I dropped out of college in the 90's and have never had trouble finding a job - even in this economy. I wouldn't waste the money on tuition. I see my friends paying off their school loans and making less the 50k a year. Who needs that?! For me, TCP/IP pays the bills.
You fucking jackass! I don't mind other's comments, but read my post! I said I never believed a system can be truly secure! You should have been aborted by your mother.
I don't believe this is as scary as you may imagine. First of all, it's the future of computing and everyone is working on thier own version of it. Remember yesterday's story?
Secondly, if who ever makes these networks works with security in mind, then the inherent risks will be reduced considerably. (Beleive me when I say these won't be RPC/SMB based networks.) I'm not dumb enough to believe that it will be totally secure, but I bet over the next ten years, security over distributed systems will come a very long way - ways we have yet to experience.
I still like the idea of my PC being my own PC, and I prefer to keep it that way, but I relaize that just as networking has increased productivity, performance and useabliliy of computers, I belive "grid computing" will do the same if used correctly.
Re:It was interesting in it's time.....
on
VeriSign Buys .tv
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I remember the exact same article. The guy teamed up with them to get exclusive marketing and registration rights to the.tv TLD and he would share the profits with them. I never thought it would fly.
There's still.fm.am out there Fromosia (sp?) and some other place.
The competetion is just as strong as always. MS just killed the UltimateTV name. They are just moving the stuff and capabilities into an XBOX. The Xbox was moving that way anyways, and the company must have asked, "why have two things that will do the same thing?"
If anything, the XBOX with digital TV recording capabilities and maybe even web browsing will kill the Tivo and ReplayTV(as long as prices are pretty close).
Bandwidth is "created" by connecting two transport devices together such as routers, switches, nic's, etc. The speed at which they can send and receive is the bandwidth. If two routers use DWDM to communiacte via fiber, you have "created" 40 GB/s connection.
UUNet, Sprint, MCI all create bandwidth buy buying faster routers, and their downstream providers by doing the same, but this has to continue down to your PC. That's where your bandwidth is destroyed. It's the wiring from your house. Even if Sprint, MCI, deployed technology at 100 Petabytes per seconds, it cant get to you that fast, so you never truly realize the speed.
1. 10 Mb over standard telephone cabling is a solution to the last mile problem. I don't believe you need to use a CO for a POP for LRE. You could create your own, or put them on telephone poles, like cable companies do. You still save billions in wiring costs. Furthermore, there are TONS of businesses within a 1 mile radius in downtown financial districts, office parks, high rises, etc. It's better than T1.
2. It covers any place that has wires, not just hotels. Homes have cat3 or cat1, so it will work there too.
3. My original headline was Ethernet over barbed Wire. Every time I submit a story, Slashdot changes my titles.
Exactly. The thing I don't get is you have to recertify every two years, but the cert can expire after one if you are not "active". What is active? Do you have to answer e-mail surveys every month or something?
The site is wrong. I know someone who just got CCIE #8375 or something like that. I believe that Cisco would want it hard too, but with the new test format and lab, it's gotten a lot easier. Even the current CCIE test was a lot like the CCNA test and I have passed both. I haven't passed the lab yet, but I am going to schedule it soon, so I really am only speaking from 2nd hand knowledge. But look at all the Cisco Press CCIE books comming out. There never were this many before! Cisco just relased a book written by the CCIE program managers telling people what they want to see in the lab, and give 1000 pages on what to do. Cisco for some reason wants a lot of people to pass.
Also, in MA there is a huge CCIE flood. Try searching for jobs with CCIE as a keyword and there is 1 or 2 jobs listed. The rest of the country seems to have more of a demand. It kind of makes me wonder what all my studying is for.
Actually there's about 8500 and about 5 a day pass right now. The lab has been cut to one day. Expect to see 10,000 by end of next year. It's still a 80% fail rate, but with more people taking the test every year, there will be more CCIE's. Can you say a flooded market comming up?
If you define "the punch" as profitability, he did beat Paul Allen to the punch.
Also, on a side note, even though wireless ISP's and high-speed MAN's like Yipes and XO are taboo on wallstreet, I still see them being profitable, if the companies are ever run right.
I always play with business plans in my head, and I could wire a downtown district, or an office park with Gig ethernet (which is much faster than any expensive T1, T3) and make a profit with only 40% of a building's customers. Those large companies tried to get to big too fast and never focused on getting customers, just buildings.
The only point I'm trying to get is that it is better to have a packet retransmitted instead of the whole file.
Also, I am not a programmer, but it is my understanding that applications do not know what protocols are, and that is handled by the OS. So I don't *think* (I'm guessing) an app can ask for a packet retransmit, just a file retransmit.
Bit errors aren't that uncommon. Do a sh int serial[#] on a Cisco router and you'll see a number of errors on that line.
