I don't know about you, but working from 9/100 to 5/100, and then having 0.04 of a day (57.6 minutes) to rest before I have to go back to work again doesn't sound like a "breeze" to me.
Actually, it sounds a lot like my current schedule... oh, wait....
In fact, my experience has been that to keep a windows box up and secure, you need one extremely competent (ie, $150k/year with overhead) admin per one to two machines; with Unix you can usually get 50 to 100 machines per admin if they're fairly homogenous.
You're absolutely correct, "A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator." Nor can they afford to hire a full time NT administrator. The difference is that the Unix machine has some small chance in hell of staying (a) up and (b) secure with intermittent contract maintenance, and the NT system has none.
There are more posts here than I can count (at +5, no less) ranting on about how since there have been bugs in open source software (including recent severe ones like BIND), Microsoft is no worse than the rest.
Bullshit.
The current vulerability is (stay with me, now) a remote root exploit in a component that can not be removed and thus is installed on every machine in the world that's running a vulnerable OS and that can't be disabled without rendering the machine worthless.
When was the last time anybody but Microsoft had a bug that fit those three categories? Personally, I can't think of one.
Does this mean open source software doesn't suck? Nope. Does it mean it doesn't have security problems? Nope. Does it mean Microsoft screwed the pooch? Yep.
Hell, my main server at home still runs 2.0.36 and probably always will. My servers at work run the latest 2.2.
I've had nothing but bad luck with 2.4 from a performance and stability standpoint and pretty much the only thing it gains is USB support. Guess what? I don't use USB on servers. Nor will I ever.
Before you even think about filing a patent for any reason, read Don Lancaster's The Case Against Patents. He makes a compelling and sound argument that it's a tremendous waste of your time and money to do so.
Running 1/2" EMT conduit is pretty easy, and gives you absolute future-proofing. You'll probably own your home for 20 or 30 years. Would you have predicted the need for cat5e in 1971, let alone been able to get it?
Same issue; I just upgraded the AP to firmware 1.37.9a and it works fine.
Available from http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark%2c910510%3b root=equip%2c16%3bmode=flat#975379
This is an unofficial alpha firmware -- if it breaks your AP I would assume you own both pieces.
Like many people, I heard about Ricochet years ago, and fell in love. Unlimited, fast (28.8kbps was fast in 1995!), wireless network access. And hardware that used standard RS232 interfaces! And open documentation, even for their packet-like "Starmode"!
So, when I moved to Seattle in 1997, almost the first thing I did was sign up for their service. At only $30 a month, plus $15 a month to rent the then-$300 modem, it was a great deal. Since their new, second-generation 128kbps service was due out any day now (at the time, in December of 97, I believe they were claiming 2q98), I opted to rent the modem so I could upgrade.
Well, over two years and a thousand dollars later, they still don't have 128kbps service in Seattle. Now, many would find this kind of schedule slip, without any communication to those of us who were early adopters and put them in the black in the first place, reason enough to avoid the company. But not me. I went out of my way to extoll the virtues of their network and service. I brought them over a dozen customers in two years. I wore a Ricochet T-shirt. I created and gave out "What is Ricochet?" business cards before they'd even invented their "Ambassador program". And it's true - their first-generation, 28.8kbps network is a technological marvel. And up until mid-1999, they were a great company.
Then, they elected to stop selling services to customers. Period, full stop. To, in the words of Brad Saunders (you'll hear a lot more about him in a moment) "maximize shareholder value." How refusing to sell your only product maximizes shareholder value I'm not quite sure, but goodness knows the shareholders seem to be snowed. They claimed at the time they would continue to support their current customers. They still do, albeit not very well. But they've just announced that they are terminating all services by 3q01. And their solution for us selfsame loyal customers? They assure us that WWC will take over support and service for existing 28.8kbps subscribers. Will they migrate us over seamlessly without interruption of service? Of course not. They won't even migrate us at all; they'll simply *permit* us to contact WWC on our dime and establish an account with them before they terminate us. Changing our email addresses in the process, of course. But not to worry, they'll offer us (only on request!) a 90-day extension of our email service. Some help that is. Good thing I never used my Ricochet address, knowing better than to trust my mail to *any* ISP that's not myself.
