Slashdot Mirror
Sluggish WiFi Connections Hurt Everyone
MindNumbingOblivion writes "Wireless technology has revolutionized access to local area networks when one can't always be close to an ethernet jack. But a recent research paper from the French Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique tells how one slow user accessing a hot point can hurt the whole group. Apparently the very nature of CSMA/CD guarantees such anomalies. Here's the story, and here's the release from CNRS (in French)."
How long before this becomes an exploit in order to perform a DOS attack on wifi points?
I say about 1 month, maybe less. Any takers?
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
maybe it only hurts other people using wifi?
You already may be liable for illicit activity, and now others can even slow you down?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
"What the -- we're down to 1 Mbps!"
"There he is! Get him!"
The coolest voice ever.
Sluggish WiFi Connections Hurt Everyone
Typing le courrier electronique or "courrier" instead of email also slows everyone down.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
It could even have a message that would pop up reading:
You are the slowest link. Goodbye!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I could have had first post, but unfortunately, another user on this hotspot has caused the network to slow down for some reason.
If you have an 11b AP with a bunch of PCs with 11 meg cards and some kind of 2 meg hand held device then the 2 meg device is going to hog the connection until its done.
A solution would be to leave the 802.11b AP inplace and servicing the older 2 meg devices and put an 11a or 11g AP in next to it to service the faster devices. Alternitively you might be able to put the slower devices on channel 1 and put the faster one on 6 and 11 (they have to be 5 apart to avoid overlap, and in the US you only have a total of 11 unregulated channels)
Wireless is different than wired communication. People are just going to ahve to get used to it. More stuff to learn, more rules to follow, more work for people like me.
Its a good thing- especially in this economy.
"Well, serves you right for running a wireless hot-spot. You know those things are nothing more than anonymous leeching posts for music stealers anyhow." ;)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Ethernet uses CSMA/CD. 802.11b uses CSMA/CA (collision avoidance). After all, not every node in a WiFi network can see or hear ther nodes, so they may not be able to detect collisions (but your receiving node might).
Thus, each node must try to avoid causing the collision in the first place - hence such techniques as RTS/CTS protocol...
If you actually want to broadcast on the same channel(s) the 11b and 11g devices are on, you'd need 2.4 Ghz phones.
If your in a public location using a hotspot the only transfers your most likely going to be doing are to/from the internet, not to/from your 1337 mp3 s3v3r box. Chances are the hot spots inet connection is ~1mbps anyway.
This is nothing new. This sort of flaw is inherent in CSMA/CD, the WiFi problem is just another example of it. Before CSMA/CD was even rolled out people knew about this situation. The pros just outweigh the cons, for what this network design philosophy is used for.
* LEET_POWERBOOK_1400 has joined server WIFI_POINT
<ibm_thinkpad> omfg lag
<LEET_POWERBOOK_1400> hi does this map have the bfg ?
<dell_dimension> boot the lpb
<iBook> boot leet_powerbook_1400
* ibm_thinkpad has initiated a vote to kick LEET_POWERBOOK_1400
* Vote to kick LEET_POWERBOOK_1400 was successful (6 for, 1 against, 1 abstain)
* LEET_POWERBOOK_1400 has been kicked from server WIFI_POINT
<dell_dimension> ah much better
* dell_dimension was gibbed by iBook's rocket
This isn't something that's likely to become a serious exploit, for the simple reason that the attacker would need to bring a compatible device within range of the access point. Unless someone has a serious grudge against the owner of the network, who'd want to spend the time? You'd either have to be present with a laptop/pda, or leave it behind. Remember, we are talking about radio waves here. Plenty of technology exists to track 802.11x signals, and all it takes is a well equipped sysadmin and a properly filed lawsuit to discourage the attacker.
