stars) of the Zaurus--they had none of the sync problems Walt Mossberg wrote about."

Give money to these guys, please. Jeff Gerhardt of the American Open Technology Consortium writes after the post about this "GeekPAC" on Slashdot.

"Although the last 24 hours was one hell of a pain in the ass, at 4:00 am we were through with that second draft and in large measure due to the constructive comments from the /. community. Yes I got a lot of nutty emails about how I should be working on more important issues like global warming and ending "greed" (can you believe that one??? how the hell can we do that.), but for the most part the comments were well thought out. As a whole I think that the whole /. community should be proud.

In particular I have pages of operational suggestions and contact names across the US. The suggestion that has tickled me the most is a suggestion for a fund raising methodology for the "PAC" organization. This came from a couple guys who were debating the idea between the two of them, until it really solidified into a plan. And, we are going to do it. The plan is simple and uses the thing we love so much, technology.

We will set up a series of paypal account links, having created a category for every House or Senate member that appeals to our overall goals and objectives. If then there is a news item about an issue and one of these "good guy" politicos does something to help the cause, the PAC will write a 2-3 sentence quote that will happen to have the paypal link included inside the quote. Media sites will then be able to include the link as a part of the quote, because afterall its news right (wink wink)!!!!

This would then facilitate the people _out there_ to throw a buck at the good guy as a impulse purchase to show gratitude. It need some refinement, but I think it provides portals an opportunity to provide a political opportunity to their communities, without looking too overtly political in the process."

No more Portable Monopoly. Dr.Jones writes "...well, not really. It seems Portable Monopoly is being forced to give up their web address 'Due to legal issues with Hasbro over the usage of the word "monopoly"'. Fortunately, they will have a new site up next week (Triton Labs), and they're still on target to ship the lighting kit next month. Seems like a bit of a stretch on Hasbro's part though."

Not as much of a stretch maybe as Parker Brothers claiming the word clue.com.;)

Do cows wake up and smell the Rosen? prostoalex writes: "Newsfactor has a story on Hillary Rosen expressing dissatisfaction with Gateway's ad campaign. Who would have thought?"

... and routing around it. With a nice detailed followup to a recent Ask Slashdot post, Dr. Zowie writes: "For those who want to use alternative DNS roots but are stuck behind port-80 proxies, a simple solution may exist, thanks to several folks who wrote in to suggest it. Section 5 of RFC 2068 gently deprecates using relative URI's in HTTP requests, and in fact most web clients generate absolute URI's even though relative URI's are allowed by the standard. My ISP's not-quite-transparent proxy directs outbound port 80 packets correctly if (and only if) there's a relative URI in the request. A little 10-line local proxy that munges absolute URI's into relative URI's before emitting them to the ISP seems to solve the problem for now: I can retrieve all the nice goodies that most of you can't at www.dev.null, , www.computer.geek, and paradox.null.

Oh, and if you live near the Colorado front range and aren't a purist about routing, Peak to Peak is a pretty good outfit for dialup and DSL service. Their tech support is extremely accessible and quite good (though our views differ on the correctness of payload-switched routing)."

Update: 04/12 06:41 GMT by T : Richard Sexton writes: "While it's great to see your continued coverage of Open Roots can I just put in a quick plug for ORSC? We're older and have way more tlds.

The coordination amongst Open Roots takes place at IRON; for lack of a better term, it's the Open IANA."

Kissing and making nice. panker writes "Sun had previously given JavaRanch a cease and desist order because of a trademark issue. Sun is now backing down and being friends. Slashdot covered the first half of this issue earlier."

vnsnes writes: "Mynix brands their e-Space computer as the world's smallest PC. It is, '...the only alternative to Desktops and Notebooks; for those who need computing in two places, typically the Home and the Office.' It looks really cool, but would it really be practical for anyone? For people chucking information between home and office it would seem much more economical to get broadband service at home and setup a VPN. Why would anyone use e-Space as a notebook when it comes without a screen, a keyboard, or a mouse? Yes, you can save space with this little guy, but you'll still need room for a monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse on your desk. And they aren't exactly cheap: about $1,600. For about the same price you can get a laptop computer with the same specs but with all the necessary peripherals. PC Magazine review here." I guess this fills the same niche that the Saintsong Cappucino does, whatever niche that is.

