Cisco has some of the most stable operating systems. You must be using some Cisco OS I don't know about. I am in the process of upgrading 120 Cisco boxes thanks to that "stable operating system."
Junipers are a different matter. MUCH more stable.
Cisco might look bad in this article, but their track record in creating an OS with less number of bugs is much better than Microsoft, Sun and the others. Riiiiight. Apparently you have never had to deal with Cisco's inability to produce an IOS which doesn't have a BGP bug in it. Or MPLS bug. Or... Well, the list is long.
Hmmmm. The poster links to an article from 29-Jun-05. That article appeared the same day as the OMB's original announcement. So, how is this an update of the original announcement from seven months ago?
I will second the Hostony recommendation. Good tech support when I have a problems (which has been rare), good prices, good service all around.
I asked them about moving my SMTP port to tcp/26 (to get around the port-25 blocks which some providers have configured), and they had it done in 10 minutes.
I have yet to see the equipment on the market. Yes, it is listed, but, like all the other competitor' products, you can't buy it (not as I have been able to purchase them).
Once again the media get it wrong. ClearWire is NOT using WiMax. There is no WiMax gear available which uses the U.S. spectrum, and there won't be such gear for another (probably) another 18 months.
What McCaw is doing is using the equipment from NexNet (which he also purchased) to make everything work. NexNet builds MMDS (Multichannel Multipoint Distribution System) equipment. Transitioning that equipment to WiMax may not be too difficult, but, again, there is no WiMax equipment currently on the market in the U.S.
Actually, yes, they do. I refuse to carry a laptop with me 24 hours a day when on call. But a Zaurus C-860, with a CF WiFi card and CF 10/100 Ethernet card, is another matter. I can carry this equipment in a small camera bag and actually have a life on the weekends instead of sitting at home waiting for the pager to scream. When I get paged, I find a hotspot, ssh into the access server, then connect to the troublesome router, switch, or firewall. Problem (usually) fixed in a few minutes. Wife is happy (we can actually go out during "on-call" weekends), which makes me happy.
If you had bothered to think this through or do some background research... I guess that is too much to ask of most Slashdot readers.
We in the IEEE are NOT trying to confuse people. You obviously have no idea what standards bodies do.
You should peruse our Web site (www.ieee.org) and look at the history of the 802 committees and working groups. If you had done this, you would have discovered that there are different groups of people working on different aspects of networking (we call them "working groups"). Occasionally one working group discovers that a new working group is needed to pursue something which is beyond the scope of that original group. We do attempt to coordinate our work, but that is not always possible. There are several different working groups under the 802.11 committee. The 802.11b Working Group got its work done first.
Again, go through the IEEE's Web site. You might actually learn something.
This is the result of reporters not doing their jobs properly. Those reporters SHOULD have talked with our (IEEE 802.11g) Working Group chairperson. Some did, and some didn't. Some of those who did talk with Sheung Li didn't bother to ask intelligent questions.
I guess it is a sign of the quality of journalism-school education these days....
I voted on the 802.11g spec. We all knew the problems we would have with 802.11b integration (and which have been widely reported in various interoperability tests). We had to draw the line somewhere. And when you draw lines, someone will invariably take issue.
It is obvious that CW's reporter talked to someone who had an axe to grind. Maybe when we publish the spec in June (possibly July---yes, the IEEE also has a bureaucracy) that reporter will sit down and read it instead of reporting what someone else has said.
This assumes that the reporter can understand what he/she is reading (a BIG assumption these days with reporters).
That will not help. The issue is partly with the provider and partly with the provider of the local loop, the ILEC, which, typically in the U.S., is an RBOC. ILECs provide only what they are required to provide by contract. If the service you purchase from another provider does not guarantee bandwidth, you do not get that 1.5Mb. If you sign up for guaranteed bandwidth but your provider does not contract with the ILEC for that service, you do not get guaranteed bandwidth.
If you read the very-fine print which comes with the TOS, you will notice that most ISPs do NOT guarantee the bandwidth for the typical home-user DSL service---unless you sign up for a "guaranteed bandwidth" service, which, of course, is extra.
"Guaranteed bandwidth" service is an extra service from all ILECs. They pass that cost on to all providers/resellers who get service from them. That is why you can get "1.5MB DSL service" for $49.95, but a "guaranteed bandwidth" service for 512K is $79.95.
