AT&T has the absolute best backbone and amazing service for businesses. I have an AT&T T-1. It wasn't much more than going through Qwest or a local wholesaler, but they have the best SLA out there (one day credits for 15 minutes of downtime, 65ms latency throughout north america and something like 120ms throughout the world). When Verizon accidentally disconnected my local loop, AT&T was on the phone to me within 5 minutes of the circuit dropping.
Then we can stop funding the phone network (which is pretty much maxed out anyway) and sell off the HDTV spectrum for 10s of billions of dollars.
Fiber is the wrong way to go. Fiber is too expensive to build out an entire infrastructure for the country, and takes too long to deploy. Where I live, the phone lines are aerial because it's too difficult (read: expensive) to cut into rock to bury the lines. But running fiber over the poles would be a disaster the next time a hurricane came (Isabel downed probably 20 trees on the lines within a mile of my home.
Wireless is the future. 802.11g does up to 54Mbps per channel (for example). The technology to make wireless viable for everyone everywhere isn't there yet, but it will be soon. The capacity of cell networks increased dramatically with CDMA over TDMA, and 802.11g networks increase throughput considerably over 802.11b by moving to OFDM. It's much cheaper to build out towers and cell-sites and to do wireless (or even fiber) backbone links than to run it to every home in America.
FWIW, I have a dozen people with internet access on an 802.11b setup covering ~5 square miles - I can't even IMAGINE if I were to try and compete by running fiber instead - there's just no way. If the government REALLY wants 100Mbps to every home in America, they will make wireless easy (read: unregulated), viable (read: more spectrum) and cheap (read: free).
order can be occasionally found in chaos. but it's still chaos. let the scientists do their thing, and I'm *sure* they will let you know when they're definitely found something.
As a WISP owner, I can say for sure that having much higher bandwidth APs is extremely helpful. With 802.11, you are operating at the *lowest* common speed, so if one of your clients can only manage 1Mbps, that's all you get to share among everyone.
What remains to be seen is if 802.16 will tackle the pitfalls of 802.11. I suspect it won't, and if it doesn't then we're only marginally better off. Frankly, you can get close to 50km links on 802.11 equipment under ideal conditions, so that's not a big benefit.
The key will be if 802.16 can operate as non-line-of-sight (NLOS) and if it can tackle the hidden-node problem. NLOS is key to utilizing the existing cell infrastructure for wide deployment for clients (eg. if you want to be connected everywhere). LOS is only good for backbone links.
The hidden-node problem is a larger issue. 802.11 is CSMA/CA - collision *avoidance*. Because 802.11 is half duplex, it can't detect collisions, so ir tries to avoid them by listening for other local users and simply not transmitting when they are. That works when you can hear the other clients, but in a point-to-multipoint setup (like remote antennas at different hours), you quickly trample on other people when two people transmit at the same time. CSMA/CA doesn't scale, and the only two ways around it are either to create a wireless "token ring" like KarlNet does, or to run full-duplex.
If they solve both issues, I'm game. Otherwise it's just another protocol. The cell companies figured all this out, so why can't we?
er, probably not. The 2.4GHz, the FCC has a 4-watt EIRP limit on point-to-multipoint links, and I can't think of a reason that they would allow more power on these devices. Since a 2.4GHz link can go 30+ miles, 4 watts seems reasonably low.
It takes ~90 seconds for a 1000 watt microware to warm a glass of water, and quite a bit longer to actually boil it. 4-watts is minimal, and since RF power drops off at the inverse square, at 10' it's practically in the mW range. You'd have trouble even *warming* water that was right next to the antenna.
Now, point-to-point links can be ~150 watts. That would probably warm water to 100 degrees, given enough time, but antennas of that magnitude are ~4 degree beamwidth (you can't run power like that through an omni), so you'd literally need to stand right in front of the apex of the dish.
I'm more concerned about the 200mW Senao 802.11 card in my laptop irradiating my crotch, thank you very much.
Unlike everyone else, I want mine on. Fully on. Hell, I just spent $300 on a Samsung i330 which has the built-in GPS locator service, but only Sprint and 911 know where I'm at? WTF? The phone runs on Palm OS and obviously *has* a GPS in it, so why can't I enable that feature?