How great is Stephen Satchell's chance of being named to a court-ordered Microsoft oversight committee, assuming such a thing actually gets set up? And how much influence will a Slashdot interview have on the people who make those appointments? Probably not much, but Satch sure did a thorough job of answering your questions about how he'd behave if selected, and why he feels he's qualified.

Satchell:
Before I get to your questions, I want to say something. Given my druthers, I would not be "campaigning" for a seat on the Technical Oversight Committee -- I'd rather be writing code, publishing articles and books, and testing the hell out of computer products. I like what I do today. Unfortunately, I have to act as a grown-up and recognize that there are some things more important than my personal comfort. I feel that, given my skill set, the TC is where I need to be. If they'll have me. Bob Cringley wrote that I "wanted" the job. I don't blame Bob for the slight inaccuracy, because having been a magazine columnist I know what it's like to write to a specified "news hole." Sometimes nuances get dropped when you have exactly 500 words to get your thesis across.

I apologize for correcting spelling and punctuation in the questions submitted by the readers. Blame the writer in me. Besides, Slashdot has enough mispelt words as it is.

So as Art Baker used to say on television every week, "You Asked For It!"

1) What makes you the best man for the job?
by Binestar
Do you have any special agenda to get across or have anything for/against Microsoft that would make it so you were not impartial in your oversight of any federal rulings? As much as most people hate them this needs to be done in a fair and impartial way; will you be able to be fair and impartial?

Satchell:
No, I have no special agenda or strong feelings about Microsoft pro or con. And I don't love or hate the company. Microsoft is neither "good" nor "evil."

And (as the lawyers would say) even if I did have some bias, I've proven to the satisfaction of the computer industry, and to the satisfaction of several judges over the years, that I can be fair and impartial in my evaluations even in the face of bias. (Most of the companies who suffered my reviews add the word "tough" to "fair" and "impartial" in their description of me.)

As I read the explanatory text in the Competitive Impact Statement (CIS), the Technical Committee performs investigations and evaluations of Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the Final Judgement as issued by the Judge, using software expertise -- which is a requirement for being on the Technical Committee -- to catch those things that might otherwise fly by a legal beagle. In other words, the TC is a fact-finding body, and as long as it finds the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts it will discharge its job fairly and impartially. The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) doesn't do as good a job of explaining it all, but will most likely be the controlling document.

Brian Kendig asked a side question that bears answering: "How will I be able to work with Microsoft without appearing to be biased?" Another question asked about how I would deal with the monster egos at Microsoft. I'll kill two birds with one stone; let me tell you a little story:

Over the years I have worked with the Telecommunications Industry Association, a "standards provider" recognized by ANSI. A number of years ago, a TIA Standards ballot crossed my desk, SP-2812, that described a method of encoding commands and multiple data streams in computer-to-modem connections for enhanced fax and voice-over-data support, among other things - the cellular people started using it, too.. Most of the work on this Standard was contributed by a Microsoft representative (MR), who was also the editor for the Standard. (If the MR in question wants to identify himself, he can do so - he reads Slashdot.) The Standard was virtually unreadable as balloted. After working a full two days to understand what the Standard was trying to say, I was able to construct a description that was clearer, covered all the corner cases, and left room for future expansion. I then voted "No" and faxed my vote and comments to the TIA. The committee chairman asked if I would meet with the SP-2812 editor - the Microsoft representative - as soon as I could. "Mr. MR has a huge ego," said the chairman. We met, we argued, we discussed, and we came to an understanding. I prepared a "contribution" that was a rewrite of the contents of the ballot. The result was EIA 617, better known to the rest of you as ITU Recommendation V.80.

