"... lets have a little data replication to keep the system working"
I agree with this. Disk space is no longer an issue. Memory cost is no longer an issue. To make things easier to install, let's in some cases not share libraries.
Linux would benefit enormously from easier install methods. My customers won't use Linux until then.
The spelling is Conectiva, with a single "n" because it is Portuguese,
the language spoken in Brazil, and Portuguese avoids redundant letters. (But,
of course, Portuguese has quirkiness of its own.)
I've never used it, but Conectiva looks like a good distro when you need to
support users in the three languages it supports. The web site is in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
From the English web site: "... the company provides consulting services,
training and technical support in all Latin America through its own service
centers and certified partners."
Glad you mentioned this, because it reminded me how difficult it is to find
good documentation about wiring Ethernet.
As a wise Slashdot reader once said, "You can't have too much overkill", so
here is the wiring scheme shown 3 different ways. I hope it saves you the time
of gathering it together yourself.
Slashdot doesn't allow the HTML PRE tag. Slashdot removes leading spaces, so
I've used dots below. Another problem is that the lameness filter is lame. That lameness filter is definitely named correctly.
Use only Standard EIA/TIA T568B. This is also called the AT&T
specification. T568A is NOT USED.
T568B:
When the hook of the RJ-45 Ethernet connector is underneath, pin 1 is on the
left.
Pair 1 is pins 4 and 5, Blue and White/Blue.
Pair 2 is pins 1 and 2, White/Orange and Orange (Transmit Data + and -)
Pair 3 is pins 3 and 6, White/Green and Green (Receive Data + and -).
Pair 4 is pins 7 and 8, White/Brown and Brown.
/--T21 White/Orange
Pair2 \--R22 Orange
/--------- -T33 White/Green
//-R14 Blue
Pair3 \ Pair1 \-T15 White/Blue
\--------- -R36 Green
/--T47 White/Brown
Pair4 \--R48 Brown
Pin ColorPairName
I know this sounds crazy, but standard Ethernet uses ONLY pairs 2 and 3, for
both half and full duplex. The other wires just sit there, unused. (It is
possible to buy external adapters to use the other two pairs as a second 10-
or 100 Megabit 100Base-T connection.)
The R1, T1, R2, T2 designations are for telephones. R1 is Ring 1 (the red wire
at the telephone box). T1 is Tip 1 (the green wire at the telephone box). Ring
and Tip are old names for the telephone wires, but if you talk to a telephone
company installer, he or she will use those names.
Quite obviously, someone messed this up majorly, as in "How can we make this
confusing?"
Your local store will probably try to charge too much. Shop around for Ethernet cable and connectors. You need the real thing, cable marked "Category 5". Other cable won't work.
One last thought to those who are new to Ethernet networking. A Hub
broadcasts all data to all computers. An Ethernet Switch sends the data
only to the computer that where the data will be used. Therefore, switches are
faster in cases where the network is sending data between more than one pair
of computers at the same time.
I use Cat-5 for telephone lines, and it works very well.
Be SURE that each telephone line is on two wires that are a twisted pair. If you run telephone lines on wires that are in adjacent pairs, you will get terrible crosstalk.
The registry performs the function of copy-protection. A good operating
system, one that was made in the customer's interests, would not mix
information from one program with another, because then one bad program can
cause others to fail.
The registry is poorly implemented. That is another reason for
problems. For example, it often has errors that cannot be repaired with the
tools Microsoft provides.
""Norton Systemworks with cleansweep and other such registry-wreckers and watch your registry operate on its own just fine."
Thanks for the tip about Norton. I didn't know that. Considering my experiences with Symantec, it is very easy to believe.
I also didn't know about the outsourcing of Win 95 support. Microsoft didn't mention that. I did suppose there would be many web sites that would continue support.
In the real world, I agree that what you have said holds true. I don't think
it is absolutely certain, but I don't know any counter-examples.