For anyone who understands how these technologies work, this makes sense. It's one of the compromises that allows connectivity to happen over longer distances. As you might expect, signal degrades as you get furth away from the access point and rather than being unable from far away, it drops down to a lower speed. It just makes sense. Most people understand that wireless (802.11anything) technologies are shared bandwidth. People think "Oh it's 11mbit, that means when the access point is saturated it will be a total of 11mbit." Of course, this is only partly true. If everyone is really close and connecting at 11mbit then it will be 11mbit shared, but if everyone is connecting at 1mbit (far away) then it will 1mbit shared between everyone. This is nothing new, this is just how things work. This is why many access points have the option of only allowing 11mbit and 5mbit connections. This just seems like a bigger problem as peoples connection speeds are further apart in speed. (e.g. An 802.11g user humming along at 55mbit alone will loose approximately half his speed if a 1mbit user starts using half his bandwidth.) Don't expect to get the best of both worlds. People want a large range and high speed, it can't really happen, there are tradeoffs.
From the yahoo article: their research paper that anomalies in the IEEE 802.1x standard -- including 802.11a, 802.11g, and the most widely-used Wi-Fi protocol, 802.11b
I was under the impression that the IEEE 802.1x standard is solely a security standard and that it is not to be used as a generic term for the 802.11* wireless protocols. Anyone care to clear this up?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
This is why years of language study is a useful thing :D I was a bit disappointed, though, because it doesn't give much information on exactly why this happens. Guess I'll have to go see how CSMA/CA is different from CSMA/CD on my own.
--
A primary analysis of Wi-Fi network performance anomalies was done by four reserchers of the Institute for Information Technology and Applied Mathematics (IMAG)'s Software Systems Resources unit. Martin Heusse, Franck Rousseau, Gilles Berger-Sabbatel, and Andrzej Duda just published the surprising results of their study for the INFOCOM conference in San Francisco, on of the most prestigious in the domain of networks research. it reveals that in certain very --- circumstances, this type of wireless network produces a relatively penalizing slowdown: users with better connectivity, and thus with better data flow, are penalized by those with degraded connections.
Local wireless networks based on the "Wi-Fi" (IEEE 802.11b) standard are starting to be deployed in a relatively large number of locations, and many models of portable computers already come with a Wi-Fi network card. Attempts providing connectivity in public places, by way of what are called "hot spots", are becoming more common. The number of potential users are increasing rapidly, and the first hot spots are in wide use, but can Wi-Fi networks stand up to the needs of numerous users and increased bandwidth demands?
In their usual operating mode, Wi-Fi networks are built upon on a wired network infrastructure. Wireless access points rely on a local, high-bandwidth network, most commonly Ethernet, and create a link between wireless network equipment and the local wired network, as well as the internet. In practice, wireless network cards use four flow levels with different signal modulation techniques that can be selected according to the quality of the connection to the access point. More simply, a card close to an access point can get good bandwidth, nominally 11 megabits/second; as it gets farther away, the levels go to 5.5 Mbit/s, 2 Mbit/s, and finally 1 Mbit/s, as the signal gets weaker and degrades.
As Wi-Fi networks are created, some users get the best flow (11 Mbit/s) in the access point's coverage area because they're close to the access point. A user enters in this coverage area and, being relatively far away, is connected at 1 Mbit/s. When this user communicates over wireless channels, that is, when he transmits data, it causes a drop in bandwidth for all the others, leaving them at a bandwidth apparently identical to his, 1 Mbit/s. No matter which bandwidth levels the original users are connected at, the weakest will be observed by all hosts.
This anomaly, inherent in networks relying on CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access / Collision Avoidance) which is defined in the Wi-Fi standard and revealed by the CNRS research team, penalises the network users. Despite a good connection, their apparent performance can become strongly degraded in a completely unforseeable manner, due simply to the activity of a third party connected to the same wireless access point at a lower bandwidth level.
However, though it will be observed on any network of this type, the impact of this anomaly should be more or less moderate for two reasons. First, most equipment today connects to the network in a sporadic and non-continuous manner; periods of activity, like downloading a web page, are relatively short compared to the time spent reading it. Conversly, if a long communication takes place - downloading a large video, for example - it will continuously penalize all users. A second mitigating factor comes from higher-level protocols, especially TCP, which perform some sort of flow-control that creates an effect on apparent bandwidth.
