A lot of residential cable modem users get the same IP all the time, and we're on DHCP. In fact, my old Netgear router constantly failed to update Dynamic DNS because of this (it checked for a new IP address, but forgot to update the information every 30 days, so I got a nastygram from them).
As part of the DHCP protocol, a host is allowed to request a specific address (usually the one they had last session) before negotiating a new one. Many DHCP clients (including the one in Windows) do this, see section 3.2 of RFC2131.
I've had my IP address for month - I might as well have a static one.
I used to work in the DOCSIS cable modem industry, so I'm reasonably familiar with the Broadcom 335x/334x CPU family. The best I ever saw was the datasheet for the 3416 chip (tuner chip).
For those of you who aren't aware, or don't remember, Broadcom was slapped with a lawsuit by Microtune, alleging patent violations http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5064586.html, (one of many articles available on this subject).
So, I was tasked with providing software support for the 3416 tuner chip (the replacement for the 3415 "problem" chip) in our cable modem product, as the 3415 couldn't legally be sold in the U.S. anymore. Well, I figured it would be easy, since the datasheets for the two chips were exactly the same, except that "3415" was changed to "3416". (And, I mean exactly the same, to the word - it was only a 15 page datasheet, so I compared them).
Nope, good old Broadcom documentation does it again... I managed to study the source code for one of the newer cable modem CPUs and find the changes between the chips. The real stupid thing though: Even though there's a version register (which tells which version the chip is), they didn't update it to indicate a 3415/3416, even though they had the bits available. So, 3416 chips would show up as 3415 chips if you try to read the version number (that made things difficult).
Incidentally, Broadcom does make Linux drivers for most of it's newer hardware, they're just meant for their customers (the OEMs making the hardware, not the end-users). The general rule with Broadcom is, if you pay them a lot of money, you get excellent support. (At the previous company I worked for, I had an engineer that would get back to me within 24 hours on any issue related to the product, because we bought so many cable modem chips. When I currently work, they won't even give us the time of day, we just don't purchase enough.)
I feel your pain, I really do.
-- Joe
Re:PC-based DVRs have massive drawbacks...
on
Build Your Own DVR
·
· Score: 1
Since only some of the points need addressing, I'll address only those ones:
2. A couple of different models, unfortunately, I don't know their model numbers. (These boxes are now over a year old, so it may not be a fair comparison). One was a box that I saw on Comcast digital cable (a Motorola one), and one was a Scientific Atlanta that I saw at a friend's house (on Rogers Digital Cable). The Comcast box was awful - slow channel changes (showing the pixellation until the MPEG-2 I-frame came in), slow button response, ugly fonts and all sorts of colors. The Scienfic Atlanta at least had a unified color scheme (but it was yellow, purple and grey), but the fonts were still pretty ugly looking.
I was impressed with the look and of a Motorola settop that was Windows based (WinCE? I don't remember) that I saw at SCTE last summer. It was a dual-tuner box.
Re:PC-based DVRs have massive drawbacks...
on
Build Your Own DVR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Some people like the simplicity and cheapness of a commerically available DVR. Some people prefer to build their own. I say, to each their own. Building a DVR isn't for everybody, and it can be quite expensive.
My reasons for building my own (using MythTV): 1. I can put in multiple tuners. Two tuner units came out six months ago at best, if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using two tuners for over a year now, and I now have three tuners in my machine (a PVR-250 and a PVR-500). This is very convenient when there's three shows on at the same time that I want to watch. (A typical Tuesday night at the moment has Law and Order: SVU, The Shield and Masterminds all on at the same time, 10PM). The scheduler in MythTV can accomodate that fairly well with only one or two tuners, mind you. 2. The user interface on a lot of the DVRs that come from the cable companies is awful. It's slow, full of ugly colors, and unstable 3. I use my MythTV machine as my file server as well. So, I was going to have the PC on 24/7 anyway. 4. MythTV plays back DVDs also, not many DVRs currently do that. 5. I have complete control over the unit. I can skip commercials at will. I don't have to worry about my DVR expiring shows on me (except when I run out of disk space). My demographics aren't sent to some company. My DVR doesn't pop up ads on me.
I picked MythTV because it met my needs. If a Windows program worked well for me, then I would have used that, just to make it simple.
-- Joe
Re:probably better to just get the real thing
on
Build Your Own DVR
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, MythTV can be a bit of a pain to setup, and yes, driver support for some cards is bad.
I know that I'm going to sound like a total ass for saying this, but... You need to do some research.
If you read the mythtv-users mailing list, you'll find that the PVR-250 seems to be the best supported card (unfortunately, unless you have one of the newer ones). PVR-150 support is iffy, but I have a PVR-500 and a PVR-250 (one of the first generation ones) working fine, with a driver that is listed as "testing" in ATrpms.
I have absolutely no problems setting up MythTV, in fact, it's basically copy/paste. Why? 1. I use supported hardware 2. I use ATrpms for the RPMS (on Fedora Core 3) 3. I follow Jarod Wilson's MythTV HOWTO at http://www.wilsonet.com/mythtv/, which the community contributes to in order to keep it up to date 4. I read the mythtv-users mailing list (and the -dev list, and ivtv and atrpms-devel as well, but most users don't need to do that).
The problem that the DOL used to face (I say used to, because the new programs will be fixing this to some degree) is that there are no set job descriptions.