2) Do you feel it is possible to have a unified MS?
by petree
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competitive? Specifically, if the United States government leaves Microsoft as-is (no "break-up") do you feel it is possible to regulate a company that in the past has shown no respect for government intervention?

Satchell:
Yes. Interestingly, it's the TC portion of the PFJ that lets me make that affirmative. Let me explain my take on it.

The effective sales life of a version of commercial software is now one year. The time required to get redress for grievance via lawsuit is around four years. Four years is more than enough time for a commercial software company to crash, die, crumble to dust, and blow away so that there is absolutely nothing left of it. Even if the software company wins its case against Microsoft, it's a Pyrrhic victory because the company will have lost where it counts most, in the marketplace.

The key to making the Final Judgment work to the short window dictated by the commercial-software market cycle is that the TC and Microsoft's Judgement Compliance Officer can solve a problem informally, rather than the complaining party and Microsoft taking years to build and litigate a case. It costs everyone less money, too.

In the academic and non-commercial software market, the key bottleneck isn't time, it's money. Very few non-commercial software efforts can raise the money required to take on the 360-kilogram gorilla - most of the time the leaders of such projects just sigh and go to Plan "B." With the TC (and some changes, hopefully, in the PFJ to allow academic, government, and non-commercial software projects to have standing) the cost of resolving a disclosure difficulty drops dramatically. That means that researchers, government employees, and non-profit developers can spend time getting the job done, not scratching their heads wondering how to do the job.

3) Asking slashdot?
by heyetv
Are you concerned that tying yourself to Slashdot, a known haven for us *nix freaks that are generally hostile towards Microsoft's actions, will harm your chances of obtaining this position, as it would require that those appointing the position perceive you as "objective"?

Satchell:
No. I welcome this opportunity.

I was asked by Slashdot if I would consent to be interviewed, and I agreed. This is no different than if ABC, CNN, InfoWorld, or The Wall Street Journal had called and asked for an interview.

Let me be blunt: I believe the Slashdot readership extends far beyond the boundaries you suggest. If you look at all of the questions that earned at least a +3 score from the reader-moderators, I believe you would see what I see: a broad cross-section of thoughts, opinion, and concern about the effects of the Microsoft Final Judgement. Slashdot questions are different than those that might be posed by a panel of journalists, or a panel of lawyers, or a panel of businessmen. I welcome the questions that Slashdotters ask because I suspect, frankly, no one else will ask quite the questions you have. And those (these) questions deserve answers from each and every candidate.

I would just as readily and as eagerly answer the ten most-insightful questions from, say, a community of Microsoft Certified Engineers or the Fraternal Order of Windows OEMs.

Slashdot isn't exactly a private club, either. My answers to your questions will be read (dissected?) by a wider audience than just those who have slashdot.org in the Bookmarks file of Netscape on their Linux or BSD systems. Count on it.

4) Restrict What?
by JJ
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be restricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future? Endless loop:(n); see Loop, Endless.

Satchell:
That's part of the Great Debate between the Microsoft lawyers and the gaggle of Plaintiff lawyers. As you may have read recently, the Plaintiffs have divided on the issue over the number of yards to penalize Microsoft. The DoJ camp feel that ten yards is enough. The California camp feel that fifteen yards plus loss of down is more appropriate, and grumble that perhaps splitting up the Microsoft team into multiple "independent" teams shouldn't be taken off the table. It's now up to you fans to voice your opinion about the call. Unlike your federal elected representatives, the Department of Justice is required by law to respond to your comments, and the judge has to take that response into account.

The Technical Committee will then work within the framework of what the judge decides. I suspect that the rules of play following the pronouncement of the Final Judgement will require some tweaking and amplification once it gets going. The Court writes the rule-book. The TC will be the refs.

The biggest area of restriction that I see is Microsoft's use of NDAs to keep secret things that would block a non-Microsoft program from interoperating with Microsoft products. Much of the PFJ waxes long on this particular subject. Information is power.