As far as tracking goes, they can do it anyway. All someone would need to do is to call your number, then triangulate the signal. GPS just makes it easier.
For those who actually care, here's a summary of the networks and protocols:
AMPS, also known as analog: Runs in the 900MHz range. Pretty much every company has analog coverage, though you may need a dual band phone.
FDMA: Frequency-division multiplexing. Each user gets a portion of the available spectrum (eg. Bob gets 908.24MHz and Joe gets 908.30MHz. The users occupy the frequency whether talking or not. Also, there are sidebands to each primary frequency that nobody can use. Inferior to TDMA and generally not used anymore.
TDMA: Time-division multiplexing. Each channel is split into three subchannels. Each user gets a channel, effectively tripling FDMA capacity. Although this is similar to only talking for 1/3 or a second, the phones compress and expand the data, so it sounds like a constant conversation. If you call a landline with your TDMA phone and speak, you'll notice an audible delay. AT&T, Verizon, and Cingular are TDMA.
GSM: I don't quite understand GSM that well, except that (a) european GSM is different than the US GSM - so unless you buy a quad-mode phone, it won't work in both countries, and (b) it uses a noisy TDMA protocol underneath. VoiceStream (T-Mobile) and AT&T are GSM.
CDMA: Instead of picking a channel, everyone "talks" at once. The phone and tower decide on a "key" ahead of time, and are able to pick the spread spectrum signal out of the background noise. The beauty is that there is an essentially unlimited number of people that can use a CDMA tower, provided there is enough power to go around. It's similar to putting people in a room - in a small room you can whisper, but in an auditorium you need to speak up. CDMA phones use less power when the network isn't busy, so they tend to have longer battery life; however, if you're far from the tower, your calls may get dropped as other people sign on if your phone is already at it's maximum power (remember, the phone increases the power as more people get on the tower because there is more background noise). The call clarity on CDMA is like a landline. SprintPCS is the only major carrier I know of that is CDMA (I'm not sure if they're CDMA or CDMA2000). CDMA is the Betamax of the wireless protocols - far superior, but it's too early to tell if it will die off.
SCDMA or WCDMA is probably the best protocol in the future - able to carry much more voice/data *and* with better clarity and signal fade/obstruction capabities. Nobody is headed this direction yet, though (AFAIK).
I've had Cingular (very briefly), Verizon, and now SprintPCS. It might've been the (free) Ericson phone, but Cingular was absolutely terrible - people I called couldn't understand a word I was saying. This was ~4 years ago.
I had Verizon until recently. They had good coverage, but I couldn't get a signal in my office frequently (downstairs) and they're quite expensive.
My wife and I recently moved to SprintPCS. The clarity is amazing and it works in my office, though our home is on the fringe of their coverage area. My big gripe with SprintPCS is that their data and voice services aren't fully integrated - eg, if I use their X1RTT data service on my Samsung i330, I can't accept incoming calls (VM alerts and outbound calls work fine, though). In order to reply to an AIM, I need to make a ppp wireless web connection. T-Mobile has better integration with their Sidekick, but THEY control the apps you can install on it (thanks, but I'd like to know that the program I installed to track my appointments will actually *be* there tomorrow - I've heard a lot of gripes recently about them removing lots of applications.
If you need a cell, you really just need to find a plan that seems to suit you and buy the phone. I believe the federal government requires a 14 day return policy, so if you're not happy, you can return it. If the Sprint coverage was a little better at my house, I would completely get rid of my landline. Personally I don't care if Sprint has poor coverage in Lincol
"During all this time, Sprint's rates have shot up dramatically, and for my family plan I am now paying a minimum of $95 per month including taxes (taxes are much higher here than anywhere else - YMMV). That's the cheapest plan available with 2 lines."
Either you haven't checked back with Sprint recently, or you're seriously exaggerating.
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ExploreHome.js p
Two lines, 500 minutes/month: $65.
But you're right - Sprint's pricing is more effective/enticing at higher rates - 1100 minutes/month for $95, or 2000 minutes/month for $100. Hmmm...