That is to say, you as an employer could make up any reasonable (or somewhat ludicrous) job description to justify the low wage you'd be paying an employee. How do I know? Well, one of my previous employers made up a crappy job description, in order to put me at a salary on average, $20,000 less than the area I was living/working in (for the same type of work).
The interesting thing is a new program called PERM, which is for Green Cards. Under PERM, the number of valid job descriptions has been chopped to 1/10 what it used to be, and especially for Green Cards, they are extremely rigid. If they feel that a U.S. citizen can do your job, they will reject the application, even if you have already spent six years training an employee.
Not the best way to start off a post, but you are correct. It's Motorola and SA (Scientific Atlanta) playing the game.
However, at the same time, cable operators are afraid of CableCard. The advantage of freeing them up to use any frontend that they want also scares them. At least by forging a relationship with Motorola or SA, they can get their boxes branded and control the content. With CableCard, anybody can make a set-top box, with no branding, no advertising lock-in, and no guaranteed content protection.
What I would really love to see is a PCI card that accepts a CableCard, which can be used to decrypt the digital cable content. Not so that I can spread the shows around the Internet, but so that I can use the features of my MythTV machine. (Yes, the content has to be decrypted for MythTV to really make any use of it, otherwise the PCI card has to have video out. MythTV would still lose the OSD feature, and it would be harder to configure.)
Microsoft might be the closest ally on that, since they'll need a way to capture digital cable content for their Media Center platform (if they wish to continue that).
I know where you're coming from, but a better "kind of" analogy would be how the DOCSIS channel integrates with the regular analog cable TV feed on the line.
If you're using an eMTA (cable modem with a VoIP box in it), then in reality, although you have two distinct service flows, they both get combined into one IP traffic stream, which is then MPEG-2 encapsulated, encoded into RF signals, and sent on to the cable line (to coexist with the cable TV signal).
That would be the IP priority, which is part of the IP protocol. I have no doubt that Vonage is already using this.
So what would happen in that case is that the cable modem packets would still be first, but the Vonage packets would be second in line, then everything else.
It's been a while since I've looked at cable modem code, but I don't really recall any reason why the modem would strip anything out of the headers. The whole idea is that the modem can prioritize the packet order of packets going from/through the modem to the CMTS, but after they leave the CMTS, they're back to regular Ethernet switches/routers (of which, the ones within the MSOs network can be configured for "optimal" traffic). These routers would honor the IP priority bits.
The best way to think of it is really like a FIFO queue, or standing in line at the Post Office.
All packets that the ISP favors (their own VoIP packets) go first in line. All other packets have to fight for a spot in line. (Non-VoIP packets are treated the same as every other packet*).
Now, assuming that there's enough spots in the line for all of the packets, nothing is dropped. The ISPs VoIP packets go out first, giving them a slight advantage, but everything goes out. If there aren't enough spots, then some of the packets get dropped.
*In practice, this isn't quite true. There are also packet priorities built into the IP specification, and it is likely that VoIP packets are using these as well. Therefore, the line would really look like this: 1. ISP approved packets 2. Non-ISP approved packets with high priorities 3. Every other packet.
Once these packets leave the ISPs network, it's "catch as catch can" again, however, it is likely that the ISP voIP packets have IP priorities as high as, if not higher than the non-ISP VoIP packets, causing them to still have a slight edge.
The idea is that the ISPs are looking to delay the non-ISP VoIP packets within their own network. Once those packets make it out to the Internet, they're considered regular IP packets like everything else (unless they have a different protocol or frame type, which is highly unlikely).
But, delaying the packets just within their own network would provide enough of a delay to make the conversation break up, and provide a crappy experience.
Tagging IP packets is pretty limited. I don't have the TCP/IP Illustrated books with me right now (they're at work), but if I recall correctly, there's seven different priorities available for IP packets. I would imagine that these priorities are being used as the packets float around. But, remember, packets approved by the ISP would make it to the front of the queue, and the other VoIP packets, even if tagged to the highest priority, would fall behind the ISP packets, assuming both packets are tagged with the same priority.
Well, hell, anybody using TCP for voice communications gets what they deserve. I seriously hope that Cringely meant UDP.
TCP is a poor choice for VoIP, because of the reliability factor (believe it or not). With something as free-flowing as a phone conversation, you would rather lose a packet here or there than wait for retransmission delays caused by TCP.
The VoIP companies just cannot win such a game, at least not in the cable world.
A PacketCable compliant MTA (most of which will be built into the cable modems) will always have an advantage over a dedicated MTA box, like the devices Vonage gives their customers. This is because any traffic that is generated within the DOCSIS cable modem can be given any priority (the eMTA in the modem would receive highest priority), followed by anything coming in from the Ethernet ports.
Given that the cable operators just have to set two rules in the modem (voice highest priority, everything else best-effort), the Vonage box can't work around that, short of some stuff that's considered a federal crime (like tampering with the cable modem/cable network).
I can't speak in terms of DSL, because I've never worked for a DSL provider or hardware manufacturer. I have, however, worked for two cable modem manufacturers (one of them also a CMTS manufacturer) for a total of three years, and implemented software meeting DOCSIS requirements in that time.
Well, you've got the idea correct, but it has nothing to do with how DSL can run aside POTS. DSL can run along POTS because one uses the low frequencies, and the other uses the high frequencies. If you have DSL on your phone line, and don't have the filter, you'll likely hear a hissing, that's the DSL signal.