5) What Would You Do With Passive Committee Partners?
by UberOogie
What would you do if you were saddled with two other do-nothings on your committee?

Satchell:
For the purpose of this answer, I'll assume that you do not intend to imply that I would be a do-nothing. Otherwise, what's the point? There would be too many lawyers watching for a slacker to get away with it for long, I would think.

If you have never bid on a Federal contract, you wouldn't believe the amount of law that covers the behavior of contractors, and the PFJ makes clear that each member of the TC would be a contractor of the United States Government. When I prepared a bid for a Patent and Trademark Office contract, the applicable law as described in the Code of Federal Regulations ran for more than 150 pages.

The TC members had damn well better care, and work hard and fairly.

6) How tough?
by silicon_synapse
Microsoft is sure to test their boundaries and see how far the overseers will let them go. How much would Microsoft have to stray from the new regulations before you make some noise? Would you be tough and bring to attention the most minor of infractions? Or would you be more lenient and use your judgement to make sure the intent of the regulations are observed?

Satchell:
Good question. One of the nice things that the CIS stresses is that the minor stuff is intended to be settled informally. That implies to me that "the most minor of infractions" can be cleared up quickly and without any attention needed by the lawyers, let alone a judge. That's good for Microsoft, that's good for the TC, that's good for the lawyers who should have better things to do, but most importantly it's good for the outside party with the complaint because, with the dispute resolved quickly, that outside party can get back to the business of developing and out of the business of bellyaching.

Not stated anywhere (yet) is what happens when there is a legitimate difference of opinion about what the Final Judgement really means. Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the meaning of clauses in the Final Judgement might be "kicked upstairs" for resolution or clarification; alternatively, if the TC staff includes a parliamentarian a proposal could be prepared and negotiated at the TC/Compliance-Liaison level and kicked upstairs for an up-or-down decision, again quickly. That's one of the many details that would need to be determined once the Final Judgement is in place.

More importantly and implied in the PFJ is that the TC's six-month report would be able to show any pattern of tendency toward non-compliance and edge-skating, a defect in the 1995 decree that made micro-infractions, to coin a term, almost impossible to track.

7) Playing the devil's advocate...
by BOredAtWork
While the methods Microsoft has used to become an industry giant are questionable, to say the least, the fact is, they are THE industry giant now. Microsoft is responsible for a great number of jobs, conducts research that would be too expensive for almost anyone else, and MSFT is a staple of a great many investment portfolios. Assuming you would become partially responsible for ensuring their compliance with federal regulations, part of your job will inevitably become spin control.

To break Microsoft's chokehold on the industry will send their stock into a tailspin, cause their R&D cycle to slow, and cause a chaotic move for power in various niches by everyone from giants such as IBM to various smaller companies that most people have never heard of. This will cause ripples (or shock waves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dot-coms that show up and fail at trying to corner a niche to the price of new computers.

My question for you, then, is the following: If you do assume a role such that you oversee Microsoft's compliance with federal guidelines, how will you keep the ripple effects caused by your enforcement in check, and how will you justify the ripples that inevitably are created to the American people?

Satchell:
First, let me disagree in part with your first statement. Microsoft, from the beginning, had a set of axioms of operation that I believe were well-suited to the company as a start-up, served as well during its mid-growth, and led them into anti-competitive action when they became a monopoly. The axioms: "if you use it, you pay for it"; and, "we don't support products from other companies."

Some of the anti-competitive behavior described during trial was proven to be intentional and not related to company axioms, so I'm not trying to excuse Microsoft. That doesn't detract from the fact that some of their acts were good intentions coupled with bad choices, the usual paving material for the road to damnation.

Your question suffers from a touch of tunnel vision, methinks. Heikkile makes the point that Microsoft's actions go far beyond the borders and citizenry of the United States. I believe that the enforcement action that the various settlement documents contemplate will be sufficient to help everyone, not just the "American companies." As a TC member, I can put forward that anyone should be able to put forward a complaint...as long as it's in English. You can put that forward yourself, in your letter to the DoJ about your feelings about the proposed settlement.

