Slashdot Mirror
Vista Bug Costs Users In Swedish Town Their Internet
Lund, Sweden refuses to work around a Vista bug, so people who live there must choose between Vista and internet access. It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.
Ubuntu is an upgrade from XP and Vista.
Keep that shoe on the other foot for just a little longer. Imagine them having "support scripts" that travel through a KDE interface instead of Outlook Express or IE. Imagine them requiring Ubunto to install your access. In short, imagine all of the "standardization" Windoze enjoys being flipped on you.
In the free software world, users can edit a few well annotated text files to get the job done if they are given the proper information. That task is harder in Windoze because you must dig through several GUIs that don't tell you what to ask for in advance or ever.
It's a shame that ACs can post with more points and more frequently than Twitter.
The problem as reported is that the Vista DHCP client fails to obtain an address from Linux servers running (I'd presume) ISC dhcpd.
When I bought a laptop recently it came with Vista. When I connected it to my network it failed to obtain an address. I assumed there was some misconfiguration problem I was missing, Turns out it's a fundamental difference between the DHCP client in Vista and the one in prior versions of Windows. See this item from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us.
The version of dhcpd I'm using is an old one (2.0). I thought about upgrading it to see if that would solve the problem, but since I wasn't planning on keeping Vista on the laptop, I didn't bother upgrading. All our other machines run Linux and don't have this problem.
I wonder what decision will be made in enterprises running Linux DHCP servers that introduce Vista into the workplace. Will they follow the Microsoft KB item above and "fix" the problem on every new Vista box they buy? Or will the replace the Linux DHCP box with Windows Server?
It's funny because normally it's Linux users who are unable to connect to the internet because only Windows is supported (even when Linux behaves and Windows does not) - for example look at most wireless broadband services.
Now it's happening to someone else it's a big deal that should have been fixed? Well they can start by fixing all the stuff that has been broken longer that no one gave a shit about.
Actually, why should the provider CHANGE their config which works perfectly fine with OSes that follow standards? They were NOT the one deploying software, MS was, and MS failed to meet the standard.....and hence fucked these customers more than they have a few others.
Of course, not being able to get on the web does decrease the malware they get infected by.
Well, so what makes Microsoft so special that people MUST adapt to their breaking of standards? If the ISP accommodate Microsoft, shouldn't they also accommodate any other vendors who wrote buggy software? And when will it ends? I think the ISP is doing a fantastic job.
If by "modern", you mean "at least 1 gig of RAM", I guess that works.
I have tried it on a machine with 512 megs of RAM. It was Home Basic, and it was loaded down with HP crap, but no matter how much I cleared away, it still took several minutes to do anything. And I mean anything. Control panel? Two minutes. Internet Explorer? A minute and a half. It was ludicrous.
And I am fairly confident it was the RAM, because it was paging like mad. I did plug in a USB stick and used ReadyBoost while I was there, and it did improve things, but not by much.
Now, I know someone who upgraded from XP 64-bit to Vista, and basically raves about everything about it, and I don't blame her -- XP 64-bit sucked. She realizes that was a mistake, should've stayed on 32-bit. But Vista 64-bit isn't bad (finally catching up to Linux' 64-bit support), and it's generally been solid for her.
She also has, I believe, some 2 gigs of RAM.
Her advice to me was, less than a gig of RAM? XP is faster. A gig or more? Vista is faster.
Which makes me wonder what the fuck it's using half a gig of RAM for. I have Kontact (Outlook-like app, so email, calendar, etc), Konqueror (web browser), two IRC clients, Kopete (multi-IM client), KTorrent (bittorrent), and a Windows game open in Wine right now, and it's using less than 600 megs of RAM. Vista, apparently, uses at least that much just to show you a desktop -- I remember it being a gig or so paged (I'm not kidding) with nothing open other than the task list. What gives?
It's not Aero, by the way. I've had Beryl on this computer before, and right now, it's running KWin with everything turned on, which includes some Beryl/Aero-like features (including real drop shadows and transparency), and that doesn't use a significant amount of RAM, either.
The issue is that when you play media, your download slows. And there is absolutely no reason for this, and versions of Windows prior to Vista are not effected, all the way back to 95, probably 3.1.
And I actually do have a PC that doesn't do that. It runs Ubuntu. It also doesn't slow down when downloading, even torrents, because they use so little of my resources (aside from bandwidth) that I can do pretty much anything I was doing before (unless it's online).
Where'd you get this information?
Last I checked, they hadn't even acknowledged it as a bug. They were still insisting that it had to be this way in order to not have the music skip. (Well, guess what? My music doesn't skip even when I'm transferring stuff over Gigabit. Novel concept, I know.)
People complain that Linux is focused on throughput and not latency -- that is, that it'll make my desktop lag just so that background compile can run 2% faster. Here's a clear example of why you don't want to go too far the other way, though -- playing any audio at all on Vista slows your network down by 10%.
It may not be enough for you to notice, as that's still probably faster than your Internet. Probably. But it doesn't make it any less of a bug, no matter what Microsoft says.
That is and has been true, and occasionally various users find it better enough to make the switch. (Not all users do, obviously, and some never will.)
Being able to download fast while playing media is unarguably better than lagging. Being able to play a multiplayer
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
From my understanding of the problem, Microsoft is no longer supporting the unicast response for DHCP like it did previously, even though that is the recommended way to do this. While Microsoft's implementation is valid (though not recommended), I can see why the ISP doesn't want to honor it. If a lot of Vista subscribers start doing this, there could potentially be a lot of broadcast packets. I.e. each time a Vista user connects, the DHCP server would send a broadcast response to everyone on the local subnet (which can be quite huge).
I remember scanning the broadcast network traffic years ago on my cable modem and it was tens to hundreds of DHCP requests packets per second. If most users start running Vista then this would double the broadcast traffic.
Broadcast should be avoided unless absolutely required.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"why should the provider CHANGE their config" Hmmmmm, to keep their CUSTOMERS, maybe?
No. If the provider changes their config that lets Microsoft customers remain Microsoft customers. Microsoft broke it, let Microsoft fix it. The provider's customers are free to use any other OS (including older Microsoft versions) while remaining provider customers.
Take an electric utility, for example, that runs house current at 220V (we're talking Europe). Should they drop that back to 120V just because a few customers bought an appliance from a company that couldn't manage to make it compliant with 220V, just to keep those customers? No, let the customers take it up with the appliance vendor. (Of course it's not an exact analogy, but at least it isn't a car analogy.)
-- Alastair
You're working with some assumed knowledge - you know that Synaptic is the package manager (heck, you know what a package manager is!)
When I first tried Ubuntu it took me hours and hours to find that Synaptic existed - yes I know there's an interface in the Ubuntu GUI now, but there wasn't when I first used it.
What seems to make it harder is that the last time I tried to find the package manager in the man pages I didn't know it was called a package manager - and even with UNIX experience (and the subsequent knowledge of man -k) I didn't have the right context with which to find the right tool.
Bad analogy - if you don't know what a spade is called, you may not find it in the Sears online catalogue, because you're looking for "digging tool".