What you didn't mention is that the abusiveness is self-destructive. When IBM
first sold PCs, they had 100% of the market. When there began to be
alternatives, IBM's share of the market dropped to 8%, and eventually to
nothing. I was amazed back then. People who knew little about computers knew
they didn't like IBM! All the articles in newspapers and magazines managed to
convey the nature of IBM management back then even to people with no technical
knowledge.
Microsoft is trying to establish the idea that they can kill their products
even when people still are using them.
When this happens with Windows XP, you will no longer be able to change parts
in an old computer, because doing so would require re-activation, which
Microsoft won't make available after a date the company picks. This is a way
of forcing users to pay more, not only for software, but for hardware, too.
(Microsoft's big customers are hardware manufacturers.)
I really, really don't like Microsoft's abuse. I don't like things like the
Registry, which is a database that frequently has errors that cannot be fixed
with the tools Microsoft supplies. All settings for most programs are
contained in the registry, and if there is bad error, it can be necessary to
start over completely, and re-install all programs. For some people with a lot
of programs, this can take 20 hours.
I don't like the artificial limitations which cause Windows 95, Windows 98,
and Windows ME to crash even though there is plenty of memory available.
I don't like the sloppiness and built-in weak security. This has caused
billions of dollars of grief for people all over the world.
I don't like the fact that the operating system re-configures itself without
any notice to the user. When there is a problem with a connection, as there
often is after a computer is moved, there is no notice that something has
changed.
Monopolies are not necessarily bad. Abusive monopolies are terrible.
I am very much looking forward to the time when Linux configuration and
documentation are good enough that I can stop supporting Windows completely.
Why does a man who has 70 billion dollars feel that he has to squeeze money
from people? Why doesn't Bill Gates relax and make a good product? Does it
really make all that much difference to him to make another billion?
"It's a weird mix of corp-speak and Slashdot grammer."
Now you've done it! Surely they'll be mad at you for saying their grammar is like Slashdot's.
Their spelling is better than Slashdot spelling, however.
Did not give enough information to the people.
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
Yes, but the detection system did not give enough information to the people. Presumably, this would be the same for laser weapons.
Cannot work because of the laws of physics
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
The problem seems to be that the U.S. government spends money on weapons that cannot work because of the laws of physics, as earlier posts have mentioned. This seems to be a case of government corruption; these are largely secret, high-profit deals.
A sophisticated system did not deliver enough info
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
Why and how the Vincennes mistook the bulky, wide-bodied Airbus A300 for a sleek, supersonic F14 fighter plane barely a third the transport's size will be the subject of "a full investigation..."
There is a point here: A sophisticated system did not deliver enough information to allow the crew to distinguish between very different targets. I think they are not doing that much better now, and that limitation is a limitation for laser weapons.
X-rays are refracted and dispersed by the water vapor in clouds. Very short wavelengths might work, but I don't think they are feasible.
Great belief in the power and efficacy of weapons
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
Regardless of the problems in Saudi Arabia, the situation there is many,
many times better than it is in "similar" countries such as Iraq and
Iran.
Senator Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, disagrees
with you. He said in a recent interview that the government of Saudi Arabia
exists only because it is supported by the United States. This is effectively
saying that Osama bin Laden's main complaint is justified. (HOWEVER, note that
bin Laden's violence is NOT justified.) A transcript of the interview will be
posted later at http://hevanet.com/peace.
This is all relevant to the discussion of laser weapons in that something is
out of control. There is a much greater belief in the power and efficacy of
weapons than there should be.
I read about 60 Slashdot posts when the story was young, and I didn't find
anyone who took the new weapon seriously. Many discussed reasons why it
wouldn't work.
Aegis is considered to be a sophisticated system.
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
There was NO intention on my part to say it was a conspiracy. I don't think that. I was just saying that there are a lot of things that can go wrong with an automatically guided laser.