However, should you get a combination cable modem/MTA (the VoIP box) from you cable operator (i.e. Comcast), it works like this: * The DOCSIS 1.1 specification calls for a nifty little feature called "service flows". Service flows have their own QoS, and can be triggered by a variety of criteria, including TCP/UDP port numbers, Ethernet frame type, etc. * From there, the cable operators will provision two (or more) service flows for the cable modem. One would be for the voice, which would receive the highest priority possible (but with a lower bandwidth), and the other one(s) would be best-effort, with a higher bandwidth allowed.
Cable operators can also use this to throttle any arbitrary connection (i.e. P2P), and in fact, have done so in the past, I would imagine.
A "side effect" of this would be that Vonage boxes would considered as best-effort, simply because they don't get classified into the voice flow by the software of the modem. This is because they won't meet the characteristics of the voice flow.
Sure it will. But, then the ISPs will either: 1. Figure out the signatures of the games and not muck with them, or (more likely), 2. Say that if you want online gaming, you need to pay extra for the reliability.
I've seen this coming ever since I first heard about combination cable modem/MTA devices. People who have one of those will end up with far superior VoIP than those using Vonage boxes, not really due to any tampering with packets, but just in how the DOCSIS 1.1 architecture was designed.
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
We do "asshole" things like this, because other people are being "assholes" to us by demanding that we show them our receipts and subject ourselves to unreasonable searches. And quite frankly, I've already waited in line long enough to pay for my merchandise, I don't want to wait in another line for somebody else to verify that the cashier did their job correctly. You'll note that they don't actually check to see if you're trying to sneak something out, they just check to make sure that the number of items in your bag matches what's on the receipt - in other words, they don't trust the people at the register to do their job, and with good reason.
Supposedly the employees will have their friends come in and buy big-ticket items, and the employees will either "forget" to scan the item, or ring up the wrong price. Or perhaps the person running the cash register is just incompetant, or a new trainee (turnover at those kind of stores does tend to be high).
Either way, if you can't trust your employees, and you can't adequately protect your store without searching me when I leave, then that's your problem, and not mine. (And I would argue that Fry's could do a lot to help out by actually treating their employees with respect, training them, and paying them better).
If I'm walking out with merchandise that I didn't pay for, then they should have either: 1. Caught it at the register (in other words, the employee should have rung everything up correctly) 2. Have employees or cameras watching people to catch shoplifters in action, rather than harrassing everybody.
Just as a comment for those who may not be familiar with how cable services and QoS work, and how it affects Vonage...
Vonage is limited to using standard IP QoS, since it is just a regular IP device. However, an MTA built into a cable modem has full access to the cable modem QoS code. Part of the DOCSIS specification states that a DOCSIS 1.1 cable modem must support multiple "service flows", which are basically different queues. Each of these queues has it's own classification parameters (i.e. drop packets, forward packets, QoS, etc.), so it is only natural that a cable operator would give voice calls through their MTAs a higher QoS.
Where Vonage calls might get screwed is because the packets that are being sent through the cable modem by the Vonage MTA would be considered as data, and would go out through the data flow. If the cable operator so chose, they could configure the voice flow to work with the Vonage MTA, but whether or not they'd do that is another story.
Even if you don't use linux, just make sure you ask about linux support for everything you buy, and make concerned noises when there isn't support.
I'll admit that I'm a pessimistic and cynical person... Most places where you buy computer parts, they don't even know what the heck they're selling you, never mind whether or not it will work with Linux. Unless you encounter somebody knowledgeable, you'll get the wrong answer either way.
Going for the one with Linux support also often means getting a product that is at least one year old - obsolete in the minds of many people. (And, depending on the application of said part, it may really be obsolete.)
If enough people do this, the manufacturers should start improving linux support. As long as Windows has approximately 90% of the OS market, the hardware manufacturers don't care. They bring in enough money on 9/10 people, they don't necessarily need 10/10. Otherwise they'd already be catering to the 1/10 that's already present (with the exception of nVidia, I'm not seeing many companies that take Linux seriously).
It's not a vicious cycle, it's pretty simple really - don't buy ATI and don't buy Creative. There are alternatives.
I used to say the exact same thing... Now I just say to heck with it and use Windows anyway (except at work where I do Linux development, and my tools will only run under Linux). Windows gives me a PC that works out of the box, and with 2000/XP, it works very well. I would use Windows at work if I could actually rebuild the cross-compilers and be 100% sure that I'd get the same binary code (for anybody who has done work with MIPS processors, they know that gcc for MIPS has quirks and is often difficult to build).
The alternatives to ATI: nVidia - At least they have drivers, but they're binary-only, and Linux users are still treated as second-class citizens. Read the MythTV mailing lists and see how many (legitimate) gripes there are with nVidia breaking things in the Linux driver. S3/VIA - Was at one point binary-only, Unichrome has been mostly reverse-engineered. Still buggy as hell though.
The alternatives to Creative: VIA - There's a driver, haven't used it because I don't have a card CMedia - Driver works, but the sound isn't great Realtek - Driver sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Latest ALSA is a pain to configure for two boards that I have with Realtek sound chips (intel8x0 driver)
Note that I'm not listing cards any older than about two years old. While you could certainly go with an older card and be relatively supported (if you can still find the cards on the market), you can't get the latest and greatest. That really sucks in my opinion.
