Nowadays it's a rare case that the product actually enters the stage of "complete" as opposed to "good enough for production" so a lot of the debug stuff stays in, to be removed in the distant "when it's finished" which never comes.
I forgot to comment on this part -- I have seen this myself! It's a big (but not the only) reason why I simply don't trust any IoT devices that are currently on the market. I'd have to do security testing on them before use, and as long as I'm going to that effort, I may as well roll my own device so it works exactly as I want it to.
My preference (and I'm not saying it's one that applies to all situations or to everybody) is that any devices that aren't powerful enough to be secured also do not use TCP/IP. Mostly, this is to avoid accidentally exposing a device to a network segment that I didn't intend for it to be exposed to. This way they can talk to a piece of bridge equipment (via USB or Bluetooth, typically) that connects everything to the LAN.
But I'm not personally constrained by factors like marketability or mass production, so I have quite a lot of room to maneuver here.
we make sure the routers don't expose the port - and these routers are in restricted APN subnet with no simple access from outside anyway.
Yes, all of my comments are specifically about devices that can be accessed from a non-secured network. If the network is secure, then there's nothing seriously wrong with telnet, depending on the level of security required for the installation.
Obviously, the ideal situation is layered security, so that even if someone gained access to the secured network somehow, there is still strong security in play. For instance, all of the machines in my secured network communicate with encrypted channels anyway -- just in case.
Question: Were they able to get service without being forced to give all their equipment to an existing ISP in the nearby town?
I ask because other, similar, efforts, that I am familiar with, by groups of private citizens were refused service unless they agreed to give the system they built (and paid for) to an existing ISP.
There are three providers in the area that can supply internet over a microwave link. None of them required that they own any of the equipment, but all of them had specific requirements for the portion of the equipment that had to be on their site (and, obviously, some of the equipment has to be on their site -- and they are the ones who operate that part).
We went with the one that worked the best for the sightlines we had. We also had to install a repeater on the roof of a private residence in order to make a bend.
I don't think it would be accurate to say that you'd be better off with only the written and not the video.
I didn't mean to imply that video was without value. It absolutely can work with written to enhance understanding, and there are certainly topics that are best explained with video, and there are people who understand things better when presented in a video format (I'll confess that generally speaking, I am not one of those people).
My fundamental point was that video will not -- indeed cannot -- replace the written word wholesale, so I have no fear of these sites moving to video. Even if they go to video only. There will be plenty of news outlets and sites that remain heavily with the written word, so I'll always have somewhere to go to get what I need.
A good friend of mine was outside of broadband territory (well, he could get DSL, but it was expensive, very unreliable, and barely faster than a 56k modem), so we set up a "micro-ISP" with a microwave link relayed into the nearest town.
It wasn't exactly cheap -- I think he spent around $10k all in -- but he got his neighbors in on it to share costs. Now, there's a group of about 20 people who went from effectively no broadband to better broadband than most people in the city are getting.
The pain is setting everything up like I need it to be. It's not a backbreaking amount, but it is a couple of hours of fiddling with everything. So the new phone has to be better enough to be worth a couple of hours of effort, and new phones are rarely that much better.
It's a bit like how I tend to do a format and fresh install on my desktop every year or two.
Yeah, I don't do that, either, for similar reasons.
I would avoid replacing my cell phone every years even if I get the replacements for free. Changing cell phones is a pain in the ass, and the benefit of getting a new one has to outweigh that cost.
My phone is "stylishly thin" and has a removable battery, so they aren't mutually exclusive. I think the real reason for non-removable batteries is that a battery lasts for a year or two before needing to be replaced, and a phone lasts for several years more than that. They just want to force you to replace the entire phone when it's battery-replacing time.
You might be surprised how many people put a cell phone, without any kind of screen protector, into their pocket with their keys.
I do this. No protector or case. It hasn't damaged my screen one bit, although it has caused damage to the non-glass finish -- but I couldn't care less about that. I've had this phone for four years and it's still going strong.
Who was talking about the Democrats? And if you consider the Democratic party "leftist", then we have extremely different views of the world. I consider it centrist with a slight lean to the left.
I would argue that things are very different these days.
Ah, the nut of the difference in our worldviews. I don't see anything indicating that things are substantially different these days compared to the past.
Slashdot Mirror
The fatal flaw with this plan is that customers end up with Domino's pizza instead of one that is actually good.
When the government is in the picture, people die.
The same thing is true when corporations are in the picture.
Nowadays it's a rare case that the product actually enters the stage of "complete" as opposed to "good enough for production" so a lot of the debug stuff stays in, to be removed in the distant "when it's finished" which never comes.
I forgot to comment on this part -- I have seen this myself! It's a big (but not the only) reason why I simply don't trust any IoT devices that are currently on the market. I'd have to do security testing on them before use, and as long as I'm going to that effort, I may as well roll my own device so it works exactly as I want it to.
All true.