So a partiy packet recovers lost packets? But are there seq. numbers for the parity packet? How do it know that this parity packet is for what pevious packets?
I get that. But what I'm saying is with a UDP based transport system (even with a Tornado type transfer, which if I underdtand this logic, packetizes a file in a propreitary numbered scheme, sends multiple copies of each individual packet to the clients in a "storm cloud" type transmission, and if a cleint catchs a certain percentage of the "cloud" it will have enough to reconstruct the original file.)
But there's no guarantee that the client will recieve the entire file, and since there is no retrans function in UDP, like in TCP, the server will have to retran. the ENTIRE file again instead of the missing packets, which is a waste of bandwidth. Plus those clouds of data are a waste of bandwidth. Like I said earlier, it's a fine, if expensive system over a high-speed LAN, but it does not optimize WAN bandwidth.
Thanks. But what if the parity packet is lost? I would think that that parity packet has just enough chance of getting lost as any other packet in the stream. How do you validate the previous packet that the parity is supposed to validate.
No I'm talking about this UDP transporter. See article's quote below...
"We send recipes, not pieces of content," said Clifford Meltzer, chief executive of Digital Fountain. "Once you get enough [of the packets] coming in, Spock appears. If you get 98 percent of the packets, you get nothing."
Also I'd have to argue with you that sliding windows isn't error recovery also. I agree that sliding windows is a flow control machanism, but it also serves as error recovery at the packet level if a packet isn't received.
From what I read, it does do error checking, but the it also said that if it dosen't get enough of the UDP packets, the whole transfer is lost. At least with TCP, if I lose a few packets, I won't have to resend the entire file, just the requested packets.
It sounds fine for a multicasting application over a LAN, it's just that I wouldn't trust it over the Internet.
The article quotes that "...FTP requires packets to arrive in sequence, and TCP requires a receiving end to acknowledge every packet that arrives, so that dropped packets can be resent..."
This is incorrect. TCP has a concept of sliding windows where once a number of packets has been received successfully, the receiver increases the number of packets that can be sent without an ack. This is an exponential number, so if it receives 2 packets successfully, it will then tell the sender that it will take 4 before an ack is needed. The only time you get a 1 for 1 ack ratio is if you miss a packet and the window slams shut.
Furthermore, UDP for data is highly unreliable, and I wouldn't trust it across WAN's. Frame Relay switches may drop packets if you exceed your CIR and begin bursting, so that whole transfer will never succeed. Therefore you actually waste bandwidth cause the whole transfer is doomed to fail, and the sender will never know it.
Also some routers have WRED configured in their queues, purposely dropping TCP packets to increase bandwidth on a global scale. This would damage the file transfer process as well if it was UDP based, as this system is.
Stick with the RFC's and the tried and true TCP transport system. This company will fail.
The place is great. I make sure to get to my local Cisco office in MA at least one a month. Lab's are open to play with, all the free drinks and popcorn you want, usually there's even free food left over from all the sales meetings and conferences they have:)
At first I thought about it and thought you were right, but the more I think about it, the more I have to disagree. There are plenty of knock off routers and switches already (3com, Linksys, Netgear, etc.,) and Cisco is still number one in the industry. Plus I looked at your link and they made almost a billion dollars profit each quarter! That's a lot of PROFIT. The 2 billion loss was for a write off of some equipment the they produced for the now defunct telecom and ISP's that fell through last year.
When you think of routers, don't just think of the cheap toys sold in CompUSA and BestBuy for mom and pop at home. A major corporation, ISP, web company, financial institution, etc., is not going to base their critical network infrastructure on a cheap knock off, nor could a cheap knock off handle a high load. Imagine an ISP running off of a Linksys.
And even of a company made a cheap alternative to compete with a 7000 series router (never mind an optical router), once all the R&D is done to make the big router, create all the software to comply with RFC's, create all the hardware to handle the different networking technologies, create innovative switching technology to handle the high load of packets, the router isn't cheap any more. (Look at Juniper, ArrorwPoint, etc,.) And if it works, Cisco will just buy them, paint the box blue and call the Cisco 54000 or something J.
Routers and switches do more than just route. There are many technologies that just can't be implemented cheaply. When I think of a major network, even enterprise, there is a huge need for a Catalyst 6500, especially when there are a ton of users on that floor. Buying cheap 24 port 3coms won't scale, and can't route between Vlan's. Plus there's a ton of other technologies that a company needs - gig backbones, multilayer switching, STP, layer 4-7 load balancing, high speed backbones, DiffServ and COS QoS, and ton of others. Let's see a cheap toy do that.