My point about the Vincennes is that the recognition radar was not sophisticated enough to show the difference clearly between a fighter and a large commercial aircraft. People on board genuinely thought they were being attacked. They would not have thought that if they had a better recognition system. That is significant because Aegis is considered to be a very sophisticated system. If that is close to the state of the art, then we can expect problems of the same nature with laser weapons.
I've read most of the posts, and so far I haven't seen even one that both takes this seriously, and believes it will work. Maybe all weapons proposals should have to go through Slashdot first.
10 and 11, Clouds and commercial aircraft
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this subject.
And dont forget:
10) Clouds. Laser light does NOT penetrate clouds. The water vapor
easily absorbs all the energy.
Also don't forget:
11) Friendly aircraft. On July 4, 1988, the U.S. Navy cruiser
Vincennes, in the Persian Gulf, shot
down an Iran Air A300 Airbus, killing 290 persons, after mistaking it for
an attacking jet fighter. "The U.S. government deeply regrets this
incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
The cruiser was "equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic
battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal."
Organizations that sell weapons are often not honest about the shortcomings.
"Linux" is a great name that follows all the rules. It communicates what it
was intended to communicate, and nothing more. It's a Unix work-alike that is
still guided by a man named Linus. The name couldn't be better.
I'm not saying that companies with humorous names don't ever have customers.
I'm saying that, in my experience, these companies don't last. They either go
out of business or they change their name.
I can give only one counter-example: The Beatles. Sounds like an insect. This
shows that, if you have an absolutely revolutionary product, and George Martin
as a producer, you can overcome unfortunate connotations. But it doesn't
happen often. If you disagree with this, can you give me counter-examples?
My quick impression when I visited your web site was that it was a good
product. My comments have NOTHING to do with you or your product. My comments
are only about unfortunate connotations.
Quoting your post:
"We (authors of BouncyCastle) have already gone through this with somebody
who mailed us directly, who's boss didn't want to use it because the name was
funny."
How many people had this reaction, but didn't communicate with you?
P.S.: Here is another example. Don't call yourself a geek. It carries the
connotation that you have difficulty communicating with others, and avoid
communicating by immersing yourself in technical things. After seeing your
website, I very much doubt that is true.
It's amazing how difficult this concept is on Slashdot.
I'm not "judging people by their name". I'm NOT judging a person at all. I'm
saying don't call your web site or open source software product by a name that
has any possible unfortunate meanings or connotations.
I did not invent this idea. It is universally used by people who design
professional communication.
Why avoid side communication? Because long experience has shown that products
with such communication don't do well in the marketplace.
I repeat. This has NOTHING to do with "judging people by their name".
I have a Korean woman friend whose name is "Go-oon". I suggested that, if she
stayed in the U.S., she call herself "Susan". "Go-oon" sounds like "Goon" and
is difficult to pronounce correctly for English speakers.
She didn't accept my suggestion; she didn't stay in the U.S. long. But she
certainly did not take my suggestion as anything negative. She was 19. Why is
it that a 19-year-old Korean woman understands this issue, but not many
Slashdot readers? (Incidentally, she ran Linux. So, she is an above-average
19-year-old Korean woman. But still.)
Windows was a carefully selected name. At the time Microsoft picked it,
windowing was an advanced ability for a PC.
These ideas about avoiding the chance of miscommunication are completely
accepted by the people who sell all the consumer products you use. I'm
surprised these ideas are so difficult for Slashdot readers to accept. My
posts about this have consistently been modded down.
Slashdot Mirror
Great story!
Go Linux!
Someday the average computer user will have a real operating system.
Needed for Linux: 1) Easier installation and configuration. 2) Better documentation.
"... lets have a little data replication to keep the system working"
I agree with this. Disk space is no longer an issue. Memory cost is no longer an issue. To make things easier to install, let's in some cases not share libraries.
Linux would benefit enormously from easier install methods. My customers won't use Linux until then.
The spelling is Conectiva, with a single "n" because it is Portuguese, the language spoken in Brazil, and Portuguese avoids redundant letters. (But, of course, Portuguese has quirkiness of its own.)
