Geekness/coolness/gadgetness certainly, but Zaurus applications are a misunderstanding. It is not a good PDA. EPOC/Symbian applications are much more elegantly designed.
It is not enough to have a good OS, it's about the applications...
When I reverse-parked (as in back-to-the-wall) in a motel in USA, the clerk (or whatever that person is called) eyed me suspiciously. He later explained that only people who do it are the ones who need to get out of the place REAL FAST.... (and Europeans).
Reverse-parking is useful, but the luxury of having biiiig parking spaces isa good thing as well:-)
For example, you can already get 10Gbps SONET and Ethernet interfaces, but I'm not aware of any 10Gbps ATM interfaces. They may exist, but they are "late to market", and very expensive, when compared to alternative 10Gbps techologies.
There is at least one existing commercially available ATM switch with 10Gbit/s (STM-64c) native ATM interface that I'm aware of: Cisco's MGX 8950 and it's AXSM-1-9953-XG module: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/sw itches/ps 1938/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008 017a4e1.html#1529475
Pricewise an ATM port has always been (and most likely always will be) more expensive than Ethernet port of comparable speed, but you will get price comparable to an POS port. Also "pricing rule" shouldn't be different: STM-64 price should be similar to 3xSTM-16 (remember: it's 4x the speed).
This is a "transit" ATM port (switching), not "endpoint" (terminating). Transit ports "only" switch ATM cells, but still it's very difficult to build them (Cisco claims to be the first company to have STM-64 ATM). End device ports have to perform segmentation and reassembly of packets - waaay more power is needed for that and it's true that such ports don't come in STM-64 size.
Still, don't dismiss the existing module - as a backbone link it IS useful.
Finally, a note to those who think ATM is successful just because it is being used. You really need to consider and compare the original goals of the technology verses how it is commonly been used. As ATM typically isn't used at all for what it was designed for, then it is a design failure, and an over engineered one at that.
Very well said.
NB: a lot of/. discussion seems american-oriented (cheap bandwidth), it doesn't notice a different rationale in european countries.
I am always surprised anew by wild assumptions made not only by posters but "editors".
Short search on the Web reveals a much more informative article: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/prod_1118 03d.html
1) it is NOT at all about traffic shaping or examining packets or running AV software on routers. Do not assume, you only make an ASS of U and ME.
2) routers will be able to contact with enduser PC running Cisco Trust Agent. This piece of software checks against presence of AV, firewall or simply OS patchlevel:
"A key component of the Cisco Network Admission Control program is innovative software developed by Cisco called the Cisco Trust Agent which resides on an endpoint system and communicates with the Cisco network. The Cisco Trust Agent collects security state information from multiple security software clients, such as anti-virus clients, and communicates this information to the connected Cisco network where access control decisions are made and enforced. Cisco has licensed its Cisco Trust Agent technology to Network Associates, Symantec and Trend Micro so it can be integrated with their security software client products."
3) that ability is an OPTION that can be turned on and off by network administrator (who already decides what we can do in the network).
4) it has been anounced for mid-2004, initially supporting only Windows.
5) why don't we complain about "your rights" when it comes to filters and other traffic blocking methods that have been available for a long time in most router packages, including cheerished Linux?;)
6) speculative comments "it will certainly be insecure" are better saved till the implementation is here to be tested and analysed.
It certainly will be (when/if it works) an interesting and promising feature for companies where IT personel had (and still has) to live through nightmares of virus outbreaks. Unfortunately it seems that people writing here are in majority some trigger-happy geeks who think only about their huge self-made home-grown two-box networks;)
Yes, the announcement is about selling (we live in a superextracommercial world after all), but nevertheless it is interesting and useful from the technical point of view.
The whole entire complete US space programme was based on German technology
Not quite true. US acquired the rocket technology, but not capsules. Please read a book by Chris Kraft "Flight", it explains why Mercury was NOT a German program and why Werner von Braun was not that interested in designing the capsule.
Mind you, rules about how much power certain appliances / transmitters can put out with or without a permit vary across the globe, and I'm not sure whether 500mW is legal for private unlicensed use in Poland or not.
I don't think so. Legal limit for unlicensed 2.4GHz is 20dB EIRP. As they've used 27dBi antenna, it's already way out of the spec, not to mention 500mW amp (another 27dBm).
> IP6 has been preferred for a while between
> switching centres because of the QoS support.