The researchers are currently working on solutions to limit or suppress this anomaly, which could become extremely limiting with the development of new communication applications, notably audio and video over the Internet.
Its good to see this sort of stuff put to paper anyway. As a Free/Open software implementer working on developing cheap-as-possible wireless access points for rural area internet distribution, I can say this IS useful. Problems like this, and many others, creep out of nowhere and are very hard to track down without expensive equipment. This specific problem happened and was remedied after much head-scratching by dividing one site into multiple cells so slow users had more 'time' to get their data. just my 0.02
jeff
You've "discovered" 802.11x designed behavior? Good Job, cheese eaters. Here's a cookie...
Configure the access point to only allow 11 mbit connections. If it's a Cisco AP, then that's relatively easy to do. I don't know about other APs.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
... nor, for that matter, is timothy's profound grasp of the mind-numbingly obvious.
Seems like a protocol that compressed the flesh-colored bits would greatly improve bandwidth in this situation.
Who needs sophisticated DOS attacks when simple jamming would do the trick quite well.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
They cited an example where several users, who are enjoying a fast 11Mbps connection because they're close to the hot spot, see their performance dramatically drop when a single user -- perhaps because he is further from the access point -- connects at a sluggish 1Mbps. In that case, the French experts said, all are punished for the sins of the one: those users once connected at 11Mbps will see their speeds dragged down to 1Mbps.
and shortly after the perpetrator was revealed he quickly surrendered.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Just like how one slow driver on the street causes a traffic jam that lasts hours, even on roads with many lanes. It should be allowed to beat the crap out of people like that. If you want to take your sweet time driving down the street, pull over and let the 10 billion people who actually need to get where they're going pass you, you dumb fuck.
If they use Location Awareness technology they just might...
Most users are still connecting with 56K modems and are lucky to get about a 40K connection.. so I think most could make due with 1Mbps.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
it's 'courriel' for email (nt)
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Just install switches instead of hubs. Kiss CSMA/CD collision issues goodbye with a dedicated switch port for every system/device.
In days past, it was cost prohibitive to do this, but with cheap switches these days, why not? I run a switched net at home, not that I really need to, but if I happen to be doing a 2 gig file copy from one box to another, at least I can surf the net without any slowdowns.
Taking into consideration that Milwaukee is a city of ~600,000 people, that not many are going to have wireless laptops and even fewer are gonna spend time in a park surfing the web, it still seems like 20-40 users clogging a public WI-FI is a bit odd.
I suppose they can't complain, though, since the city paid less than a couple of hundred dollars for the setup. Still, it just seems somewhat pointless if it's gonna be clogged all the time.
"This food is problematic."
Oops, I forgot to include the link to the recent /. article on 802.11x triangulation.
They're talking about collisions within the 802.11 wireless network, not in the 802.3 wired network behind it. What you propose isn't feasible since you're essentially talking about dedicating a wireless channel to every user.
For an excellent explanation of why this type of thing occurs, check out:
C ellWhitePaper/TurboCell%20White%20Paper.htm
http://www.karlnet.com/Documents/WhitePaper/Turbo
Even better is that it details a superior system (albeit pricey per node). It's based on military technology and military technology is light years ahead of what most of us are using on a daily basis.
Blue skies...
This is how RF packet radio networks function. Unless you give each user a RF channel of their own it slows down and plain stops sometimes.
I have a DSL account that 1mbt is about my average download speed. Why is this something to whine about?
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Thats very interesting, but I liked the comment better the first time.
The answer is to use something like the "wireless switch" that Vivato developed, which uses phased-array antenna technology and can give the full 11 Mbps 802.11b bandwidth to each client.
Ouch! The truth hurts!