I've never used it, but Conectiva looks like a good distro when you need to support users in the three languages it supports. The web site is in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
From the English web site: "... the company provides consulting services, training and technical support in all Latin America through its own service centers and certified partners."
--
Senator Biden (and Osama bin Laden) say that the Saudi government cannot continue without U.S. support: What should be the Response to Violence?
Glad you mentioned this, because it reminded me how difficult it is to find good documentation about wiring Ethernet.
As a wise Slashdot reader once said, "You can't have too much overkill", so here is the wiring scheme shown 3 different ways. I hope it saves you the time of gathering it together yourself.
Slashdot doesn't allow the HTML PRE tag. Slashdot removes leading spaces, so I've used dots below. Another problem is that the lameness filter is lame. That lameness filter is definitely named correctly.
Use only Standard EIA/TIA T568B. This is also called the AT&T specification. T568A is NOT USED.
T568B:
When the hook of the RJ-45 Ethernet connector is underneath, pin 1 is on the left.
Pair 1 is pins 4 and 5, Blue and White/Blue.
Pair 2 is pins 1 and 2, White/Orange and Orange (Transmit Data + and -)
Pair 3 is pins 3 and 6, White/Green and Green (Receive Data + and -).
Pair 4 is pins 7 and 8, White/Brown and Brown.
Pair2 \--R22 Orange
/--------- -T33 White/Green
/
Pair3 \ Pair1 \-T15 White/Blue
\--------- -R36 Green
Pair4 \--R48 Brown
Pin ColorPairName
1 wh/or 2 TxData +
2 or2 TxData -
3 wh/grn3 RecvData+
4 blu 1
5 wh/blu1
6 grn 3 RecvData-
7 wh/brn4
8 brn 4
I know this sounds crazy, but standard Ethernet uses ONLY pairs 2 and 3, for both half and full duplex. The other wires just sit there, unused. (It is possible to buy external adapters to use the other two pairs as a second 10- or 100 Megabit 100Base-T connection.)
The R1, T1, R2, T2 designations are for telephones. R1 is Ring 1 (the red wire at the telephone box). T1 is Tip 1 (the green wire at the telephone box). Ring and Tip are old names for the telephone wires, but if you talk to a telephone company installer, he or she will use those names.
Quite obviously, someone messed this up majorly, as in "How can we make this confusing?"
If you are new to wiring Ethernet start with the simple explanation at Johns Closet (as in wiring closet): Wiring: Color Codes, Terms, and Tools.
See the Leviton Do and Don't Guides
See the Wiring Guides at the Leviton Learning Center . See the Residential And Light Commercial Installation Practices (Tia-570 Compliance) [PDF file] guide.
Also see the wiring specs at FAQS.org: 9.0 Standard EIA/TIA 568 (Use ONLY T568B)
More information about wiring: Data Communications Cabling FAQ
Your local store will probably try to charge too much. Shop around for Ethernet cable and connectors. You need the real thing, cable marked "Category 5". Other cable won't work.
One last thought to those who are new to Ethernet networking. A Hub broadcasts all data to all computers. An Ethernet Switch sends the data only to the computer that where the data will be used. Therefore, switches are faster in cases where the network is sending data between more than one pair of computers at the same time.
--
Senator Biden (and Osama bin Laden) say that the Saudi government cannot continue without U.S. support: What should be the Response to Violence?
He's right. 10 and 100 Base-T use two pairs only for all modes of operation.
I use Cat-5 for telephone lines, and it works very well.
Be SURE that each telephone line is on two wires that are a twisted pair. If you run telephone lines on wires that are in adjacent pairs, you will get terrible crosstalk.
The registry performs the function of copy-protection. A good operating system, one that was made in the customer's interests, would not mix information from one program with another, because then one bad program can cause others to fail.
The registry is poorly implemented. That is another reason for problems. For example, it often has errors that cannot be repaired with the tools Microsoft provides.