The goal of the DoJ is to craft a Final Judgement that will stop anti-competitive behavior, reverse any gains Microsoft may have gotten from anti-competitive behavior, and keep Microsoft more on the straight and narrow in the future. The goal of the Technical Committee, as I see it, is to reduce the pain level to all involved when Microsoft strays over the line, to get Microsoft back in line with a minimum of fuss, delay, and fireworks.

I opine some more: by keeping the company intact, the PFJ doesn't upset the millions of business arrangements already in place, from developers to packagers to retailers to OEMs to volume customers. By DoJ's losing on the bundling/integration issue, Microsoft is saved from having to rebuild its operating system products and creating even more skews of its product line, which in turn saves on technical support by Microsoft and, more importantly, retraining at the OEM, retail, and IT level. In short, the DoJ/Microsoft PFJ already works to keeps the ripple effect down to something manageable, which says to me that the DoJ learned some things from its experiences with AT&T.

I repeat: the sole function of the Technical Committee is to keep Microsoft honest and to help them keep to the agreement they made with the Plaintiffs and the judgements of the Court. By doing my job to the letter, by the book, and according to Hoyle I would be minimizing the ripple effects while permitting Microsoft a chance to continue to do what it has done, bring product to market, and let the marketplace decide thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

8) To boldly go insane....
by jd
This may seem like a really obvious question, but how do you propose to oversee an organization the size and complexity of Microsoft, by yourself and maybe two others?

Microsoft has managed to avoid scrutiny by companies, courts, governments and even users. Many allegations made in the trial, such as "knifing the baby" remarks alleged by Netscape, would simply not be visible, by simply looking at Official Policy Documents. In fact, probably very little actual policy DOES appear in their Official Policy Documents.

In short, you can't hunt ghosts with an electron microscope. You need knowledge of what the right job is, and then you need the tools to do it.

Do you even remotely imagine that this is even possible?

Satchell:
It's obviously impossible. You're right, policing at the level you describe is a task too large for even 300 people, let along three. I doubt it's desirable, either. That would be like having your very own cop sitting in the back seat of your car every time you drive, writing a ticket every time you rolled a stop sign or cut a left turn (right turn for you Brits) too close.

If you read the Competitive Impact Statement, you will see that it contemplates that the Technical Committee will be complaint-driven. Because the process for the complaint (not yet defined, by the way) should be less onerous than filing a lawsuit with the 800-pound gorilla, people who feel that Microsoft has violated the agreement with respect to them will file complaints.

As suggested by the CIS, the TC will have to do some kind of triage and prioritize the complaints, and group like complaints together. Then they will investigate the complaints and work with the Microsoft Compliance Liaison Officer to see if there is a simple fix for the problem. If there is, the fix is put in place and the file closed and logged.

And if it can't be fixed? The TC reports to the Plaintiff committee, providing all information available about the complaint. It's then up to the Plaintiff committee to decide what to do. It could be as simple as a lawyer-to-lawyer phone call and directions to the TC and the Compliance Officer. It could be as complex as a special court hearing. Who knows? But all that stuff is above the TC's pay grade.

The PFJ anticipates that the TC may well need a staff. This wouldn't be a large staff, and would be sized according to the load. No, I'm not taking resumes... :)

One reason I suspect that the members of the Technical Committee must be "experts in software design and programming" is to minimize the "staff effect" that cripples the decision-making process in many oversight committees. If the members themselves have the background to understand the underlying issues, to judge the clues found in the source, books, and memos, and to assimilate the Microsoft technical and non-technical response, you eliminate the mini-trials that are the hallmark of the operation of many government regulatory boards. You also eliminate the exclusive judgement of staff, people who do not take the heat for their decisions like a member would or should.

9) The obvious question...
by Stonehead
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"? By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..