If I'm the only one on an 11mbps network and sitting right next to the station, I'd expect all the bandwidth. If somebody else joins the same network, in fairness my bandwidth may be halved. But do I really care whether the other guy is getting 1mbps or 11mbps during his timeslice? I'm still getting half the bandwidth as if I had it all to myself, right? I would only consider it strange if a single user joining with a weak connection cut my bandwith by > 1/n.
its just like introducing a 10mb/s nic on a network of 10/100 nics, all will have to slow down to the slowest user for compatibility, I always assumed the role of thumb, a network is as fast as its slowest node.What do I know
Whats A sig anyway
Mod parent down. He just copy/pasted my earlier post.
No.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Supposedly only channels 1, 6, and 11 are far enough away that they don't interfere. In my apartment building there's two WiFi APs on each of those channels. My GF's WinXP machine keeps getting booted off the WLAN because she gets invalid packets. She's been begging for an ethernet cable, but after spending hundreds on getting rid of all those cables it makes me sick to give up so easily. Perhaps I need a bigger antenna.
Sorry, excuse me...how fast is your connection, if I may ask? Oh, thank you...
chkchk *BANG!*
Aaaa...now we're talking...*busy clicking sounds resume*
You could have this problem, in theory, on an unswitched Ethernet network with a mixture of 10 Mbps- and 100 Mbps-capable hosts. The problem is that the bandwidth is shared, but not equally, because it just takes some users longer to transmit.
I think it is not CSMA/CD, but is CSMA/CA instead .
o de _en.html
http://aqua.comptek.ru/test/HiddenNode/hidden_n
Thanks,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
It sounds like it's time for some form of Token passing. That would prevent slow nodes from dominating the bandwidth, and would make sure everyone gets their fair share. Each node would have to register with the AP and then the AP would serve as the ring monitor.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
WTF is wrong with you asshole? MODS! Before you mod this down, note that parent copied this earlier post verbatim. Now go use your points wisely.
everything in moderation
All you need to shut down a wireless hotspot is a 2.4 GHz cordless phone. This will work for any of the 802.11X connections, lets give a hand to the FCC for this one.
If I find myself in the "wet spot" I will gladly give it up to other users...
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
The problem will occur in any shared multiple-access radio network when users are at different distances from the base station. Those far away from the base station use spectrum less efficiently than those close to the base station because they're forced to put more RF energy into each data bit to close the link.
The same thing happens in 1xEV-DO. As in 802.11, a wide range of data rates is available to adapt to varying channel conditions, and the lower data rates use the channel less efficiently.
Digital radio designers work hard to make their modulation, coding and multiple access techniques as efficient and adaptive as possible. But at some point, you have no alternative but to add more base stations so that each need serve only a reasonable number of users.
That slashdot's editors are facists.
Sorry I haven't been posting about this as much as I should be...I've been busy.
the AC
You do not understand the problem, Grasshopper.
The stars shine all day
Jealous Sun keeps us focused
Twilight shows Venus
"You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
Solution
Unfortunately, no one can be told what my sig is...
I thought 802.11b and friends were not CSMA/CD but CSMA/CA. That's collision avoidance, not collision detection. CD is done electrically in ethernet.. the voltage on the line is wrong if there is a collision.. a transmitter can know immediately via feedback if it's caused a collision.
In wireless, we don't have this... instead you re-transmit packets that get lost, and you try to avoid collisions in the first place.
- Phased-array plasma rifle in the 40 watts range - Hey, just what you see, pal
I think this discussion has digressed. There are plenty of access points on the market that are overcoming these limitations such as the recent belkin APs. Cisco is still trying to make a go with the whole csma/ca thing, while belkin once again solves the problem at speeds almost double.
The article is too short on technical detail to be worth anything.
I don't think this is the Apocalypse for WiFi. The important thing to remember here that this is radio...Only one conversation can happen at a time, and the 11mbps is shared across all nodes. This is similar to a hub, but the difference is all the nodes can run at different speeds.
The folks close to the AP will still be going 11mbps, but although the laggard out in BFE will be going 1mbps, he will not drag the others down to his level. What WILL happen is that each packet takes longer to get to him, which could theoretically tie up the AP for longer times then if he were running at 11mbps. If he were getting enough packets, I could see how it could cause a slight slowdown, but not congestion.