Ahem... this is not exactly true. Contrary to popular belief IPv6 does _not_ offer any particularly better QoS features. You can achieve practically the same results using IPv4.
Transmitting voice over IPv6 is also not very efficient - headers are quite long compared to v4.
Large operators usually run voice either over IPv4 or directly over ATM.
Remember that WEP is weak mainly because the same key is used for many, many packets, enabling statistical analysis and key recovery.
There are extensions (like Cisco's TKIP) that change/modify the key dynamically, eliminating that vulnerability. In that case you would not have enough packets for analysis. It is possible to make a (much more) secure wireless network.
> Secondly, there is no support for "handing-off" > between base stations.
Not quite true.
802.11f (Inter Access Point Protocol) defines an interoperable solution for that, some manufacturers already provide roaming capabilities in their equipment. I actuall roam almost every day (walking in the office) without problems. Heck, even Ethereal can decode IAPP;)
As for handing over between various providers, there is something called Mobile IP that allows the user to be seen under the same IP, no matter if he crosses multiple bridge domains, different access technologies or even providers. Mobile IP has been there for a while, it's just not popular.
Solution described in the article (did anyone read it?) describes common WLAN/GSM user _authentication_ (based on using SIM card). That is the most important part of the solution.
But remember before them the Poles [...] had surrendered.
False. Poland has NOT surrendered during WWII.
Re:Dearth of technical accuracy
on
WinDSL Coming?
·
· Score: 1
CAP - Carrierless Amplitude/Phase Modulation I guess this is not about modulation at all ? And it has nothing to do with QAM ?;) You are right that CAP and maybe rather DMT (Discrete Multitone Modulation) are more of line codes rather than modulations, but still - CAP does convert digital data to analog frequencies, even if it is done via digital processing;) And then again - what about "digital modems" ? Those used in V.90 access servers, providing codec to convert analog signal in digital form back to pure digital ? Technology is digital to digital, but the function itself is demodulating... Just my 0.03 Euro =)
It is little known that in reality (you know, as opposed to books about heroic efforts of british folks) Enigma was solved by polish scientists (notably Marian Rejewski) in years 1928-1939.
All data and a reconstruted working model of Enigma was submitted by polish intelligence to the british and french intelligence, after it become impossible to continue work in occupied Poland.
All misinformation you can read nowadays is partially result of a cold war, lack of appreciation, and probably imperial "superiority" of Brits and other allies who prefered to claim the glory for themselves.
In Great Britain methods created by Poles were enhanced and deployed on larger scale, but please don't ignore that this is not entirely british effort !
Slashdot Mirror
It is not enough to have a good OS, it's about the applications...
When I reverse-parked (as in back-to-the-wall) in a motel in USA, the clerk (or whatever that person is called) eyed me suspiciously. He later explained that only people who do it are the ones who need to get out of the place REAL FAST.... (and Europeans).
:-)
Reverse-parking is useful, but the luxury of having biiiig parking spaces isa good thing as well
For example, you can already get 10Gbps SONET and Ethernet interfaces, but I'm not aware of any 10Gbps ATM interfaces. They may exist, but they are "late to market", and very expensive, when compared to alternative 10Gbps techologies.
There is at least one existing commercially available ATM switch with 10Gbit/s (STM-64c) native ATM interface that I'm aware of: Cisco's MGX 8950 and it's AXSM-1-9953-XG module:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/s
Pricewise an ATM port has always been (and most likely always will be) more expensive than Ethernet port of comparable speed, but you will get price comparable to an POS port. Also "pricing rule" shouldn't be different: STM-64 price should be similar to 3xSTM-16 (remember: it's 4x the speed).
This is a "transit" ATM port (switching), not "endpoint" (terminating). Transit ports "only" switch ATM cells, but still it's very difficult to build them (Cisco claims to be the first company to have STM-64 ATM). End device ports have to perform segmentation and reassembly of packets - waaay more power is needed for that and it's true that such ports don't come in STM-64 size.
Still, don't dismiss the existing module - as a backbone link it IS useful.
Finally, a note to those who think ATM is successful just because it is being used. You really need to consider and compare the original goals of the technology verses how it is commonly been used. As ATM typically isn't used at all for what it was designed for, then it is a design failure, and an over engineered one at that.
Very well said.
NB: a lot of
I am always surprised anew by wild assumptions made not only by posters but "editors".