I love the philosophy behind Linux and free software, but I think that the implementation really sucks. I know, I know, shut up and contribute already. Sorry, I don't have time, by the time I get home from work everyday, I'm too tired to write software - I've already been doing it for 9-10 hours already.
All I want is something that works, that I don't have to mess around with. I get that with Windows, simply put.
The parent poster was referring to activation, not downloading updates. You can activate Windows XP over the phone. It's a bit of a hassle, but I've done it.
I had an installation of XP Pro on my desktop machine. The hard drive died on it, and I had recently replaced the motherboard (and I was using the onboard NIC and sound card). Thus, when I went to activate Windows XP via the Internet, it refused (too many components were different - apparently the MAC address of your NIC carries a lot of weight for the activation code).
I called Microsoft at the provided number, had to read off (IIRC) nine sets of five characters (so, 45 letters/numbers in total), and after asking me some questions (like why I had to activate over the phone), I was given a sequence of 45 characters (same length as what I gave to them). Keyed it all in, and XP was activated.
If there where no open drivers for things like video TIVO may never have happened (or they would have used windows) because they couldn't get a licencing deal with nvidia. Even if they could licence the software they probably would have to go x86 which may not be the best route for all appliances that need good video. Uhh, no. Tivo would most certainly have used whatever video chip they wanted, open source drivers or not.
I'm a developer of embedded devices (having worked on over a half-dozen different chips), and have been through this first-hand. The companies that I have worked for would make an agreement to buy X units, enter a licensing agreement, sign an NDA, and then get full datasheets, reference boards, and sometimes even full schematics. The reference boards also usually come with full source code. So, pretty much any company that rebrands ATi or nVidia designs has full source code to the driver (so that they can make necessary changes to accomodate their board design).
It's actually fairly important that source code come with the reference design when you get it, since most embedded designs do not use x86 processors (they're too power hungry and run too hot).
I actually liken it more to (and I suspect the point the person was trying to make was): If they don't bother to lock their car, then they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals it. Just like, if they don't bother to lock their network, they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals their bandwidth. Nothing about legality there, although in the same sentence...
However, I do disagree with the poster when he states: but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime
Legally, theft of a motor vehicle (seeing as it's property) is a crime. Theft of cable services (for cable internet) is a federal crime, although I suspect that only the cable companies would get away with charing somebody - Joe Somebody likely couldn't. Even if Joe Somebody couldn't charge them criminally, certainly, there still is a theft of services going on here.
I think that criminal prosecution in such a case would be very difficult, given that many broadband plans are mostly, "all you can eat" (with the exception of caps on some providers). However, in the case that somebody's network is compromised because they didn't lock it down, I'm all for favor of trying to recoup the losses (if measurable) through civil action. But, like in the case of your car getting stolen, if the insurance company finds that you left the doors unlocked, well, they start taking away from the claim that they'd give you. This should be no different.
I have to wonder how true the results of Alcohol 120 really are though. (Note that I've not used it, so I can't really say).
From the CD-Recordable FAQ: "Two components that many users of these programs always take as gospel are Media Manufacturer and Dye Data. These two readings are next to worthless.
The reason for this is that many CD-R manufacturers (like CD- Recordable.com) purchase their stampers (the nickel die that all CD-R substrates are molded from) from 3rd party sources. These 3rd party sources (either other disc manufacturers, or mastering houses) encode the data that these 'Identification' programs read, at the time that the original glass master is encoded. The 'Manufacturer' information that is encoded is usually the name of the company that made the master. Since stampers made from that master will be sold to disc manufacturers the world over, all of discs that those manufacturers produce from those stampers will contain the same 'Manufacturer' information. Information which is obviously quite erroneous and irrelevant. Very seldom will the 'manufacturer' information encoded on a CD-R actually tell you anything other than who made the original master. [...]
The second piece of data (the dye type) is also dubious. Because most master/stamper configurations are designed to be matched to specific dye types (Phthalocyanine, Cyanine, Azo, Etc), the 'Dye' information that is encoded when the master is produced indicates the type of dye that the master was designed for. This of course, does not assure that the manufacturer that buys and uses this stamper will be using it with the dye that it has been designed for. It is quite possible that a stamper/dye combination is used by a CD-R manufacturer that contradicts the 'dye' information encoded on the master. Therefore that information becomes as potentially misleading as the 'Manufacturer' data discussed earlier."
The only reliable piece of information in the "ATIP" region is the disc length. See section (2-38) for further remarks."
I don't know how this would work on a Playstation 2 or a Gamecube, but I figure on the XBox (at least), you'd find people who would collaborate and actually create the real rosters for the teams, making them available for download. From there, you can transfer the data via a memory card.
But damn, that would really suck having to re-create the players. Then again, current baseball games are missing some players anyway. I feel for a San Francisco Giants fan who wants to play as Barry Bonds (who isn't in MLBPA licensed games because he isn't a member of the Players Association). Also, any player who became a substitute player at the beginning of 1995 isn't eligible for membership in the MLBPA, and thus aren't in the games either (or, in the case of Kevin Millar, not even mentioned on some World Series memorabilia).
I was never too thrilled with the Triple Play series... Too many bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of residential cable modem users get the same IP all the time, and we're on DHCP. In fact, my old Netgear router constantly failed to update Dynamic DNS because of this (it checked for a new IP address, but forgot to update the information every 30 days, so I got a nastygram from them).