This, you say, is surely enough reason to bid high on Ricochet on fuckedcompany.com. But wait, there's more. Back in November of 2000, I called Ricochet tech support. And, wonder of wonders, got someone with a clue. And so I asked him, will the new 128kbps modems work in peer-to-peer mode with the current modems? And lo and behold, he not only could spell 'peer-to-peer', but did it himself, and assured me that they would. "Can I buy a new 128kbps modem and use it on my 28.8kbps service? I'm in Seattle, and they don't have 128kbps service here." His response: "Absolutely! I'm doing exactly that myself, they don't have high speed service here either." Great! So off I trundle to purchase a new GS modem from a third party. I can hear you ask: "What's wrong with that? Not only do they have decent techs but they gave all the right answers!".
So today I received my shiny new GS modem. I plug it in, and try to install its software on my laptop. The installer loops. After some troubleshooting, I find a helpful text file on their CD:
Known Bug
This software contains a bug. This bug occurs when you try to
install the Ricochet software on Windows 98, First Edition. The
installation software is not able to install the USB modem.
Solution
1. Install Windows 98, Second Edition.
2. Install the Ricochet software.
Additional Info
To determine which version of Windows 98 you have, right click on
My Computer. Select Properties, and the System Properties
window displays the Windows Edition.
Some "solution", eh? I don't know about you, but when I buy a piece of hardware that's advertised as, and I quote from wwc.com: "Compatible with [...] Win98/2000/ME/CE & PocketPC (USB and serial)," and I get a "solution" of "give lots of money to Microsoft for an even less stable OS than you currently have" I'm less than thrilled.
But wait, it gets even better. I call up Ricochet's formerly-ever-so-helpful technical support. I explain that I have bought a new modem and wish to change my account over to the new modem. After waiting on hold for over ten minutes, of course. The tech rep has no clue what I'm talking about and after waiting on hold another five minutes, I get someone in customer service, a gentleman named "Junior", who informs me that they don't offer 128kbps service.
"Yes, I know. I don't want 128kbps service, and you don't OFFER 128kbps service here. I simply want to change my current service to a new modem."
"We can't do that."
"I was told that you could by your technical support department."
"We can't do that."
"Your advertising says the modem is backwards-compatible to your current network."
"It is."
"Then change my account."
"We can't do that."
After a few iterations of this, I give up and ask for his manager. That would be:
Brad Saunders
Direct line: +1 408 282 3309
Email: brads@metricom.com
After going through the same iteration with Brad as I have with Junior, it develops that Ricochet has programmed the new modems to refuse to connect to the original WAP (Wired Access Point) and IP bridge ("dialstring 777"). Further he says that their billing system can't handle it. Funny, it seems to be billing me just fine right now. Only the dial strings for their new resellers are recognized. The hardware is perfectly compatible, and I'm welcome to contact one of the new resellers, who will in turn be happy to sell me 28.8kbps service, at the 128kbps price (about twice as much as I'm paying now). Other than that he can't help. When I explained to him what the tech had told me previously, he told me that the techs would be using the Metricom internal dial string, which works fine with any modem on any network. But, of course, he can't give me that.
Oh, and when asked when the 128kbps network would be available in Seattle, he said, and I quote: "It's right around the corner." When I pointed out that it had been right around the corner for three years now, he said, and I quote: "I'm aware of that."
So, the end result is that Ricochet has $1k+ of my money and I have a worthless lump of plastic, purely and singly because they have decided they don't give a damn about their early adopters or current customers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a way to maximize shareholder value to me.
My recommendation:
1. Don't, under any circumstances, buy Ricochet service. Find a new vendor. Or wait for the 3G cell networks in six months to a year; at least with the Bell name on it you can plan on being screwed ahead of time.
2. Call Ricochet and tell them why you aren't buying Ricochet service. While you're at it, tell them why you're recommending your company not buy Ricochet service.
3. If you're a current Ricochet subscriber, don't upgrade. Find a new vendor. Or wait for 3G.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but working from 9/100 to 5/100, and then having 0.04 of a day (57.6 minutes) to rest before I have to go back to work again doesn't sound like a "breeze" to me.