Keep in mind that the ILECs don't want to be in this service in the first place. They were forced into opening access to competitors by the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act. That hurt their revenues, since that $2,000 T-1 was no longer something many companies would consider in the face of a $100 DSL circuit from a CLEC/DSL provider. And the home user has always been a headache, something to be avoided.
You CAN'T modulate at layer 2---there is NO signal at layer 2. ALL modulation, whether Manchester, QAM, whatever, occurs at layer 1 because you are varying the signal, whether electrical or optical. This is what produces a bit. For instance, changing the voltage from 0 volts to -2 volts and back to 0 volts, all in the space of 100 ns, produces one (1) bit for 10BASE5 ("thick-wire" Ethernet).
Also note that, after receiving several e-mails explaining modulation, he has modified the article to say that this occurs at layer 1 (physical layer).
NASA has been more concerned with public relations and image for the past 15 years than with substance. The agency has a long list of dumb moves, all of which have been taken in an effort to maintain a squeaky-clean image.
I know---I used to work for NASA. Everything we did was considered classified. When we asked why, we were told that it was to maintain NASA's image.
Agreed. I know of no other similar transaction (CDs, cars, TVs, etc.) which requires original authors (creators, etc.) to be compensated for each subsequent sale.
That said, I know some people who argue that authors should compensated every time a book is resold because a book is like music (the whole royalty thing). This argument is weak; musical artists aren't compensated every time a CD or sheet music is resold, so why should an author be so compensated?
It IS all about money. Everyone seems to be hunting for a get-rich-quick scheme these days, and the Internet is fertile ground (see this thread for a look at an attempt to charge $50 for linking to a Web article). Since greed is what it's all about, common sense, prior use, and questionable legalities be damned.
The Albuquerque News was unaware of the $50 fee, as it had contracted the service out to someone else. It is this someone else (iCopyright) who is charging the fee. The Albuquerque News isn't sure if iCopyright's license is even enforceable.
What concerns me is this latest example of a blind grab for money in the light of questionable legalities. The Internet has become nothing more than another medium for questionable get-rich-quick schemes, many of which, unfortunately, are working and making lots of money for someone.
Not all fifteen-year-old kids actually see this kind of thing coming (as the article rightly points out when discussing the tongue-in-cheek manner the teacher supposedly used). I know many fiften-year-olds who wouldn't realize that the teacher was not serious, and would do exactly what this kid did.
It sounds like the teacher needs a remedial course in childhood psychology, focusing on the teen years. It sounds like the school principal and the school district may need to attend the same class.
Slashdot Mirror
Junipers are a different matter. MUCH more stable. Cisco might look bad in this article, but their track record in creating an OS with less number of bugs is much better than Microsoft, Sun and the others. Riiiiight. Apparently you have never had to deal with Cisco's inability to produce an IOS which doesn't have a BGP bug in it. Or MPLS bug. Or... Well, the list is long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS
Hmmmm. The poster links to an article from 29-Jun-05. That article appeared the same day as the OMB's original announcement. So, how is this an update of the original announcement from seven months ago?
(a) Yes, it does.
(b) Not sure, as I have never seen this option in BTV.
(c) Yes, until you run out of disk space.
How did the packets loose their way? Was their way hog-tied, fenced, locked in a barn?
Or did you mean "packets losing their way?"
I will second the Hostony recommendation. Good tech support when I have a problems (which has been rare), good prices, good service all around.
I asked them about moving my SMTP port to tcp/26 (to get around the port-25 blocks which some providers have configured), and they had it done in 10 minutes.
They offer SSL SMTP and SSL POP3.
Good people, good service.
I will gladly take one.
I have yet to see the equipment on the market. Yes, it is listed, but, like all the other competitor' products, you can't buy it (not as I have been able to purchase them).
Oops. Typo. Should be
NextNet
Once again the media get it wrong. ClearWire is NOT using WiMax. There is no WiMax gear available which uses the U.S. spectrum, and there won't be such gear for another (probably) another 18 months.
What McCaw is doing is using the equipment from NexNet (which he also purchased) to make everything work. NexNet builds MMDS (Multichannel Multipoint Distribution System) equipment. Transitioning that equipment to WiMax may not be too difficult, but, again, there is no WiMax equipment currently on the market in the U.S.
Actually, yes, they do. I refuse to carry a laptop with me 24 hours a day when on call. But a Zaurus C-860, with a CF WiFi card and CF 10/100 Ethernet card, is another matter. I can carry this equipment in a small camera bag and actually have a life on the weekends instead of sitting at home waiting for the pager to scream. When I get paged, I find a hotspot, ssh into the access server, then connect to the troublesome router, switch, or firewall. Problem (usually) fixed in a few minutes. Wife is happy (we can actually go out during "on-call" weekends), which makes me happy.