As part of the DHCP protocol, a host is allowed to request a specific address (usually the one they had last session) before negotiating a new one. Many DHCP clients (including the one in Windows) do this, see section 3.2 of RFC2131.
I've had my IP address for month - I might as well have a static one.
-- Joe
I used to work in the DOCSIS cable modem industry, so I'm reasonably familiar with the Broadcom 335x/334x CPU family. The best I ever saw was the datasheet for the 3416 chip (tuner chip).
For those of you who aren't aware, or don't remember, Broadcom was slapped with a lawsuit by Microtune, alleging patent violations http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5064586.html, (one of many articles available on this subject).
So, I was tasked with providing software support for the 3416 tuner chip (the replacement for the 3415 "problem" chip) in our cable modem product, as the 3415 couldn't legally be sold in the U.S. anymore. Well, I figured it would be easy, since the datasheets for the two chips were exactly the same, except that "3415" was changed to "3416". (And, I mean exactly the same, to the word - it was only a 15 page datasheet, so I compared them).
Nope, good old Broadcom documentation does it again... I managed to study the source code for one of the newer cable modem CPUs and find the changes between the chips. The real stupid thing though: Even though there's a version register (which tells which version the chip is), they didn't update it to indicate a 3415/3416, even though they had the bits available. So, 3416 chips would show up as 3415 chips if you try to read the version number (that made things difficult).
Incidentally, Broadcom does make Linux drivers for most of it's newer hardware, they're just meant for their customers (the OEMs making the hardware, not the end-users). The general rule with Broadcom is, if you pay them a lot of money, you get excellent support. (At the previous company I worked for, I had an engineer that would get back to me within 24 hours on any issue related to the product, because we bought so many cable modem chips. When I currently work, they won't even give us the time of day, we just don't purchase enough.)
I feel your pain, I really do.
-- Joe
Since only some of the points need addressing, I'll address only those ones:
5 38219&tid=129&tid=98&tid=17 8 31222&tid=158&tid=129
2. A couple of different models, unfortunately, I don't know their model numbers. (These boxes are now over a year old, so it may not be a fair comparison). One was a box that I saw on Comcast digital cable (a Motorola one), and one was a Scientific Atlanta that I saw at a friend's house (on Rogers Digital Cable). The Comcast box was awful - slow channel changes (showing the pixellation until the MPEG-2 I-frame came in), slow button response, ugly fonts and all sorts of colors. The Scienfic Atlanta at least had a unified color scheme (but it was yellow, purple and grey), but the fonts were still pretty ugly looking.
I was impressed with the look and of a Motorola settop that was Windows based (WinCE? I don't remember) that I saw at SCTE last summer. It was a dual-tuner box.
5. A couple of Slashdot articles:
TiVo to Sell Your Fast-Forward Button
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1
Tivo Tracks Superbowl Viewing Habits
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/03/1
-- Joe
Some people like the simplicity and cheapness of a commerically available DVR. Some people prefer to build their own. I say, to each their own. Building a DVR isn't for everybody, and it can be quite expensive.
My reasons for building my own (using MythTV):
1. I can put in multiple tuners. Two tuner units came out six months ago at best, if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using two tuners for over a year now, and I now have three tuners in my machine (a PVR-250 and a PVR-500). This is very convenient when there's three shows on at the same time that I want to watch. (A typical Tuesday night at the moment has Law and Order: SVU, The Shield and Masterminds all on at the same time, 10PM). The scheduler in MythTV can accomodate that fairly well with only one or two tuners, mind you.
2. The user interface on a lot of the DVRs that come from the cable companies is awful. It's slow, full of ugly colors, and unstable
3. I use my MythTV machine as my file server as well. So, I was going to have the PC on 24/7 anyway.
4. MythTV plays back DVDs also, not many DVRs currently do that.
5. I have complete control over the unit. I can skip commercials at will. I don't have to worry about my DVR expiring shows on me (except when I run out of disk space). My demographics aren't sent to some company. My DVR doesn't pop up ads on me.
I picked MythTV because it met my needs. If a Windows program worked well for me, then I would have used that, just to make it simple.
-- Joe
Yes, MythTV can be a bit of a pain to setup, and yes, driver support for some cards is bad.
I know that I'm going to sound like a total ass for saying this, but... You need to do some research.
If you read the mythtv-users mailing list, you'll find that the PVR-250 seems to be the best supported card (unfortunately, unless you have one of the newer ones). PVR-150 support is iffy, but I have a PVR-500 and a PVR-250 (one of the first generation ones) working fine, with a driver that is listed as "testing" in ATrpms.
I have absolutely no problems setting up MythTV, in fact, it's basically copy/paste. Why?
1. I use supported hardware
2. I use ATrpms for the RPMS (on Fedora Core 3)
3. I follow Jarod Wilson's MythTV HOWTO at http://www.wilsonet.com/mythtv/, which the community contributes to in order to keep it up to date
4. I read the mythtv-users mailing list (and the -dev list, and ivtv and atrpms-devel as well, but most users don't need to do that).
-- Joe
The problem that the DOL used to face (I say used to, because the new programs will be fixing this to some degree) is that there are no set job descriptions.
That is to say, you as an employer could make up any reasonable (or somewhat ludicrous) job description to justify the low wage you'd be paying an employee. How do I know? Well, one of my previous employers made up a crappy job description, in order to put me at a salary on average, $20,000 less than the area I was living/working in (for the same type of work).