"The last reason i like gsm over cdma, i can upgrade my handset by just moving the sim card to another phone, no programing needed."
Not necessarily true. If your handset is not quad-band, it won't work. The GSM protocol in the US is, of course, different than the european GSM, so simply changing the SIM won't do it.
Incidentally, CDMA is a far-superior protocol to TDMA. CDMA networks can carry far more people, normally use less power, and are clearer. Right now they're the Betamax os the cellular industry. It will be interesting to see if they or their cousins (SCDMA or WCDMA) take off.
If Sprint is "all digital", they're all "all digital" now. TDMA, GSM, CDMA... they're all digital protocols, and all the providers use one of them.
Dual band Sprint phones, by the way, support 900MHz AMP (analog), as well as 1800 and 1900MHz CDMA. They don't, however, work on TDMA networks (which is the gist of your comment).
Netscape has SNS support for AOL/Netscape/Compuserve users. SNS passes the AOL login to sites which need to authenticate - sort of a "single sign-on for the web". Very cool if you're an AOL user.
Mozilla adds popup blocking support.
I haven't tried the new Mozilla or Netscape yet, but in using Mozilla 1.4a vs. Netscape 7.0 on Solaris 8 Mozilla wins hands down. Netscape will take several seconds to regain any control quite often, and the integrated AIM client just hangs for 10 seconds or so before (slowly) responding. Those sort of things may be fixed in Netscape 7.1, but I haven't tried it yet...
Kerberos authentication has been in openssh for a while, IIRC. What openssh lacks is kerberos ticket passing. Authentication works by validating your kerberos ticket against a KDC, or validating your password against the KDC. #2 has been there. I believe #1 has as well. Ticket passing allows your ticket to be forwarded to the next server, so you can *again* login in to another system. If you don't pass tickets, you need to kinit on each system before you can ssh.
And BTW, kerberos 5 sysadmins can disable non-encrypted services, so rsh/rlogin/telnet/ftp/etc can mandate encryption or fail the connections.
The idea is poor and impractical. I don't have cable. I can't get it. I've tried. It's ~400' from my house, dangling from a telephone pole, but Comcast won't hook it up. Eight calls and still nothing. I went with DirecTV, but numerous peopl ein my neighborhood (very wooded area) don't have the same luxury of a southern sky exposure.
But on to the real problem: logistics. Believe it or not it's very hard to find free TV frequencies. Call an RF engineering firm and ask - you'll be surprised. That's because although only 7 of the 83 channels may be used by you, they have a wide radius of interference. They can't just say "everyone use channels 14 through 20" or ever "use 14 through 60". It just doesn't work like that. While people in Baltimore might *think* moving PBC to channel 15 is fine, people in Philly might get interference on their channel 15. UHF and VHF have quite a range.
And that's part of the problem. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength, and thus the lower the effective bandwidth, so don't think you'll get MMDS across VHF. Consider the costs for every station in america to retune their transmitters, for VHF channels to buy UHF transmitters (yeah, you can't just swap crystals on those), for everyone to buy and retune their antennas, etc... Fuggeddaboudit.
The most practical way is to do precisely what the FCC originally considered - mandate everyone must broadcast in HDTV by XX/XX/XXXX and then reuse the old VHF and UHF frequencies - ideally, put a good portion of them into the unlicensed and HAM bands for PUBLIC use. Getting RID of broadcast is ridiculous, and there is obviously a *market* for broadcast TV or else NBC, ABC, CBS, etc would have abandoned it YEARS ago and created cable-only channels. But they haven't, and cable-only channels just don't have the same "quality" programming.
7.x - obsolete for business (EOL 6/30/03)
8.x - replaced by 9.x
9.x - good for desktops, at home or work, provided that *if* your company pays for Red Hat support, you don't expect to get any help.
AS (Advanced Server) 2.1 - good for business, but being replaced shortly.
AS - New upcoming version (3.0 or 2.2?) is the next step from AS 2.1. 8+ way CPU support, 16GB RAM, etc.
ES - Business server version for small/mid sized businesses. 1 or 2 way CPU systems.
WS - Business desktops.