Satchell:
As a member of the Technical Committee, my opinions in this matter are, frankly, not applicable. Other people decide the policy, the TC just implements the policy as set by the judge. But it's an interesting question, and I'm happy to take a stab at it. To wit, my opinion:

Richard M. Stallman asked the right question a long time ago: "If it's broke, how do I fix it?"

There is a BIG difference between "bundling" and "integrating" user-land applications into an operating system. If Microsoft wants to bundle a DVD-ROM full of stuff with Windows 2006, I say more power to them...as long as I don't have to have any part of Windows Recording Studio in order to install Syntrillium's CoolEdit as my multi-channel wave editor.

On the other hand, Microsoft has to be able to test and support functionality that the users want, or say they want. In the enterprise environment, the ability to install patches from a central facility is a real boon to the Information Technology department. Integrating everything together reduces the technical support headache for Microsoft. If it reduces the time for a tech support call, that's money saved, either for Microsoft for warranty support or the user if he or she is buying by-the-incident support services, or for the IT department if it provides its own support. Fewer variables.

And that is where "competition" and "user experience" clash. The optimal solution from Microsoft's perspective is also anti-competitive, not because they are worried about sales but because they are worried about tech support cost. The optimal solution from the perspective of Big Business is to standardize on a single solution that can be deployed, and if Microsoft's solution doesn't do the trick then Big Business will find someone else who can do the trick. The optimal solution from the perspective of the home user is that something happens magically. The optimal solution from the perspective of the SOHO user is to have none of it, because the SOHO computer is an attractive target for the Black Hats and the SOHO user doesn't want to have to spend $2K on a super-tricked-out firewall appliance between his computer and the outside world.

If it's broke, how do I fix it? Any solution MUST answer that question, for all users.

10a) Corruption?
by jamesidm
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the committee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?

-- plus --

10b) Re: Corruption?
by Odinson
Perhaps I could elaborate with my intended question.

Do you think board members should make themselves available for financial audits?

If so...

How deep into the board members lives can the audits go and how long after their stay on the board should their financial records be reviewed?

Satchell:
The Technical Committee has a report it has to file every six months (every month if I have any say) that details what it's done and the rationale it used for its decisions. An experienced lawyer is very, very good at seeing BS in reports like that.

And now for something I don't expect anyone here to believe: I've turned down bribes while I was a product reviewer. I turned down money. I turned down sex. I turned down neat toys. Several of my colleagues said I was a fool to turn down all that stuff - indeed, I have a long-running feud with a well-known writer over the importance of the appearance of being ethical. He tells people I commit "fiscal suicide." (Don't worry, I have equally nasty things to say about him. It balances.)

Ever been fired from a job because you couldn't lie? I have. Now you know. (Hint: it wasn't a magazine that wanted me to lie. Not that I would.) I'm just not good at lying. In order to be successfully corrupt, you have to be able to lie convincingly. I don't have that skill.

I expect that as a TC member I would have to file financial disclosure forms, that indicate major sources of income plus investments. I filed these as a journalist and as a reviewer, so I don't have a problem with that.

As for audits: people, please! This is the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE we are talking about. If DoJ suspects ANY problem, they have an in-house investigative arm that you may have heard of: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With the power to probe into any aspect of my life that they choose.

===

That's it for your ten questions as selected by Slashdot editors. There were other good questions that I think deserve a response, so I'll lump answers to them in the next handful of paragraphs.

First, in my lab I run 14 systems variously populated with Windows (98SE and 2000 Pro), Linux (Slackware and Red Hat), and MacOS (8.5) on a 6400. I have a couple of Sun boxes loaded with Solaris, too, but they aren't running right now. All but one Windows system dual-boots Linux. I have an early BeOS CD-ROM, but it's been a while since I loaded it. My 286 box has QNX on it, but that's been powered off for a long time. The last MS-DOS box bit the dust last year. I switch between operating systems frequently, choosing the one that is best suited to do the job that needs to be done. The general-purpose Linux boxes all have SAMBA, and one of those SAMBA boxes is my Windows domain controller. (I'm trying to get HP to give me Linux software to make my Network Scanner 5 work with my Linux domain controller - no luck. Anyone at HP listening?) I may be forced to load the copy of Windows NT Server I have on the shelf, or I may put the newly-acquired HP Kayak into that service. The house is wired with 100-base T, and there are a couple of ethernet switches to break up the collection into logical groups.