-R
CNRS actually means 'Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique' (National, not Nationale)
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
I'm involved in a wireless community freenet in Western Australia, and we've been suffering from the hidden node problem.
We investigated Karlnet, but found the software expensive, and only supported on old kernel versions.
As a result, we started experimenting, and have come up with our own solution: frottle.
We've been running it for a while now, and are still tweaking some parts of it, but it's been working extremely well.
Check out the frottle page for more info.
Please mod this parent down. Vivato claims to do wireless switching but this is simply a marketing term. They do interesting work on antennas, (from what I understand, similar to what is described in July's SciAm), but ~11Mbs on a single channel is an immutable law. What is more interesting as a solution for this WLAN problem is to set a Minimum Association Rate as described in this whitepaper.
It's only slow cuz them boys were testing the French Connection. Now whatchya shud be using is Patriot.net
Sincerely,
Dubayah
Just another day in Paradise
-uso.
First analysis of performance anomalies of Wi-Fi networks
A first analysis of performance anomalies of Wi-Fi networks (1) was completed by four Network System Software integrators at CNRS's Institut d'Informatique et de Mathematiques Appliquees de Grenoble (IMAG). Martin Heusse, Franck Rousseau, Gilles Berger-Sabbatel, and Andrzej Duda have published the surprising results of their study, on the occasion of the INFOCOM conference in San Fransisco, one of the most prestigious in the domain of network research. It reveals that in certain ordinary circumstances, this type of wireless network presents a relatively penalizing performance anomaly: users that can have better connectivity, and thus, better speed, are penalized by their use of degraded conditions.
Local wireless networks based on the Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11b) beginning to be deployed in a relatively large manner and on numerous models of portable computers are from now on pre-equipped with this type of network card. Experiments aiming to furnish connectivity in public places, through the intermediary known as "hot spots" (2), are more and more numerous. The potential number of users is growing rapidly, and first "hot spot" experiments well advanced. But can Wi-Fi networks handle the load of that number of users, and the required speed?
In their classic mode of operation, Wi-Fi networks rest on a fixed wired infrastructure. Wireless access points have relied on a high-speed local network, most often of the Ethernet type, and make the link between equipment connected by the wireless network and the local wired network, then to the Internet. Wireless network cards use four different rates of speed corresponding, in reality, to different techniques of signal modulation which are selected in function of the quality of the connection at the access point. More simply, a device close to an access point gets a fast flow, nominally 11 megabits per second (Mbits/s.), then, as it moves away, it drops to 5.5 Mbit/s., 2 Mbit/s., and finally 1 Mbit/s. as the signal weakens and degrades.
Here is what Wi-Fi networks can lead to: some users potentially get the highest speed in the coverage area of an access point, 11 Mbit/s., as they are nearby. A user enters this coverage area, and, being relatively far away, is now connected at 1 Mbit/s. As he uses the wireless channel to communicate, that is to say to transmit data, this activity induces a drop in speed for all the others, bringing the others to a speed apparently identical to his, or 1 Mbit/s. This same type of observation is valid whatever the values among the four referred to above; the lowest speed will be observed by all hosts.
This anomaly, inherent in the CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access/ Collision Avoidance) access protocol, defined in the Wi-Fi standard and revealed by the CNRS research team, is penalizing for network users. Despite a good connection, their apparent performance can be greatly degraded without their knowledge and in a completely unforeseeable manner, from the simple fact of the activity of a third host less well connected to the same wireless access point.
However, despite being perfectly observable on any network of this type, the impact of this anomaly can be slightly tempered for two reasons. Firstly, by the fact that today most devices connected to the network use it in a sporadic and non-continuous manner; their periods of activity, such as downloading a Web page, are relatively short compared to the time spent reading it; on the other hand, if a long communication is under way - downloading, audio and video connection for example - it penalizes the users in a continuous manner. A second attenuating factor lies in higher-level protocols, primarily TCP (3), where internal mechanisms have an effect on observed speed.