Basically, the AS, ES, and WS offer 5 year support. That probably doesn't matter to a home user, but to a business, it's good to know you can build a server and then only need to patch it for the next 5 years, without worrying about whether the next glibc upgrade will break your applications. You don't need to buy the 5 year support plan now, but if you have a problem in 6 months or a year and need extremely fast help, you probably won't get it with a "home user" release.
What Red Hat is saying makes perfect sense. AS, ES, and WS will be basically the same system. WS will include desktop components that AS and ES don't need. AS will include kernels for beefier systems and will include clustering software - things ES users won't need. All three will be thoroughly tested and will provide a solid, unchanging (save for patches) target. Home users will still be able get the latest and greatest.
As to your answer, if you're doing this for a business, go with AS, ES, and WS. The only reason you should be using Red Hat 9.x in a business is for your desktop if you're 1337 and want cutting edge software.
I mean really, you don't need to pay millions of dollars for support, though it is more difficult to find 24x7x365 support with 4 hour turnaround when you're talking $10,000/year instead of $250,000.
Then again, does your company really *need* that level of support? I would venture to say that they probably don't. If you build redundancy into your systems, you should be able to get by in most cases, albeit under heavier load. For 24x7x365 support, expect to spend $$$$.
What you really want is probably PPPoE. You can do PAP/CHAP authentication, and the pppoe server will pass down a dynamic IP and configuration info (DNS servers, gateway, etc) to the client. You can do static IPs over it as well. In fact, my ISP has a non-routable 10 network in which they shove internet-addressible IPs over to your client (if you purchase a static IP).
BTW, PPPoE has a number of disadvantages, like screwing with the ethernet MTU and, thus, breaking client machines behind your gateway/firewall (particularly VPNs) unless you do some trickery to your network and/or pppoe configs.
The February 2002 FCC report also cited a survey from the Strategis Group (Washington, D.C.) that found that only 12 percent of on-line customers were willing to pay $40 per month for high-speed access, a number that rose to only 30 percent when the price was dropped to $25 per month.
Huh? I pay $21.95 for 40Kbps dialup access and $22/month for a second phone line. I'd sure as hell pay $40 a month for HIGH SPEED access. In fact, I'd pay double that without blinking. Right now I'm looking into frame and 802.11 solutions, but I have trouble stomaching $550/month for T-1 speeds, and I've had only minimal luck finding people who are interested in $50/month colo (hey, if you're interested, e-mail me). All I want is high speed, no restrictions on running VPNs, and low latency (so I can use ssh).
And frankly, it seems MARKETING is the real problem. If you offered $20/month dialup users access which was 2.5 times their existing speed for the same cost, they'd be crazy not to take it. So, MARKET it at 128kbps for $20/month, $30/month for 256kbps, $40 for 512kbps, etc. Bandwidth is like a drug - once you realize what you can do with it, you always want more. Maybe people aren't interested in paying $40/month when they spend $20 and use a computer 30 minutes each week, but if you get them in the habit of sitting down whenever they want to look something up, find a recipe, phone number, etc, they will soon *realize* what benefits a permanent, high speed connection have. Heck, think how many trees the phone company would save if everyone used the internet to look up phone numbers, and they stopped printing phone books.
so do I, yet nobody seems to even briefly consider the implications of carrying 20 gallons of GASOLINE! In case NOBODY has noticed, good ol' 87 octane is incredibly flamible
or was it Embedded Linux Journal? Anyway, there was an embedded systems article discussing a project to build a thermostat which would get the weather forecast and try to save on heating/cooling by running the system at temperatures and times which were more efficient. I think they called it predictive cooling. Very, very cool idea.
For those unfamiliar, Tilapia is a white fish which originated in Africa. Over the last decade, the fish has been specifically bred to be eaten. That's right, the Tilapia you order at your local seafood restaurant isn't found in the wild. Ironically, nobody seems to care, but this sort of genetic manipulatioon has been going on for ages. http://www.genomar.com/tilapia.php
I've got money saying your boss uses a Nextel phone, eh? Nextel uses IDEN instead of GSM/PCS/etc. Noisy. You'll notice your speakers in your car pop every time a call comes in.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T has the absolute best backbone and amazing service for businesses. I have an AT&T T-1. It wasn't much more than going through Qwest or a local wholesaler, but they have the best SLA out there (one day credits for 15 minutes of downtime, 65ms latency throughout north america and something like 120ms throughout the world). When Verizon accidentally disconnected my local loop, AT&T was on the phone to me within 5 minutes of the circuit dropping.