I have written software for resale that runs on Ultrix, SunOS, Windows, MacOS, Linux, MS-DOS, and Hunter & Ready's VRTX. I have written operating systems for embedded products, and worked on operating systems all through my 30-year career.

Some high points: Worked on ARPAnet while at University of Illinois. Software and system design for embedded-computer products at Rockwell, Recognition Equipment, Addressograph-Multigraph. Benchmark writer at InfoWorld. Technical editor at InfoWorld. Built modem test lab at Ziff-Davis Labs. SPECmark member via MacUser magazine (did SPECmarks for early 680x0 Macs). Editor of the modem testing standard for TIA (now EIA 3800). Reviewed and wrote about more than 600 products in over 400 articles. Wrote Linux IP Stacks Commentary for Coriolis Books. Work at the annual Glenn Tenney THINK conference. Cameraman for local PBS station. Test Manager at Motorola ISG on the soft-modem project. Ran BBSes, BIX Telecom Exchange, assisted with CompuServie IBMSIG. Wrote, sold, and supported OTTO suite for analog modem testing.

I have never worked for Microsoft or any operating system vendor in any capacity, technical or non-technical. Microsoft and its direct competitors, directly or through PR representatives, have never paid me a dime, given me a T-shirt, or gifted me with a logo-bearing yo-yo. All Microsoft products that I've gotten through the years were purchased, bundled with systems, or were evaluation units (clearly marked "not for resale") provided to me in my capacity as a member of the working press and obtained through [Microsoft's PR agency] WaggEd .

Some yahoo bitched about how obtuse my contribution to W3C was. My training as a writer taught me how to write to an audience. That contribution - a formal response to a W3C position paper - was written in Standard-ese. I hope the bozo sees the difference between that paper (written for stuffed shirts) and this little tome. Don't like it? Write me.

Remember the Cyberporn story Time magazine ran in 1995? A bunch of us on alt.internet.media-coverage who work in the press fumed and fumed about that story. After much discussion, and many complaints from others who fumed that we were taking over the newsgroup, we decided to form The Internet Press Guild as a resource to mainstream press people who got an Internet beat without knowing much about it. So far, nothing as bad as the infamous "Rimm Job" has hit the mainstream press since we started.

I was an OS architect a number of years ago, so I understand the mind-set all too well. Grew out of it, but I remember the feelings, the attitudes, the arrogance. It helps to understand the organization you are about to oversee. Microsoft is one of the few organizations I have ever encountered that exhibits the mind-set, behavior, and mannerisms of the OS architect.

If I don't get the job, I'll just continue doing what I'm doing today. If the TC that is selected does a bad job and the computer industry craters, I'll seek out a new career. It's that simple.

That should do it. Now some of you know just a little more about me than you did before.

PS: To be complete, I should mention I'm not the only one with my hat in the ring. John Dvorak announced his "candidacy" in his November 2, 2001 column in PC Magazine. You need to talk with him about his qualifications for sitting on the Technical Committee.

Gryphon writes "PC Magazine has published a pretty level-headed 8-page review of the Linux 2.2 kernel. Mostly a features review, compared to Windows NT. I think this is pretty significant, considering a lot of Windows users (including me in years now past) read that magazine! "

PC Magazine Online has published some articles about Open Source, Linux world and reviews of Slackware, Caldera, Debian, Redhat, Gecko, and Apache. Worth a read. Those articles will be published on the next issue of PC Magazine in the March 23rd issue. (thanks to Eli Marmor for telling me about it).