My preference (and I'm not saying it's one that applies to all situations or to everybody) is that any devices that aren't powerful enough to be secured also do not use TCP/IP. Mostly, this is to avoid accidentally exposing a device to a network segment that I didn't intend for it to be exposed to. This way they can talk to a piece of bridge equipment (via USB or Bluetooth, typically) that connects everything to the LAN.
But I'm not personally constrained by factors like marketability or mass production, so I have quite a lot of room to maneuver here.
If you don't cheat on your taxes, you have nothing to worry about no matter how they decide whom to audit.
Say what?
Even if you're completely fine tax-wise, getting audited all by itself is an expensive and damaging thing.
we make sure the routers don't expose the port - and these routers are in restricted APN subnet with no simple access from outside anyway.
Yes, all of my comments are specifically about devices that can be accessed from a non-secured network. If the network is secure, then there's nothing seriously wrong with telnet, depending on the level of security required for the installation.
Obviously, the ideal situation is layered security, so that even if someone gained access to the secured network somehow, there is still strong security in play. For instance, all of the machines in my secured network communicate with encrypted channels anyway -- just in case.
Not hardly. I've had this phone for over 4 years now.
Question: Were they able to get service without being forced to give all their equipment to an existing ISP in the nearby town?
I ask because other, similar, efforts, that I am familiar with, by groups of private citizens were refused service unless they agreed to give the system they built (and paid for) to an existing ISP.
There are three providers in the area that can supply internet over a microwave link. None of them required that they own any of the equipment, but all of them had specific requirements for the portion of the equipment that had to be on their site (and, obviously, some of the equipment has to be on their site -- and they are the ones who operate that part).
We went with the one that worked the best for the sightlines we had. We also had to install a repeater on the roof of a private residence in order to make a bend.
I have scratchy metal things in both pockets, so it doesn't much matter.
I don't think it would be accurate to say that you'd be better off with only the written and not the video.
I didn't mean to imply that video was without value. It absolutely can work with written to enhance understanding, and there are certainly topics that are best explained with video, and there are people who understand things better when presented in a video format (I'll confess that generally speaking, I am not one of those people).
My fundamental point was that video will not -- indeed cannot -- replace the written word wholesale, so I have no fear of these sites moving to video. Even if they go to video only. There will be plenty of news outlets and sites that remain heavily with the written word, so I'll always have somewhere to go to get what I need.
the less reason for corporations to control it.
Exactly, because in that scenario, the corporation already have the power and become the defacto government.
Actually, it is collusion between government and businesses that are causing the problem.
Bingo.
It's funny. In Europe, people trust the government more than corporations.
I'm an American, and I trust the government more than corporations. Not that either of them are all that trustworthy, of course.
A good friend of mine was outside of broadband territory (well, he could get DSL, but it was expensive, very unreliable, and barely faster than a 56k modem), so we set up a "micro-ISP" with a microwave link relayed into the nearest town.
It wasn't exactly cheap -- I think he spent around $10k all in -- but he got his neighbors in on it to share costs. Now, there's a group of about 20 people who went from effectively no broadband to better broadband than most people in the city are getting.
Where does that pain come from?
The pain is setting everything up like I need it to be. It's not a backbreaking amount, but it is a couple of hours of fiddling with everything. So the new phone has to be better enough to be worth a couple of hours of effort, and new phones are rarely that much better.
It's a bit like how I tend to do a format and fresh install on my desktop every year or two.
Yeah, I don't do that, either, for similar reasons.
I would avoid replacing my cell phone every years even if I get the replacements for free. Changing cell phones is a pain in the ass, and the benefit of getting a new one has to outweigh that cost.
A 3 yr old cell phone is basically useless.
How so? My cell phone is over 4 years old now, and it is no less useful now than the day I bought it.
there is no reason to buy a new phone until the manufacturer stops issuing software updates.
And even that's not a great reason. You can always put your own up-to-date OS on the phone. No need to rely on manufacturers.
I certainly don't want insurance for my phone.
My phone is "stylishly thin" and has a removable battery, so they aren't mutually exclusive. I think the real reason for non-removable batteries is that a battery lasts for a year or two before needing to be replaced, and a phone lasts for several years more than that. They just want to force you to replace the entire phone when it's battery-replacing time.
You might be surprised how many people put a cell phone, without any kind of screen protector, into their pocket with their keys.
I do this. No protector or case. It hasn't damaged my screen one bit, although it has caused damage to the non-glass finish -- but I couldn't care less about that. I've had this phone for four years and it's still going strong.
Who was talking about the Democrats? And if you consider the Democratic party "leftist", then we have extremely different views of the world. I consider it centrist with a slight lean to the left.
I would argue that things are very different these days.
Ah, the nut of the difference in our worldviews. I don't see anything indicating that things are substantially different these days compared to the past.
Since I avoid replacing my cell phone for as long as possible, leasing doesn't make any sense for me at all.
Writing video copy and writing articles are two different skillsets.