Fiber is the wrong way to go. Fiber is too expensive to build out an entire infrastructure for the country, and takes too long to deploy. Where I live, the phone lines are aerial because it's too difficult (read: expensive) to cut into rock to bury the lines. But running fiber over the poles would be a disaster the next time a hurricane came (Isabel downed probably 20 trees on the lines within a mile of my home.
Wireless is the future. 802.11g does up to 54Mbps per channel (for example). The technology to make wireless viable for everyone everywhere isn't there yet, but it will be soon. The capacity of cell networks increased dramatically with CDMA over TDMA, and 802.11g networks increase throughput considerably over 802.11b by moving to OFDM. It's much cheaper to build out towers and cell-sites and to do wireless (or even fiber) backbone links than to run it to every home in America.
FWIW, I have a dozen people with internet access on an 802.11b setup covering ~5 square miles - I can't even IMAGINE if I were to try and compete by running fiber instead - there's just no way. If the government REALLY wants 100Mbps to every home in America, they will make wireless easy (read: unregulated), viable (read: more spectrum) and cheap (read: free).
order can be occasionally found in chaos. but it's still chaos. let the scientists do their thing, and I'm *sure* they will let you know when they're definitely found something.
As a WISP owner, I can say for sure that having much higher bandwidth APs is extremely helpful. With 802.11, you are operating at the *lowest* common speed, so if one of your clients can only manage 1Mbps, that's all you get to share among everyone.
What remains to be seen is if 802.16 will tackle the pitfalls of 802.11. I suspect it won't, and if it doesn't then we're only marginally better off. Frankly, you can get close to 50km links on 802.11 equipment under ideal conditions, so that's not a big benefit.
The key will be if 802.16 can operate as non-line-of-sight (NLOS) and if it can tackle the hidden-node problem. NLOS is key to utilizing the existing cell infrastructure for wide deployment for clients (eg. if you want to be connected everywhere). LOS is only good for backbone links.
The hidden-node problem is a larger issue. 802.11 is CSMA/CA - collision *avoidance*. Because 802.11 is half duplex, it can't detect collisions, so ir tries to avoid them by listening for other local users and simply not transmitting when they are. That works when you can hear the other clients, but in a point-to-multipoint setup (like remote antennas at different hours), you quickly trample on other people when two people transmit at the same time. CSMA/CA doesn't scale, and the only two ways around it are either to create a wireless "token ring" like KarlNet does, or to run full-duplex.
If they solve both issues, I'm game. Otherwise it's just another protocol. The cell companies figured all this out, so why can't we?
er, probably not. The 2.4GHz, the FCC has a 4-watt EIRP limit on point-to-multipoint links, and I can't think of a reason that they would allow more power on these devices. Since a 2.4GHz link can go 30+ miles, 4 watts seems reasonably low.
It takes ~90 seconds for a 1000 watt microware to warm a glass of water, and quite a bit longer to actually boil it. 4-watts is minimal, and since RF power drops off at the inverse square, at 10' it's practically in the mW range. You'd have trouble even *warming* water that was right next to the antenna.
Now, point-to-point links can be ~150 watts. That would probably warm water to 100 degrees, given enough time, but antennas of that magnitude are ~4 degree beamwidth (you can't run power like that through an omni), so you'd literally need to stand right in front of the apex of the dish.
I'm more concerned about the 200mW Senao 802.11 card in my laptop irradiating my crotch, thank you very much.
Unlike everyone else, I want mine on. Fully on. Hell, I just spent $300 on a Samsung i330 which has the built-in GPS locator service, but only Sprint and 911 know where I'm at? WTF? The phone runs on Palm OS and obviously *has* a GPS in it, so why can't I enable that feature?
As far as tracking goes, they can do it anyway. All someone would need to do is to call your number, then triangulate the signal. GPS just makes it easier.