--
Senator Biden (and Osama bin Laden) say that the Saudi government cannot continue without U.S. support: What should be the Response to Violence?
This is different. With Windows XP, you cannot change the HARDWARE without support from Microsoft.
What is new is that, even if you have the key, you must have Microsoft's support if you want to change hardware.
""Norton Systemworks with cleansweep and other such registry-wreckers and watch your registry operate on its own just fine."
Thanks for the tip about Norton. I didn't know that. Considering my experiences with Symantec, it is very easy to believe.
I also didn't know about the outsourcing of Win 95 support. Microsoft didn't mention that. I did suppose there would be many web sites that would continue support.
In the real world, I agree that what you have said holds true. I don't think it is absolutely certain, but I don't know any counter-examples.
What you didn't mention is that the abusiveness is self-destructive. When IBM first sold PCs, they had 100% of the market. When there began to be alternatives, IBM's share of the market dropped to 8%, and eventually to nothing. I was amazed back then. People who knew little about computers knew they didn't like IBM! All the articles in newspapers and magazines managed to convey the nature of IBM management back then even to people with no technical knowledge.
--
Senator Biden (and Osama bin Laden) say that the Saudi government cannot continue without U.S. support: What should be the Response to Violence?
Microsoft is trying to establish the idea that they can kill their products even when people still are using them.
When this happens with Windows XP, you will no longer be able to change parts in an old computer, because doing so would require re-activation, which Microsoft won't make available after a date the company picks. This is a way of forcing users to pay more, not only for software, but for hardware, too. (Microsoft's big customers are hardware manufacturers.)
I really, really don't like Microsoft's abuse. I don't like things like the Registry, which is a database that frequently has errors that cannot be fixed with the tools Microsoft supplies. All settings for most programs are contained in the registry, and if there is bad error, it can be necessary to start over completely, and re-install all programs. For some people with a lot of programs, this can take 20 hours.
I don't like the artificial limitations which cause Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME to crash even though there is plenty of memory available.
I don't like the sloppiness and built-in weak security. This has caused billions of dollars of grief for people all over the world.
I don't like the fact that the operating system re-configures itself without any notice to the user. When there is a problem with a connection, as there often is after a computer is moved, there is no notice that something has changed.
Monopolies are not necessarily bad. Abusive monopolies are terrible.
I am very much looking forward to the time when Linux configuration and documentation are good enough that I can stop supporting Windows completely.
Why does a man who has 70 billion dollars feel that he has to squeeze money from people? Why doesn't Bill Gates relax and make a good product? Does it really make all that much difference to him to make another billion?
--
Senator Biden (and Osama bin Laden) say that the Saudi government cannot continue without U.S. support: What should be the Response to Violence?
"It's a weird mix of corp-speak and Slashdot grammer."
Now you've done it! Surely they'll be mad at you for saying their grammar is like Slashdot's.
Their spelling is better than Slashdot spelling, however.
Yes, but the detection system did not give enough information to the people. Presumably, this would be the same for laser weapons.
The problem seems to be that the U.S. government spends money on weapons that cannot work because of the laws of physics, as earlier posts have mentioned. This seems to be a case of government corruption; these are largely secret, high-profit deals.
Why and how the Vincennes mistook the bulky, wide-bodied Airbus A300 for a sleek, supersonic F14 fighter plane barely a third the transport's size will be the subject of "a full investigation..."
There is a point here: A sophisticated system did not deliver enough information to allow the crew to distinguish between very different targets. I think they are not doing that much better now, and that limitation is a limitation for laser weapons.
Nice name, but room for improvement.
I see your point. Part of the problem was that Linus did not care how it was pronounced until people began asking him.
Please, however, give me examples of truly bad names of commercial products.
X-rays are refracted and dispersed by the water vapor in clouds. Very short wavelengths might work, but I don't think they are feasible.
Regardless of the problems in Saudi Arabia, the situation there is many, many times better than it is in "similar" countries such as Iraq and Iran.