Actually, it sounds a lot like my current schedule... oh, wait....
Don't forget "less" people who understand the difference between "less" and "fewer", you moron.
> but then again, how often do you really really use those binaries anyway???
/bin/ls! Surely no one could ever care about its performance!
You're right. I never use
I said $150k COST WITH OVERHEAD -- ie, a salary in the $60k range, which is high but not unreasonable.
Mmm, heroin.
In fact, my experience has been that to keep a windows box up and secure, you need one extremely competent (ie, $150k/year with overhead) admin per one to two machines; with Unix you can usually get 50 to 100 machines per admin if they're fairly homogenous.
You're absolutely correct, "A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator." Nor can they afford to hire a full time NT administrator. The difference is that the Unix machine has some small chance in hell of staying (a) up and (b) secure with intermittent contract maintenance, and the NT system has none.
There are more posts here than I can count (at +5, no less) ranting on about how since there have been bugs in open source software (including recent severe ones like BIND), Microsoft is no worse than the rest. Bullshit. The current vulerability is (stay with me, now) a remote root exploit in a component that can not be removed and thus is installed on every machine in the world that's running a vulnerable OS and that can't be disabled without rendering the machine worthless. When was the last time anybody but Microsoft had a bug that fit those three categories? Personally, I can't think of one. Does this mean open source software doesn't suck? Nope. Does it mean it doesn't have security problems? Nope. Does it mean Microsoft screwed the pooch? Yep.
Hell, my main server at home still runs 2.0.36 and probably always will. My servers at work run the latest 2.2.
I've had nothing but bad luck with 2.4 from a performance and stability standpoint and pretty much the only thing it gains is USB support. Guess what? I don't use USB on servers. Nor will I ever.
Before you even think about filing a patent for any reason, read Don Lancaster's The Case Against Patents. He makes a compelling and sound argument that it's a tremendous waste of your time and money to do so.
You are encouraged to read http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/saturn_v_bluep rints.html before you continue spewing such pointless and incorrect "information".
Running 1/2" EMT conduit is pretty easy, and gives you absolute future-proofing. You'll probably own your home for 20 or 30 years. Would you have predicted the need for cat5e in 1971, let alone been able to get it?
y'know, when I looked, this is the definition I got (at this url):
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0005'
Invalid procedure call or argument
/shared/spot/xmlsearchcore.inc, line 572
Sums it up pretty well, don't you think?
Same issue; I just upgraded the AP to firmware 1.37.9a and it works fine. Available from http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark%2c910510%3b root=equip%2c16%3bmode=flat#975379
This is an unofficial alpha firmware -- if it breaks your AP I would assume you own both pieces.
So, when I moved to Seattle in 1997, almost the first thing I did was sign up for their service. At only $30 a month, plus $15 a month to rent the then-$300 modem, it was a great deal. Since their new, second-generation 128kbps service was due out any day now (at the time, in December of 97, I believe they were claiming 2q98), I opted to rent the modem so I could upgrade.
Well, over two years and a thousand dollars later, they still don't have 128kbps service in Seattle. Now, many would find this kind of schedule slip, without any communication to those of us who were early adopters and put them in the black in the first place, reason enough to avoid the company. But not me. I went out of my way to extoll the virtues of their network and service. I brought them over a dozen customers in two years. I wore a Ricochet T-shirt. I created and gave out "What is Ricochet?" business cards before they'd even invented their "Ambassador program". And it's true - their first-generation, 28.8kbps network is a technological marvel. And up until mid-1999, they were a great company.
Then, they elected to stop selling services to customers. Period, full stop. To, in the words of Brad Saunders (you'll hear a lot more about him in a moment) "maximize shareholder value." How refusing to sell your only product maximizes shareholder value I'm not quite sure, but goodness knows the shareholders seem to be snowed. They claimed at the time they would continue to support their current customers. They still do, albeit not very well. But they've just announced that they are terminating all services by 3q01. And their solution for us selfsame loyal customers? They assure us that WWC will take over support and service for existing 28.8kbps subscribers. Will they migrate us over seamlessly without interruption of service? Of course not. They won't even migrate us at all; they'll simply *permit* us to contact WWC on our dime and establish an account with them before they terminate us. Changing our email addresses in the process, of course. But not to worry, they'll offer us (only on request!) a 90-day extension of our email service. Some help that is. Good thing I never used my Ricochet address, knowing better than to trust my mail to *any* ISP that's not myself.