The researchers are currently working to find solutions in order to limit or remove this anomaly, which could seem very limiting with the develo
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
What's wrong with this picture...
I thought this problem was mainly caused by PHB's and Microsoft admins who thought WiFi was the holy grail and all cable based networks should be converted? WiFi is not a substitute for a properly installed conventional network, radio waves get jammed, evesdropped etc more easily. Sure its very useful for some purposes. You can jam a WiFi network with a cordless phone so you better make sure its not mission critical.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Mod the parent up.. finally someone has stopped rehashing what those 'researchers' 'discovered' and done some thought of their own.
They are correct in the connection speed of closer stations is not affected. What is affected is the amount of free time that close stations have to transmit in.
Since 1500 bytes takes longer to transmit at 1mbps than it does at 11mbps, it follows that a 1mbps station that is, say copying a huge file, will give the 11mbps stations much less time to use, and since bandwidth is traffic over time, it affects bandwidth (but not line speed).
I know I'm probably wasting my breath, but here goes....
/doesn't/ make unfunny things funny.
repetition
just thought i should point that out to you.
Huh? (blush) Oh yeah. They actually are. Excuse me for the lack of controversy in my opinions. Next time I just might offend you. ;-)
Few people relatively read the comments. Even fewer click the links in the comments. You can freely post the urls here. /.ing only occurs if the editors post the in in the story
For the really paranoia: post a google cache link.
The wafreenet.org server appears to be having problems.....try the Frottle SourceForge page
Out of the box most access points are configured for maximum throughput. 802.11b is CSMA/CA - collission avoidance. The CA features are disabled unless you turn on maximum fragment size and some other stuff so that the clients ask the AP for permission to transmit.
802.11 by design assumes that two transmitting clients can see each other. When remotes can't see each other, say in an outdoor access scenario, as soon as the cell gets busy you have to be all over the tuning parameters to keep the complaints down to a dull roar.
I've seen cells with a dozen customers that get excellent throughput, then one node gets added in a problem area and *everyone's* throughput goes right down to the same level as the problem node.
FYI the best DoS for 802.11b is built right in to the MAC layer. If two access points share a channel, each will honor the other's collision avoidance stuff at L2 - WEP, etc do not protect you. All you need to do is modify drivers on your DoS box such that they periodically try to seize the medium without regard for what else is going on - brings the AP you're after to a screeching halt, isn't visible in terms of their SSID, and you only need enough power to get the AP's attention. You'd have to be a guru with kismet and know way more about 802.11b MAC layer than I do to detect this stuff, then you're left trying to DF a low power source
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
"But a recent research paper from the French Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique tells how one slow user accessing a hot point can hurt the whole group"
Why do the French Researchers gotta pick on users that are slower then the average person? Sheesh!
What a simple fix. Lock your speed on the access point.
Like the article says, 802.11 uses CSMA/CA not CSMA/CD. The medium access protocol is closer to Local Talk than Ethernet.
The concept of a "wireless switch" is ridiculous, a true oxymoron. It annoys me every time I hear it. It is misleading and snake oil. If such a thing could be done then CSMA/CD would work too. CSMA/CA is used because you simply cannot know who will use the medium or where they'll be. Such knowledge is key to ethernet switching. The wireless model (esp the way 802.11 works) is a hub. People will say anything to raise millions from VC's. Trouble is, to eventually dump the company to dumb-money public investors, some early-adopter suckers have to learn the hard way by buying what is essentially hi-tech scrap.
I think I'm going to recommend that all marketing departments lurk /. and post silly statements like this to trick the ignorant.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Phased array antennas have been around for a long long time. What they "developed" is hype. Next this we'll hear is that they "developed" radio.
That's it. We're off to Fry's, then every Starbucks in town!
The silence you hear is that of a few Slashdot mods stopping their 24/7 masturbation to mod me down because their sense of humor has been overshadowed by their need to pleasure themselves.