For those who actually care, here's a summary of the networks and protocols:
AMPS, also known as analog: Runs in the 900MHz range. Pretty much every company has analog coverage, though you may need a dual band phone.
FDMA: Frequency-division multiplexing. Each user gets a portion of the available spectrum (eg. Bob gets 908.24MHz and Joe gets 908.30MHz. The users occupy the frequency whether talking or not. Also, there are sidebands to each primary frequency that nobody can use. Inferior to TDMA and generally not used anymore.
TDMA: Time-division multiplexing. Each channel is split into three subchannels. Each user gets a channel, effectively tripling FDMA capacity. Although this is similar to only talking for 1/3 or a second, the phones compress and expand the data, so it sounds like a constant conversation. If you call a landline with your TDMA phone and speak, you'll notice an audible delay. AT&T, Verizon, and Cingular are TDMA.
GSM: I don't quite understand GSM that well, except that (a) european GSM is different than the US GSM - so unless you buy a quad-mode phone, it won't work in both countries, and (b) it uses a noisy TDMA protocol underneath. VoiceStream (T-Mobile) and AT&T are GSM.
CDMA: Instead of picking a channel, everyone "talks" at once. The phone and tower decide on a "key" ahead of time, and are able to pick the spread spectrum signal out of the background noise. The beauty is that there is an essentially unlimited number of people that can use a CDMA tower, provided there is enough power to go around. It's similar to putting people in a room - in a small room you can whisper, but in an auditorium you need to speak up. CDMA phones use less power when the network isn't busy, so they tend to have longer battery life; however, if you're far from the tower, your calls may get dropped as other people sign on if your phone is already at it's maximum power (remember, the phone increases the power as more people get on the tower because there is more background noise). The call clarity on CDMA is like a landline. SprintPCS is the only major carrier I know of that is CDMA (I'm not sure if they're CDMA or CDMA2000). CDMA is the Betamax of the wireless protocols - far superior, but it's too early to tell if it will die off.
SCDMA or WCDMA is probably the best protocol in the future - able to carry much more voice/data *and* with better clarity and signal fade/obstruction capabities. Nobody is headed this direction yet, though (AFAIK).
I've had Cingular (very briefly), Verizon, and now SprintPCS. It might've been the (free) Ericson phone, but Cingular was absolutely terrible - people I called couldn't understand a word I was saying. This was ~4 years ago.
I had Verizon until recently. They had good coverage, but I couldn't get a signal in my office frequently (downstairs) and they're quite expensive.
My wife and I recently moved to SprintPCS. The clarity is amazing and it works in my office, though our home is on the fringe of their coverage area. My big gripe with SprintPCS is that their data and voice services aren't fully integrated - eg, if I use their X1RTT data service on my Samsung i330, I can't accept incoming calls (VM alerts and outbound calls work fine, though). In order to reply to an AIM, I need to make a ppp wireless web connection. T-Mobile has better integration with their Sidekick, but THEY control the apps you can install on it (thanks, but I'd like to know that the program I installed to track my appointments will actually *be* there tomorrow - I've heard a lot of gripes recently about them removing lots of applications.
If you need a cell, you really just need to find a plan that seems to suit you and buy the phone. I believe the federal government requires a 14 day return policy, so if you're not happy, you can return it. If the Sprint coverage was a little better at my house, I would completely get rid of my landline. Personally I don't care if Sprint has poor coverage in Lincol
"During all this time, Sprint's rates have shot up dramatically, and for my family plan I am now paying a minimum of $95 per month including taxes (taxes are much higher here than anywhere else - YMMV). That's the cheapest plan available with 2 lines."
s p
Either you haven't checked back with Sprint recently, or you're seriously exaggerating.
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ExploreHome.j
Two lines, 500 minutes/month: $65.
But you're right - Sprint's pricing is more effective/enticing at higher rates - 1100 minutes/month for $95, or 2000 minutes/month for $100. Hmmm...
"The last reason i like gsm over cdma, i can upgrade my handset by just moving the sim card to another phone, no programing needed."