The interesting thing is a new program called PERM, which is for Green Cards. Under PERM, the number of valid job descriptions has been chopped to 1/10 what it used to be, and especially for Green Cards, they are extremely rigid. If they feel that a U.S. citizen can do your job, they will reject the application, even if you have already spent six years training an employee.
-- Joe
Not the best way to start off a post, but you are correct. It's Motorola and SA (Scientific Atlanta) playing the game.
However, at the same time, cable operators are afraid of CableCard. The advantage of freeing them up to use any frontend that they want also scares them. At least by forging a relationship with Motorola or SA, they can get their boxes branded and control the content. With CableCard, anybody can make a set-top box, with no branding, no advertising lock-in, and no guaranteed content protection.
What I would really love to see is a PCI card that accepts a CableCard, which can be used to decrypt the digital cable content. Not so that I can spread the shows around the Internet, but so that I can use the features of my MythTV machine. (Yes, the content has to be decrypted for MythTV to really make any use of it, otherwise the PCI card has to have video out. MythTV would still lose the OSD feature, and it would be harder to configure.)
Microsoft might be the closest ally on that, since they'll need a way to capture digital cable content for their Media Center platform (if they wish to continue that).
-- Joe
I know where you're coming from, but a better "kind of" analogy would be how the DOCSIS channel integrates with the regular analog cable TV feed on the line.
If you're using an eMTA (cable modem with a VoIP box in it), then in reality, although you have two distinct service flows, they both get combined into one IP traffic stream, which is then MPEG-2 encapsulated, encoded into RF signals, and sent on to the cable line (to coexist with the cable TV signal).
-- Joe
That would be the IP priority, which is part of the IP protocol. I have no doubt that Vonage is already using this.
So what would happen in that case is that the cable modem packets would still be first, but the Vonage packets would be second in line, then everything else.
It's been a while since I've looked at cable modem code, but I don't really recall any reason why the modem would strip anything out of the headers. The whole idea is that the modem can prioritize the packet order of packets going from/through the modem to the CMTS, but after they leave the CMTS, they're back to regular Ethernet switches/routers (of which, the ones within the MSOs network can be configured for "optimal" traffic). These routers would honor the IP priority bits.
-- Joe
The best way to think of it is really like a FIFO queue, or standing in line at the Post Office.
All packets that the ISP favors (their own VoIP packets) go first in line. All other packets have to fight for a spot in line. (Non-VoIP packets are treated the same as every other packet*).
Now, assuming that there's enough spots in the line for all of the packets, nothing is dropped. The ISPs VoIP packets go out first, giving them a slight advantage, but everything goes out. If there aren't enough spots, then some of the packets get dropped.
*In practice, this isn't quite true. There are also packet priorities built into the IP specification, and it is likely that VoIP packets are using these as well. Therefore, the line would really look like this:
1. ISP approved packets
2. Non-ISP approved packets with high priorities
3. Every other packet.
Once these packets leave the ISPs network, it's "catch as catch can" again, however, it is likely that the ISP voIP packets have IP priorities as high as, if not higher than the non-ISP VoIP packets, causing them to still have a slight edge.
-- Joe
The idea is that the ISPs are looking to delay the non-ISP VoIP packets within their own network. Once those packets make it out to the Internet, they're considered regular IP packets like everything else (unless they have a different protocol or frame type, which is highly unlikely).
But, delaying the packets just within their own network would provide enough of a delay to make the conversation break up, and provide a crappy experience.
Tagging IP packets is pretty limited. I don't have the TCP/IP Illustrated books with me right now (they're at work), but if I recall correctly, there's seven different priorities available for IP packets. I would imagine that these priorities are being used as the packets float around. But, remember, packets approved by the ISP would make it to the front of the queue, and the other VoIP packets, even if tagged to the highest priority, would fall behind the ISP packets, assuming both packets are tagged with the same priority.
-- Joe
Well, hell, anybody using TCP for voice communications gets what they deserve. I seriously hope that Cringely meant UDP.
TCP is a poor choice for VoIP, because of the reliability factor (believe it or not). With something as free-flowing as a phone conversation, you would rather lose a packet here or there than wait for retransmission delays caused by TCP.
-- Joe
The VoIP companies just cannot win such a game, at least not in the cable world.
A PacketCable compliant MTA (most of which will be built into the cable modems) will always have an advantage over a dedicated MTA box, like the devices Vonage gives their customers. This is because any traffic that is generated within the DOCSIS cable modem can be given any priority (the eMTA in the modem would receive highest priority), followed by anything coming in from the Ethernet ports.
Given that the cable operators just have to set two rules in the modem (voice highest priority, everything else best-effort), the Vonage box can't work around that, short of some stuff that's considered a federal crime (like tampering with the cable modem/cable network).
I can't speak in terms of DSL, because I've never worked for a DSL provider or hardware manufacturer. I have, however, worked for two cable modem manufacturers (one of them also a CMTS manufacturer) for a total of three years, and implemented software meeting DOCSIS requirements in that time.
-- Joe
Well, you've got the idea correct, but it has nothing to do with how DSL can run aside POTS. DSL can run along POTS because one uses the low frequencies, and the other uses the high frequencies. If you have DSL on your phone line, and don't have the filter, you'll likely hear a hissing, that's the DSL signal.
However, should you get a combination cable modem/MTA (the VoIP box) from you cable operator (i.e. Comcast), it works like this:
* The DOCSIS 1.1 specification calls for a nifty little feature called "service flows". Service flows have their own QoS, and can be triggered by a variety of criteria, including TCP/UDP port numbers, Ethernet frame type, etc.