Yes, they are worth every penny.
No.
Why is this the IEEE's fault?
What is wrong with the spec? Are you even QUALIFIED to comment on the spec? Can you tell us WHY 802.11g is a bad standard?
Have you even read the 802.11b spec? It is available for free at the IEEE's Web site.
Why don't you read that, then come back and tell us what YOU would change to give us a better spec.
If you had bothered to think this through or do some background research... I guess that is too much to ask of most Slashdot readers.
We in the IEEE are NOT trying to confuse people. You obviously have no idea what standards bodies do.
You should peruse our Web site (www.ieee.org) and look at the history of the 802 committees and working groups. If you had done this, you would have discovered that there are different groups of people working on different aspects of networking (we call them "working groups"). Occasionally one working group discovers that a new working group is needed to pursue something which is beyond the scope of that original group. We do attempt to coordinate our work, but that is not always possible. There are several different working groups under the 802.11 committee. The 802.11b Working Group got its work done first.
Again, go through the IEEE's Web site. You might actually learn something.
This is the result of reporters not doing their jobs properly. Those reporters SHOULD have talked with our (IEEE 802.11g) Working Group chairperson. Some did, and some didn't. Some of those who did talk with Sheung Li didn't bother to ask intelligent questions.
I guess it is a sign of the quality of journalism-school education these days....
I voted on the 802.11g spec. We all knew the problems we would have with 802.11b integration (and which have been widely reported in various interoperability tests). We had to draw the line somewhere. And when you draw lines, someone will invariably take issue.
It is obvious that CW's reporter talked to someone who had an axe to grind. Maybe when we publish the spec in June (possibly July---yes, the IEEE also has a bureaucracy) that reporter will sit down and read it instead of reporting what someone else has said.
This assumes that the reporter can understand what he/she is reading (a BIG assumption these days with reporters).
Like your use of "There's some things" instead of "There are some things"......
If you read the very-fine print which comes with the TOS, you will notice that most ISPs do NOT guarantee the bandwidth for the typical home-user DSL service---unless you sign up for a "guaranteed bandwidth" service, which, of course, is extra.
"Guaranteed bandwidth" service is an extra service from all ILECs. They pass that cost on to all providers/resellers who get service from them. That is why you can get "1.5MB DSL service" for $49.95, but a "guaranteed bandwidth" service for 512K is $79.95.
Keep in mind that the ILECs don't want to be in this service in the first place. They were forced into opening access to competitors by the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act. That hurt their revenues, since that $2,000 T-1 was no longer something many companies would consider in the face of a $100 DSL circuit from a CLEC/DSL provider. And the home user has always been a headache, something to be avoided.
Disclaimer: I have worked for three telcos.
You are an idiot. You can't even get the name of the company right, and, in the process, you done a BIG disservice to a reputable company.
Radsoft is a superb company which makes a great suite of tools for Windoze, tools that actually make Windoze usable.
Radlight is the company is question in the Salon article.
-2 volts and back to 0 volts, all in the space of 100 ns, produces one (1) bit for 10BASE5 ("thick-wire" Ethernet).
Also note that, after receiving several e-mails explaining modulation, he has modified the article to say that this occurs at layer 1 (physical layer).
I know---I used to work for NASA. Everything we did was considered classified. When we asked why, we were told that it was to maintain NASA's image.
Nothing is created in a vacuum. There are no unique ideas or inventions---everything is dependent upon what preceded it.
That said, I know some people who argue that authors should compensated every time a book is resold because a book is like music (the whole royalty thing). This argument is weak; musical artists aren't compensated every time a CD or sheet music is resold, so why should an author be so compensated?
It IS all about money. Everyone seems to be hunting for a get-rich-quick scheme these days, and the Internet is fertile ground (see this thread for a look at an attempt to charge $50 for linking to a Web article). Since greed is what it's all about, common sense, prior use, and questionable legalities be damned.
What concerns me is this latest example of a blind grab for money in the light of questionable legalities. The Internet has become nothing more than another medium for questionable get-rich-quick schemes, many of which, unfortunately, are working and making lots of money for someone.
It sounds like the teacher needs a remedial course in childhood psychology, focusing on the teen years. It sounds like the school principal and the school district may need to attend the same class.
Everyone involved needs to lighten up.