Not necessarily true. If your handset is not quad-band, it won't work. The GSM protocol in the US is, of course, different than the european GSM, so simply changing the SIM won't do it.
Incidentally, CDMA is a far-superior protocol to TDMA. CDMA networks can carry far more people, normally use less power, and are clearer. Right now they're the Betamax os the cellular industry. It will be interesting to see if they or their cousins (SCDMA or WCDMA) take off.
If Sprint is "all digital", they're all "all digital" now. TDMA, GSM, CDMA... they're all digital protocols, and all the providers use one of them.
Dual band Sprint phones, by the way, support 900MHz AMP (analog), as well as 1800 and 1900MHz CDMA. They don't, however, work on TDMA networks (which is the gist of your comment).
Netscape has SNS support for AOL/Netscape/Compuserve users. SNS passes the AOL login to sites which need to authenticate - sort of a "single sign-on for the web". Very cool if you're an AOL user.
Mozilla adds popup blocking support.
I haven't tried the new Mozilla or Netscape yet, but in using Mozilla 1.4a vs. Netscape 7.0 on Solaris 8 Mozilla wins hands down. Netscape will take several seconds to regain any control quite often, and the integrated AIM client just hangs for 10 seconds or so before (slowly) responding. Those sort of things may be fixed in Netscape 7.1, but I haven't tried it yet...
Kerberos authentication has been in openssh for a while, IIRC. What openssh lacks is kerberos ticket passing. Authentication works by validating your kerberos ticket against a KDC, or validating your password against the KDC. #2 has been there. I believe #1 has as well. Ticket passing allows your ticket to be forwarded to the next server, so you can *again* login in to another system. If you don't pass tickets, you need to kinit on each system before you can ssh.
And BTW, kerberos 5 sysadmins can disable non-encrypted services, so rsh/rlogin/telnet/ftp/etc can mandate encryption or fail the connections.
The idea is poor and impractical. I don't have cable. I can't get it. I've tried. It's ~400' from my house, dangling from a telephone pole, but Comcast won't hook it up. Eight calls and still nothing. I went with DirecTV, but numerous peopl ein my neighborhood (very wooded area) don't have the same luxury of a southern sky exposure.
But on to the real problem: logistics. Believe it or not it's very hard to find free TV frequencies. Call an RF engineering firm and ask - you'll be surprised. That's because although only 7 of the 83 channels may be used by you, they have a wide radius of interference. They can't just say "everyone use channels 14 through 20" or ever "use 14 through 60". It just doesn't work like that. While people in Baltimore might *think* moving PBC to channel 15 is fine, people in Philly might get interference on their channel 15. UHF and VHF have quite a range.
And that's part of the problem. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength, and thus the lower the effective bandwidth, so don't think you'll get MMDS across VHF. Consider the costs for every station in america to retune their transmitters, for VHF channels to buy UHF transmitters (yeah, you can't just swap crystals on those), for everyone to buy and retune their antennas, etc... Fuggeddaboudit.
The most practical way is to do precisely what the FCC originally considered - mandate everyone must broadcast in HDTV by XX/XX/XXXX and then reuse the old VHF and UHF frequencies - ideally, put a good portion of them into the unlicensed and HAM bands for PUBLIC use. Getting RID of broadcast is ridiculous, and there is obviously a *market* for broadcast TV or else NBC, ABC, CBS, etc would have abandoned it YEARS ago and created cable-only channels. But they haven't, and cable-only channels just don't have the same "quality" programming.
7.x - obsolete for business (EOL 6/30/03) 8.x - replaced by 9.x 9.x - good for desktops, at home or work, provided that *if* your company pays for Red Hat support, you don't expect to get any help. AS (Advanced Server) 2.1 - good for business, but being replaced shortly. AS - New upcoming version (3.0 or 2.2?) is the next step from AS 2.1. 8+ way CPU support, 16GB RAM, etc. ES - Business server version for small/mid sized businesses. 1 or 2 way CPU systems. WS - Business desktops. Basically, the AS, ES, and WS offer 5 year support. That probably doesn't matter to a home user, but to a business, it's good to know you can build a server and then only need to patch it for the next 5 years, without worrying about whether the next glibc upgrade will break your applications. You don't need to buy the 5 year support plan now, but if you have a problem in 6 months or a year and need extremely fast help, you probably won't get it with a "home user" release. What Red Hat is saying makes perfect sense. AS, ES, and WS will be basically the same system. WS will include desktop components that AS and ES don't need. AS will include kernels for beefier systems and will include clustering software - things ES users won't need. All three will be thoroughly tested and will provide a solid, unchanging (save for patches) target. Home users will still be able get the latest and greatest. As to your answer, if you're doing this for a business, go with AS, ES, and WS. The only reason you should be using Red Hat 9.x in a business is for your desktop if you're 1337 and want cutting edge software.