* From there, the cable operators will provision two (or more) service flows for the cable modem. One would be for the voice, which would receive the highest priority possible (but with a lower bandwidth), and the other one(s) would be best-effort, with a higher bandwidth allowed.
Cable operators can also use this to throttle any arbitrary connection (i.e. P2P), and in fact, have done so in the past, I would imagine.
A "side effect" of this would be that Vonage boxes would considered as best-effort, simply because they don't get classified into the voice flow by the software of the modem. This is because they won't meet the characteristics of the voice flow.
-- Joe
Sure it will. But, then the ISPs will either:
1. Figure out the signatures of the games and not muck with them, or (more likely),
2. Say that if you want online gaming, you need to pay extra for the reliability.
I've seen this coming ever since I first heard about combination cable modem/MTA devices. People who have one of those will end up with far superior VoIP than those using Vonage boxes, not really due to any tampering with packets, but just in how the DOCSIS 1.1 architecture was designed.
-- Joe
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
We do "asshole" things like this, because other people are being "assholes" to us by demanding that we show them our receipts and subject ourselves to unreasonable searches. And quite frankly, I've already waited in line long enough to pay for my merchandise, I don't want to wait in another line for somebody else to verify that the cashier did their job correctly. You'll note that they don't actually check to see if you're trying to sneak something out, they just check to make sure that the number of items in your bag matches what's on the receipt - in other words, they don't trust the people at the register to do their job, and with good reason.
Supposedly the employees will have their friends come in and buy big-ticket items, and the employees will either "forget" to scan the item, or ring up the wrong price. Or perhaps the person running the cash register is just incompetant, or a new trainee (turnover at those kind of stores does tend to be high).
Either way, if you can't trust your employees, and you can't adequately protect your store without searching me when I leave, then that's your problem, and not mine. (And I would argue that Fry's could do a lot to help out by actually treating their employees with respect, training them, and paying them better).
If I'm walking out with merchandise that I didn't pay for, then they should have either:
1. Caught it at the register (in other words, the employee should have rung everything up correctly)
2. Have employees or cameras watching people to catch shoplifters in action, rather than harrassing everybody.
-- Joe
Just as a comment for those who may not be familiar with how cable services and QoS work, and how it affects Vonage...
Vonage is limited to using standard IP QoS, since it is just a regular IP device. However, an MTA built into a cable modem has full access to the cable modem QoS code. Part of the DOCSIS specification states that a DOCSIS 1.1 cable modem must support multiple "service flows", which are basically different queues. Each of these queues has it's own classification parameters (i.e. drop packets, forward packets, QoS, etc.), so it is only natural that a cable operator would give voice calls through their MTAs a higher QoS.
Where Vonage calls might get screwed is because the packets that are being sent through the cable modem by the Vonage MTA would be considered as data, and would go out through the data flow. If the cable operator so chose, they could configure the voice flow to work with the Vonage MTA, but whether or not they'd do that is another story.
-- Joe
Even if you don't use linux, just make sure you ask about linux support for everything you buy, and make concerned noises when there isn't support.
I'll admit that I'm a pessimistic and cynical person... Most places where you buy computer parts, they don't even know what the heck they're selling you, never mind whether or not it will work with Linux. Unless you encounter somebody knowledgeable, you'll get the wrong answer either way.
Going for the one with Linux support also often means getting a product that is at least one year old - obsolete in the minds of many people. (And, depending on the application of said part, it may really be obsolete.)
If enough people do this, the manufacturers should start improving linux support.
As long as Windows has approximately 90% of the OS market, the hardware manufacturers don't care. They bring in enough money on 9/10 people, they don't necessarily need 10/10. Otherwise they'd already be catering to the 1/10 that's already present (with the exception of nVidia, I'm not seeing many companies that take Linux seriously).
-- Joe
It's not a vicious cycle, it's pretty simple really - don't buy ATI and don't buy Creative. There are alternatives.
I used to say the exact same thing... Now I just say to heck with it and use Windows anyway (except at work where I do Linux development, and my tools will only run under Linux). Windows gives me a PC that works out of the box, and with 2000/XP, it works very well. I would use Windows at work if I could actually rebuild the cross-compilers and be 100% sure that I'd get the same binary code (for anybody who has done work with MIPS processors, they know that gcc for MIPS has quirks and is often difficult to build).
The alternatives to ATI:
nVidia - At least they have drivers, but they're binary-only, and Linux users are still treated as second-class citizens. Read the MythTV mailing lists and see how many (legitimate) gripes there are with nVidia breaking things in the Linux driver.
S3/VIA - Was at one point binary-only, Unichrome has been mostly reverse-engineered. Still buggy as hell though.
The alternatives to Creative:
VIA - There's a driver, haven't used it because I don't have a card
CMedia - Driver works, but the sound isn't great
Realtek - Driver sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Latest ALSA is a pain to configure for two boards that I have with Realtek sound chips (intel8x0 driver)
Note that I'm not listing cards any older than about two years old. While you could certainly go with an older card and be relatively supported (if you can still find the cards on the market), you can't get the latest and greatest. That really sucks in my opinion.
I love the philosophy behind Linux and free software, but I think that the implementation really sucks. I know, I know, shut up and contribute already. Sorry, I don't have time, by the time I get home from work everyday, I'm too tired to write software - I've already been doing it for 9-10 hours already.