Senator Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, disagrees with you. He said in a recent interview that the government of Saudi Arabia exists only because it is supported by the United States. This is effectively saying that Osama bin Laden's main complaint is justified. (HOWEVER, note that bin Laden's violence is NOT justified.) A transcript of the interview will be posted later at http://hevanet.com/peace.
This is all relevant to the discussion of laser weapons in that something is out of control. There is a much greater belief in the power and efficacy of weapons than there should be.
I read about 60 Slashdot posts when the story was young, and I didn't find anyone who took the new weapon seriously. Many discussed reasons why it wouldn't work.
There was NO intention on my part to say it was a conspiracy. I don't think that. I was just saying that there are a lot of things that can go wrong with an automatically guided laser.
My point about the Vincennes is that the recognition radar was not sophisticated enough to show the difference clearly between a fighter and a large commercial aircraft. People on board genuinely thought they were being attacked. They would not have thought that if they had a better recognition system. That is significant because Aegis is considered to be a very sophisticated system. If that is close to the state of the art, then we can expect problems of the same nature with laser weapons.
I've read most of the posts, and so far I haven't seen even one that both takes this seriously, and believes it will work. Maybe all weapons proposals should have to go through Slashdot first.
Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this subject.
And dont forget:
10) Clouds. Laser light does NOT penetrate clouds. The water vapor easily absorbs all the energy.
Also don't forget:
11) Friendly aircraft. On July 4, 1988, the U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes, in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iran Air A300 Airbus, killing 290 persons, after mistaking it for an attacking jet fighter. "The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
The cruiser was "equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal."
Organizations that sell weapons are often not honest about the shortcomings.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
"Linux" is a great name that follows all the rules. It communicates what it was intended to communicate, and nothing more. It's a Unix work-alike that is still guided by a man named Linus. The name couldn't be better.
I'm not saying that companies with humorous names don't ever have customers. I'm saying that, in my experience, these companies don't last. They either go out of business or they change their name.
I can give only one counter-example: The Beatles. Sounds like an insect. This shows that, if you have an absolutely revolutionary product, and George Martin as a producer, you can overcome unfortunate connotations. But it doesn't happen often. If you disagree with this, can you give me counter-examples?
My quick impression when I visited your web site was that it was a good product. My comments have NOTHING to do with you or your product. My comments are only about unfortunate connotations.
Quoting your post:
"We (authors of BouncyCastle) have already gone through this with somebody who mailed us directly, who's boss didn't want to use it because the name was funny."
How many people had this reaction, but didn't communicate with you?
P.S.: Here is another example. Don't call yourself a geek. It carries the connotation that you have difficulty communicating with others, and avoid communicating by immersing yourself in technical things. After seeing your website, I very much doubt that is true.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
It's amazing how difficult this concept is on Slashdot.
I'm not "judging people by their name". I'm NOT judging a person at all. I'm saying don't call your web site or open source software product by a name that has any possible unfortunate meanings or connotations.
I did not invent this idea. It is universally used by people who design professional communication.
Why avoid side communication? Because long experience has shown that products with such communication don't do well in the marketplace.
I repeat. This has NOTHING to do with "judging people by their name".
I have a Korean woman friend whose name is "Go-oon". I suggested that, if she stayed in the U.S., she call herself "Susan". "Go-oon" sounds like "Goon" and is difficult to pronounce correctly for English speakers.
She didn't accept my suggestion; she didn't stay in the U.S. long. But she certainly did not take my suggestion as anything negative. She was 19. Why is it that a 19-year-old Korean woman understands this issue, but not many Slashdot readers? (Incidentally, she ran Linux. So, she is an above-average 19-year-old Korean woman. But still.)
Windows was a carefully selected name. At the time Microsoft picked it, windowing was an advanced ability for a PC.
These ideas about avoiding the chance of miscommunication are completely accepted by the people who sell all the consumer products you use. I'm surprised these ideas are so difficult for Slashdot readers to accept. My posts about this have consistently been modded down.