This, you say, is surely enough reason to bid high on Ricochet on fuckedcompany.com. But wait, there's more. Back in November of 2000, I called Ricochet tech support. And, wonder of wonders, got someone with a clue. And so I asked him, will the new 128kbps modems work in peer-to-peer mode with the current modems? And lo and behold, he not only could spell 'peer-to-peer', but did it himself, and assured me that they would. "Can I buy a new 128kbps modem and use it on my 28.8kbps service? I'm in Seattle, and they don't have 128kbps service here." His response: "Absolutely! I'm doing exactly that myself, they don't have high speed service here either." Great! So off I trundle to purchase a new GS modem from a third party. I can hear you ask: "What's wrong with that? Not only do they have decent techs but they gave all the right answers!".
So today I received my shiny new GS modem. I plug it in, and try to install its software on my laptop. The installer loops. After some troubleshooting, I find a helpful text file on their CD:
Known Bug This software contains a bug. This bug occurs when you try to install the Ricochet software on Windows 98, First Edition. The installation software is not able to install the USB modem. Solution 1. Install Windows 98, Second Edition. 2. Install the Ricochet software. Additional Info To determine which version of Windows 98 you have, right click on My Computer. Select Properties, and the System Properties window displays the Windows Edition.
Some "solution", eh? I don't know about you, but when I buy a piece of hardware that's advertised as, and I quote from wwc.com: "Compatible with [...] Win98/2000/ME/CE & PocketPC (USB and serial)," and I get a "solution" of "give lots of money to Microsoft for an even less stable OS than you currently have" I'm less than thrilled.
But wait, it gets even better. I call up Ricochet's formerly-ever-so-helpful technical support. I explain that I have bought a new modem and wish to change my account over to the new modem. After waiting on hold for over ten minutes, of course. The tech rep has no clue what I'm talking about and after waiting on hold another five minutes, I get someone in customer service, a gentleman named "Junior", who informs me that they don't offer 128kbps service.
"Yes, I know. I don't want 128kbps service, and you don't OFFER 128kbps service here. I simply want to change my current service to a new modem." "We can't do that." "I was told that you could by your technical support department." "We can't do that." "Your advertising says the modem is backwards-compatible to your current network." "It is." "Then change my account." "We can't do that."
After a few iterations of this, I give up and ask for his manager. That would be:
Brad Saunders Direct line: +1 408 282 3309 Email: brads@metricom.com
After going through the same iteration with Brad as I have with Junior, it develops that Ricochet has programmed the new modems to refuse to connect to the original WAP (Wired Access Point) and IP bridge ("dialstring 777"). Further he says that their billing system can't handle it. Funny, it seems to be billing me just fine right now. Only the dial strings for their new resellers are recognized. The hardware is perfectly compatible, and I'm welcome to contact one of the new resellers, who will in turn be happy to sell me 28.8kbps service, at the 128kbps price (about twice as much as I'm paying now). Other than that he can't help. When I explained to him what the tech had told me previously, he told me that the techs would be using the Metricom internal dial string, which works fine with any modem on any network. But, of course, he can't give me that.
Oh, and when asked when the 128kbps network would be available in Seattle, he said, and I quote: "It's right around the corner." When I pointed out that it had been right around the corner for three years now, he said, and I quote: "I'm aware of that."
So, the end result is that Ricochet has $1k+ of my money and I have a worthless lump of plastic, purely and singly because they have decided they don't give a damn about their early adopters or current customers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a way to maximize shareholder value to me.
My recommendation:
1. Don't, under any circumstances, buy Ricochet service. Find a new vendor. Or wait for the 3G cell networks in six months to a year; at least with the Bell name on it you can plan on being screwed ahead of time.
2. Call Ricochet and tell them why you aren't buying Ricochet service. While you're at it, tell them why you're recommending your company not buy Ricochet service.
3. If you're a current Ricochet subscriber, don't upgrade. Find a new vendor. Or wait for 3G.