All I want is something that works, that I don't have to mess around with. I get that with Windows, simply put.
-- Joe
The parent poster was referring to activation, not downloading updates. You can activate Windows XP over the phone. It's a bit of a hassle, but I've done it.
I had an installation of XP Pro on my desktop machine. The hard drive died on it, and I had recently replaced the motherboard (and I was using the onboard NIC and sound card). Thus, when I went to activate Windows XP via the Internet, it refused (too many components were different - apparently the MAC address of your NIC carries a lot of weight for the activation code).
I called Microsoft at the provided number, had to read off (IIRC) nine sets of five characters (so, 45 letters/numbers in total), and after asking me some questions (like why I had to activate over the phone), I was given a sequence of 45 characters (same length as what I gave to them). Keyed it all in, and XP was activated.
But damn, it's a pain in the butt.
-- Joe
If there where no open drivers for things like video TIVO may never have happened (or they would have used windows) because they couldn't get a licencing deal with nvidia. Even if they could licence the software they probably would have to go x86 which may not be the best route for all appliances that need good video.
Uhh, no. Tivo would most certainly have used whatever video chip they wanted, open source drivers or not.
I'm a developer of embedded devices (having worked on over a half-dozen different chips), and have been through this first-hand. The companies that I have worked for would make an agreement to buy X units, enter a licensing agreement, sign an NDA, and then get full datasheets, reference boards, and sometimes even full schematics. The reference boards also usually come with full source code. So, pretty much any company that rebrands ATi or nVidia designs has full source code to the driver (so that they can make necessary changes to accomodate their board design).
It's actually fairly important that source code come with the reference design when you get it, since most embedded designs do not use x86 processors (they're too power hungry and run too hot).
-- Joe
I actually liken it more to (and I suspect the point the person was trying to make was): If they don't bother to lock their car, then they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals it. Just like, if they don't bother to lock their network, they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals their bandwidth. Nothing about legality there, although in the same sentence...
However, I do disagree with the poster when he states:
but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime
Legally, theft of a motor vehicle (seeing as it's property) is a crime. Theft of cable services (for cable internet) is a federal crime, although I suspect that only the cable companies would get away with charing somebody - Joe Somebody likely couldn't. Even if Joe Somebody couldn't charge them criminally, certainly, there still is a theft of services going on here.
I think that criminal prosecution in such a case would be very difficult, given that many broadband plans are mostly, "all you can eat" (with the exception of caps on some providers). However, in the case that somebody's network is compromised because they didn't lock it down, I'm all for favor of trying to recoup the losses (if measurable) through civil action. But, like in the case of your car getting stolen, if the insurance company finds that you left the doors unlocked, well, they start taking away from the claim that they'd give you. This should be no different.
-- Joe
I have to wonder how true the results of Alcohol 120 really are though. (Note that I've not used it, so I can't really say).
From the CD-Recordable FAQ:
"Two components that many users of these programs always take as gospel are Media Manufacturer and Dye Data. These two readings are next to worthless.
The reason for this is that many CD-R manufacturers (like CD- Recordable.com) purchase their stampers (the nickel die that all CD-R substrates are molded from) from 3rd party sources. These 3rd party sources (either other disc manufacturers, or mastering houses) encode the data that these 'Identification' programs read, at the time that the original glass master is encoded. The 'Manufacturer' information that is encoded is usually the name of the company that made the master. Since stampers made from that master will be sold to disc manufacturers the world over, all of discs that those manufacturers produce from those stampers will contain the same 'Manufacturer' information. Information which is obviously quite erroneous and irrelevant. Very seldom will the 'manufacturer' information encoded on a CD-R actually tell you anything other than who made the original master. [...]
The second piece of data (the dye type) is also dubious. Because most master/stamper configurations are designed to be matched to specific dye types (Phthalocyanine, Cyanine, Azo, Etc), the 'Dye' information that is encoded when the master is produced indicates the type of dye that the master was designed for. This of course, does not assure that the manufacturer that buys and uses this stamper will be using it with the dye that it has been designed for. It is quite possible that a stamper/dye combination is used by a CD-R manufacturer that contradicts the 'dye' information encoded on the master. Therefore that information becomes as potentially misleading as the 'Manufacturer' data discussed earlier."
The only reliable piece of information in the "ATIP" region is the disc length. See section (2-38) for further remarks."
-- Joe
I don't know how this would work on a Playstation 2 or a Gamecube, but I figure on the XBox (at least), you'd find people who would collaborate and actually create the real rosters for the teams, making them available for download. From there, you can transfer the data via a memory card.
But damn, that would really suck having to re-create the players. Then again, current baseball games are missing some players anyway. I feel for a San Francisco Giants fan who wants to play as Barry Bonds (who isn't in MLBPA licensed games because he isn't a member of the Players Association). Also, any player who became a substitute player at the beginning of 1995 isn't eligible for membership in the MLBPA, and thus aren't in the games either (or, in the case of Kevin Millar, not even mentioned on some World Series memorabilia).
I was never too thrilled with the Triple Play series... Too many bugs.
-- Joe
Perhaps you meant to be funny (I see the Score 2: Funny), but I'm kind of annoyed with this practice as well.
Given Microsoft's previous history, adding new features just seems to open up new holes which have to be patched.
Just give me the bug fixes, thank you very much. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
-- Joe