The Good Ol' Boys (of Media) announced today that their formats will now be expanding. "We've got both type of music - country and western."
There are plenty of companies which specialize in support for Linux and Open Source.
I mean really, you don't need to pay millions of dollars for support, though it is more difficult to find 24x7x365 support with 4 hour turnaround when you're talking $10,000/year instead of $250,000.
Then again, does your company really *need* that level of support? I would venture to say that they probably don't. If you build redundancy into your systems, you should be able to get by in most cases, albeit under heavier load. For 24x7x365 support, expect to spend $$$$.
What you really want is probably PPPoE. You can do PAP/CHAP authentication, and the pppoe server will pass down a dynamic IP and configuration info (DNS servers, gateway, etc) to the client. You can do static IPs over it as well. In fact, my ISP has a non-routable 10 network in which they shove internet-addressible IPs over to your client (if you purchase a static IP).
BTW, PPPoE has a number of disadvantages, like screwing with the ethernet MTU and, thus, breaking client machines behind your gateway/firewall (particularly VPNs) unless you do some trickery to your network and/or pppoe configs.
the subject says it all.
Huh? I pay $21.95 for 40Kbps dialup access and $22/month for a second phone line. I'd sure as hell pay $40 a month for HIGH SPEED access. In fact, I'd pay double that without blinking. Right now I'm looking into frame and 802.11 solutions, but I have trouble stomaching $550/month for T-1 speeds, and I've had only minimal luck finding people who are interested in $50/month colo (hey, if you're interested, e-mail me). All I want is high speed, no restrictions on running VPNs, and low latency (so I can use ssh).
And frankly, it seems MARKETING is the real problem. If you offered $20/month dialup users access which was 2.5 times their existing speed for the same cost, they'd be crazy not to take it. So, MARKET it at 128kbps for $20/month, $30/month for 256kbps, $40 for 512kbps, etc. Bandwidth is like a drug - once you realize what you can do with it, you always want more. Maybe people aren't interested in paying $40/month when they spend $20 and use a computer 30 minutes each week, but if you get them in the habit of sitting down whenever they want to look something up, find a recipe, phone number, etc, they will soon *realize* what benefits a permanent, high speed connection have. Heck, think how many trees the phone company would save if everyone used the internet to look up phone numbers, and they stopped printing phone books.
so do I, yet nobody seems to even briefly consider the implications of carrying 20 gallons of GASOLINE! In case NOBODY has noticed, good ol' 87 octane is incredibly flamible
or was it Embedded Linux Journal? Anyway, there was an embedded systems article discussing a project to build a thermostat which would get the weather forecast and try to save on heating/cooling by running the system at temperatures and times which were more efficient. I think they called it predictive cooling. Very, very cool idea.
Maybe. There was an article on how people are already bootlegging Spider-Man 2, so if you believe that, perhaps you're in luck :-)
For those unfamiliar, Tilapia is a white fish which originated in Africa. Over the last decade, the fish has been specifically bred to be eaten. That's right, the Tilapia you order at your local seafood restaurant isn't found in the wild. Ironically, nobody seems to care, but this sort of genetic manipulatioon has been going on for ages.
http://www.genomar.com/tilapia.php
I've got money saying your boss uses a Nextel phone, eh? Nextel uses IDEN instead of GSM/PCS/etc. Noisy. You'll notice your speakers in your car pop every time a call comes in.
If you're *really* interested in this, go out and buy a copy of The Physics of Star Trek from your local bookstore. The best $10 I ever spent.