8 03d.html
;)
;)
Short search on the Web reveals a much more informative article:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/prod_111
1) it is NOT at all about traffic shaping or examining packets or running AV software on routers. Do not assume, you only make an ASS of U and ME.
2) routers will be able to contact with enduser PC running Cisco Trust Agent. This piece of software checks against presence of AV, firewall or simply OS patchlevel:
"A key component of the Cisco Network Admission Control program is innovative software developed by Cisco called the Cisco Trust Agent which resides on an endpoint system and communicates with the Cisco network. The Cisco Trust Agent collects security state information from multiple security software clients, such as anti-virus clients, and communicates this information to the connected Cisco network where access control decisions are made and enforced. Cisco has licensed its Cisco Trust Agent technology to Network Associates, Symantec and Trend Micro so it can be integrated with their security software client products."
3) that ability is an OPTION that can be turned on and off by network administrator (who already decides what we can do in the network).
4) it has been anounced for mid-2004, initially supporting only Windows.
5) why don't we complain about "your rights" when it comes to filters and other traffic blocking methods that have been available for a long time in most router packages, including cheerished Linux?
6) speculative comments "it will certainly be insecure" are better saved till the implementation is here to be tested and analysed.
It certainly will be (when/if it works) an interesting and promising feature for companies where IT personel had (and still has) to live through nightmares of virus outbreaks. Unfortunately it seems that people writing here are in majority some trigger-happy geeks who think only about their huge self-made home-grown two-box networks
Yes, the announcement is about selling (we live in a superextracommercial world after all), but nevertheless it is interesting and useful from the technical point of view.
Not quite true. US acquired the rocket technology, but not capsules. Please read a book by Chris Kraft "Flight", it explains why Mercury was NOT a German program and why Werner von Braun was not that interested in designing the capsule.
> IP6 has been preferred for a while between
> switching centres because of the QoS support.
Ahem... this is not exactly true. Contrary to popular belief IPv6 does _not_ offer any particularly better QoS features. You can achieve practically the same results using IPv4.
Transmitting voice over IPv6 is also not very efficient - headers are quite long compared to v4.
Large operators usually run voice either over IPv4 or directly over ATM.
Remember that WEP is weak mainly because the same key is used for many, many packets, enabling statistical analysis and key recovery.
There are extensions (like Cisco's TKIP) that change/modify the key dynamically, eliminating that vulnerability. In that case you would not have enough packets for analysis. It is possible to make a (much more) secure wireless network.
> Secondly, there is no support for "handing-off"
;)
> between base stations.
Not quite true.
802.11f (Inter Access Point Protocol) defines an interoperable solution for that, some manufacturers already provide roaming capabilities in their equipment. I actuall roam almost every day (walking in the office) without problems. Heck, even Ethereal can decode IAPP
As for handing over between various providers, there is something called Mobile IP that allows the user to be seen under the same IP, no matter if he crosses multiple bridge domains, different access technologies or even providers.
Mobile IP has been there for a while, it's just not popular.
Solution described in the article (did anyone read it?) describes common WLAN/GSM user _authentication_ (based on using SIM card). That is the most important part of the solution.
False. Poland has NOT surrendered during WWII.
CAP - Carrierless Amplitude/Phase Modulation I guess this is not about modulation at all ? And it has nothing to do with QAM ? ;) You are right that CAP and maybe rather DMT (Discrete Multitone Modulation) are more of line codes rather than modulations, but still - CAP does convert digital data to analog frequencies, even if it is done via digital processing ;) And then again - what about "digital modems" ? Those used in V.90 access servers, providing codec to convert analog signal in digital form back to pure digital ? Technology is digital to digital, but the function itself is demodulating... Just my 0.03 Euro =)
I love the cars and computers comparison, because this is where it comes in.
Yes, but then again, why don't we have "Internet license" to be allowed to operate computer ?
It is little known that in reality (you know, as opposed to books about heroic efforts of british folks) Enigma was solved by polish scientists (notably Marian Rejewski) in years 1928-1939.
All data and a reconstruted working model of Enigma was submitted by polish intelligence to the british and french intelligence, after it become impossible to continue work in occupied Poland.
All misinformation you can read nowadays is partially result of a cold war, lack of appreciation, and probably imperial "superiority" of Brits and other allies who prefered to claim the glory for themselves.
In Great Britain methods created by Poles were enhanced and deployed on larger scale, but please don't ignore that this is not entirely british effort !
http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~lmazia1/ Enigma/enigma.html
--
Marek Moskal