Slashdot Mirror
I dropped out of college in the 90's and have never had trouble finding a job - even in this economy. I wouldn't waste the money on tuition. I see my friends paying off their school loans and making less the 50k a year. Who needs that?! For me, TCP/IP pays the bills.
Not according to modern forensics.
You fucking jackass! I don't mind other's comments, but read my post! I said I never believed a system can be truly secure! You should have been aborted by your mother.
I don't believe this is as scary as you may imagine. First of all, it's the future of computing and everyone is working on thier own version of it. Remember yesterday's story?
Secondly, if who ever makes these networks works with security in mind, then the inherent risks will be reduced considerably. (Beleive me when I say these won't be RPC/SMB based networks.) I'm not dumb enough to believe that it will be totally secure, but I bet over the next ten years, security over distributed systems will come a very long way - ways we have yet to experience.
I still like the idea of my PC being my own PC, and I prefer to keep it that way, but I relaize that just as networking has increased productivity, performance and useabliliy of computers, I belive "grid computing" will do the same if used correctly.
I remember the exact same article. The guy teamed up with them to get exclusive marketing and registration rights to the .tv TLD and he would share the profits with them. I never thought it would fly.
.fm .am out there Fromosia (sp?) and some other place.
There's still
The competetion is just as strong as always. MS just killed the UltimateTV name. They are just moving the stuff and capabilities into an XBOX. The Xbox was moving that way anyways, and the company must have asked, "why have two things that will do the same thing?"
If anything, the XBOX with digital TV recording capabilities and maybe even web browsing will kill the Tivo and ReplayTV(as long as prices are pretty close).
Everyone has e-mailed hime by now, right? I haven't read the end of the page yet, so I hope his account isn't shut off yet, but this is hilarious.
Bandwidth is "created" by connecting two transport devices together such as routers, switches, nic's, etc. The speed at which they can send and receive is the bandwidth. If two routers use DWDM to communiacte via fiber, you have "created" 40 GB/s connection.
UUNet, Sprint, MCI all create bandwidth buy buying faster routers, and their downstream providers by doing the same, but this has to continue down to your PC. That's where your bandwidth is destroyed. It's the wiring from your house. Even if Sprint, MCI, deployed technology at 100 Petabytes per seconds, it cant get to you that fast, so you never truly realize the speed.
see sig.
1. 10 Mb over standard telephone cabling is a solution to the last mile problem. I don't believe you need to use a CO for a POP for LRE. You could create your own, or put them on telephone poles, like cable companies do. You still save billions in wiring costs. Furthermore, there are TONS of businesses within a 1 mile radius in downtown financial districts, office parks, high rises, etc. It's better than T1.
2. It covers any place that has wires, not just hotels. Homes have cat3 or cat1, so it will work there too.
3. My original headline was Ethernet over barbed Wire. Every time I submit a story, Slashdot changes my titles.
Exactly. The thing I don't get is you have to recertify every two years, but the cert can expire after one if you are not "active". What is active? Do you have to answer e-mail surveys every month or something?
The site is wrong. I know someone who just got CCIE #8375 or something like that. I believe that Cisco would want it hard too, but with the new test format and lab, it's gotten a lot easier. Even the current CCIE test was a lot like the CCNA test and I have passed both. I haven't passed the lab yet, but I am going to schedule it soon, so I really am only speaking from 2nd hand knowledge. But look at all the Cisco Press CCIE books comming out. There never were this many before! Cisco just relased a book written by the CCIE program managers telling people what they want to see in the lab, and give 1000 pages on what to do. Cisco for some reason wants a lot of people to pass.
Also, in MA there is a huge CCIE flood. Try searching for jobs with CCIE as a keyword and there is 1 or 2 jobs listed. The rest of the country seems to have more of a demand. It kind of makes me wonder what all my studying is for.
Actually there's about 8500 and about 5 a day pass right now. The lab has been cut to one day. Expect to see 10,000 by end of next year. It's still a 80% fail rate, but with more people taking the test every year, there will be more CCIE's. Can you say a flooded market comming up?
If you define "the punch" as profitability, he did beat Paul Allen to the punch.
Also, on a side note, even though wireless ISP's and high-speed MAN's like Yipes and XO are taboo on wallstreet, I still see them being profitable, if the companies are ever run right.
I always play with business plans in my head, and I could wire a downtown district, or an office park with Gig ethernet (which is much faster than any expensive T1, T3) and make a profit with only 40% of a building's customers. Those large companies tried to get to big too fast and never focused on getting customers, just buildings.
The only point I'm trying to get is that it is better to have a packet retransmitted instead of the whole file.
Also, I am not a programmer, but it is my understanding that applications do not know what protocols are, and that is handled by the OS. So I don't *think* (I'm guessing) an app can ask for a packet retransmit, just a file retransmit.
Bit errors aren't that uncommon. Do a sh int serial[#] on a Cisco router and you'll see a number of errors on that line.
So a partiy packet recovers lost packets? But are there seq. numbers for the parity packet? How do it know that this parity packet is for what pevious packets?
I get that. But what I'm saying is with a UDP based transport system (even with a Tornado type transfer, which if I underdtand this logic, packetizes a file in a propreitary numbered scheme, sends multiple copies of each individual packet to the clients in a "storm cloud" type transmission, and if a cleint catchs a certain percentage of the "cloud" it will have enough to reconstruct the original file.)
But there's no guarantee that the client will recieve the entire file, and since there is no retrans function in UDP, like in TCP, the server will have to retran. the ENTIRE file again instead of the missing packets, which is a waste of bandwidth. Plus those clouds of data are a waste of bandwidth. Like I said earlier, it's a fine, if expensive system over a high-speed LAN, but it does not optimize WAN bandwidth.
Thanks. But what if the parity packet is lost? I would think that that parity packet has just enough chance of getting lost as any other packet in the stream. How do you validate the previous packet that the parity is supposed to validate.
No I'm talking about this UDP transporter. See article's quote below...
"We send recipes, not pieces of content," said Clifford Meltzer, chief executive of Digital Fountain. "Once you get enough [of the packets] coming in, Spock appears. If you get 98 percent of the packets, you get nothing."
Also I'd have to argue with you that sliding windows isn't error recovery also. I agree that sliding windows is a flow control machanism, but it also serves as error recovery at the packet level if a packet isn't received.
From what I read, it does do error checking, but the it also said that if it dosen't get enough of the UDP packets, the whole transfer is lost. At least with TCP, if I lose a few packets, I won't have to resend the entire file, just the requested packets.
It sounds fine for a multicasting application over a LAN, it's just that I wouldn't trust it over the Internet.
The article quotes that "...FTP requires packets to arrive in sequence, and TCP requires a receiving end to acknowledge every packet that arrives, so that dropped packets can be resent..."
This is incorrect. TCP has a concept of sliding windows where once a number of packets has been received successfully, the receiver increases the number of packets that can be sent without an ack. This is an exponential number, so if it receives 2 packets successfully, it will then tell the sender that it will take 4 before an ack is needed. The only time you get a 1 for 1 ack ratio is if you miss a packet and the window slams shut.
Furthermore, UDP for data is highly unreliable, and I wouldn't trust it across WAN's. Frame Relay switches may drop packets if you exceed your CIR and begin bursting, so that whole transfer will never succeed. Therefore you actually waste bandwidth cause the whole transfer is doomed to fail, and the sender will never know it.
Also some routers have WRED configured in their queues, purposely dropping TCP packets to increase bandwidth on a global scale. This would damage the file transfer process as well if it was UDP based, as this system is.
Stick with the RFC's and the tried and true TCP transport system. This company will fail.
Is it just me, or did anyone else think this guy is a spitting image of Conan O'Brien?
The place is great. I make sure to get to my local Cisco office in MA at least one a month. Lab's are open to play with, all the free drinks and popcorn you want, usually there's even free food left over from all the sales meetings and conferences they have :)
At first I thought about it and thought you were right, but the more I think about it, the more I have to disagree. There are plenty of knock off routers and switches already (3com, Linksys, Netgear, etc.,) and Cisco is still number one in the industry. Plus I looked at your link and they made almost a billion dollars profit each quarter! That's a lot of PROFIT. The 2 billion loss was for a write off of some equipment the they produced for the now defunct telecom and ISP's that fell through last year.
When you think of routers, don't just think of the cheap toys sold in CompUSA and BestBuy for mom and pop at home. A major corporation, ISP, web company, financial institution, etc., is not going to base their critical network infrastructure on a cheap knock off, nor could a cheap knock off handle a high load. Imagine an ISP running off of a Linksys.
And even of a company made a cheap alternative to compete with a 7000 series router (never mind an optical router), once all the R&D is done to make the big router, create all the software to comply with RFC's, create all the hardware to handle the different networking technologies, create innovative switching technology to handle the high load of packets, the router isn't cheap any more. (Look at Juniper, ArrorwPoint, etc,.) And if it works, Cisco will just buy them, paint the box blue and call the Cisco 54000 or something J.
Routers and switches do more than just route. There are many technologies that just can't be implemented cheaply. When I think of a major network, even enterprise, there is a huge need for a Catalyst 6500, especially when there are a ton of users on that floor. Buying cheap 24 port 3coms won't scale, and can't route between Vlan's. Plus there's a ton of other technologies that a company needs - gig backbones, multilayer switching, STP, layer 4-7 load balancing, high speed backbones, DiffServ and COS QoS, and ton of others. Let's see a cheap toy do that.