It is not so much a question of Rogers being better then Bell/Sympatico. Rather it is a question of which service sucks less.
Rogers/@home wins in a few areas over DSL/Sympatico HSE: Mostly static ips (the IPs could change but haven't). More raw bandwidth. Distance is less of a factor: People living at the edge of the DSL range seem to get very unreliable service. Cisco PIX/NAT/Proxy games: some Sympatico users are stuck behind unruly proxy/nat firewalls. The biggest gripe is probably the "newness" and general poor implementation of PPPoE. This ranges from a poor packet latency (some say an extra 70ms round trip), to unstable/unreliable servers and clients.
Locally Sympatico have much more reliable servers. Sympactico users, as with all DSL users, are not affected nearly as much by the number of subcribers on a link. Sympatico does not seem to have the same frequent short disconnects that plague Rogers.
I have not had a DSL with PPPoE service in my house. I have only used it friends' houses. I would like to try DSL but it is not offered where I live (old/poorly wired neighbourhood). Generally I find that both services stink. The reliability in particular is awfull. (I should never lose a connection to my first hop gateway.) I have been hosting Diablo II games on Rogers with two friends connecting through two different DSL providers in diffrent ends of the city. One gets kicked out for timeouts atleast once durring a 2 hour game. The other has only been dropped once when Rogers went down for more then a minute.
Both rogers and sympatico have been going at each others throats over high speed access. Both claim to be faster then the other. However neither one is dicussing reliabiltiy. Neither company really knows what they are doing as an ISP. Both are used to deploying high end, redundant gear with 99.99999% (seven sigma?) uptimes. Yet for the ISP side they choose to deploy cheap NT boxes without failovers/hot-backups. Both services have been expanding too quickly without enough infrastucture to support their existing user base. In their own deffence both companies know that they must get serious marketshare now or they will be dead in a decade. Still I would trade 25% of my speed for a more reliable service. (can't we get atleast 99.9% uptimes?)
While Rogers may be better then Sympatico/DSL there is much room for improvement. There are constant short service interuptions happening hourly or worst, lasting a few seconds to a minute . Usually once a day there is a 5 minute or longer break in service. I measured these outages with a tcp ping to my first hop gateway, and the mail and name servers. This gets very annoying when trying to play games and dling larger files.
The worst though are the Rogers mail servers. I run my own mail server now, policy be damned. Mail is randomly delayed for minutes to days. Today I recieved an email 48hours late. I had already read and replied to it as it was included in another email sent by a third person. It can make for some very interesting email threads between 3 or more parties.
Ofcourse you can use PPPoE and Nat on BSD or Linux. With PPPoE the external interface is now tun0/ppp0 (or what have you) instead of an ethernet device.
The reason PPPoE is used in my area is to simplfy the install from the providers point of view. The local telco provides ethernet over phone lines. The customers use PPPoE to connect to the actuall ISP. From the providers point of view this is much nicer then the old way of physically wireing the customer's DSL wires to the ISP's gear all housed in the local telcol's buildings. If setup properly a customer can change ISPs by simply changeing their PPPoE authentication settings.
Part of the problem with encryption is that it has to be used carefully and properly to be of any use. Towards that goal it actually helps to have the crypto in the user's face. I am waiting for someone to code something that proves me wrong. I have seen too many systems where the user is never sure if the file/email was encrypted or not or the system imports any untrusted key by default.
PGP/GPG use a symetric key algorithm such as 3DES to encrypt the contents of the email. With each and every email a new symetric key is randomly generated. This is called the session key. To have a stronger system the symetric session key must be randomly generated each and every time. The public/private key pairs are used to encrypt the symetric session key.
Read the docs, it is all there.
Like other posters I don't see the big deal. I don't see how this could be any stronger then pgp/gpg.
Same here. I was impressed that with Debian I could install a base potato/frozen and upgrade to woody/unstable with apt-get before installing any other packages. I love Debian package management. Package management is why Debian is my Linux distro of choice. However even if you don't run dselect the Debian installer is still a mess of menus and user input boxes. Additionaly Debian really dosen't have a default complete "Unix" install like OpenBSD. Part of the Debian philosophy is freedom of choice. I respect that. However I really wish that Debian would come out with a simple yet complete default install with all other packages as add-ons.
The only package choices that OpenBSD gives at install time are: Base, etc, man, compilers, misc, BSDgames, xbase, xsevers, xfonts, xlinkkit (for compiling X). "etc" is split off from base so that you can upgrade without over writeing your config files in/etc. Base includes csh, vi, apache, bind, ftpd, telnetd, sshd, nfsd, sendmail, ipfilter/ipnat, and the other base Unix tools you would expect like more and tar. Everything else is in ports.
Because of its default clean and simple install OpenBSD is great for setting up servers in a hurry. It is also fine for workstations (please put those flamethrowers away). However as most cutting edge desktop development (KDE/GNOME) is being developed on Linux first I have found that Linux makes a better desktop.
Having installed both, and as a current user of both, I feel free to comment. Debian dosen't compare in that it gives too much choice, and asks many more questions at install. I agree with the original poster: OpenBSD has an excellent default install. Not that many packages are installed, but everything that a unix system should have is there.
FM radio has a 200 kHz bandwidth. You need some seperation between channels so assume that each FM channel has a useable bandwidth of 150 kHz (as per the article). As for FM audio it only uses about 56 kHz. There is a subband of about 20 kHz that most FM stations lease out to transmit things like shopping mail music. There is a whole lot more bandwidth, but today's FM stations are not equipped to use it.
FM stereo uses 0 to 18 kHz for Left+Right, has a stereo pilot signal at 19 kHz, and has Left-Right centered around 38 kHz (20 to 56 kHz). I believe the Left-Right audio is double sideband modulated and the stereo pilot signal is frequency doubled to be used as its carrier. I can't remember where the subband is, but it somewhere above 56 kHz. I believe that the subband is either AM or double side band modulated (ie AM carrier surpressed). Yes the FM radio spec wastes a lot of bandwidth.
This is all from memory. Please correct me if I am wrong.
For IRC get tircproxy (look on freshmeat.net) and set it up as a transparent proxy. I would recommend this to Linux IP-MASQ users as well. I didn't bother with the oidentd part to tircproxy to set the usernames.
For ftp there is the 'proxy ftp' option for IPNat. I haven't really tested in though as my FTP client (lukemftp) is set to use passive by default. Netscape ftp seems to work though and I have no idea if it uses passive or not.
I have OpenBSD 2.6 on a 486dx33 running in the kind of configuration you are looking for. I choose Open as that is what I had used before. Speed is a non-issue if you are just passing packets. Even my cheap ISA ne2000 cards can keep up with the cable modem. Even if you want to serve a few pages with apache or ftp a 486 is up to the task. If you want a system that you can install and forget, OpenBSD may be a better choice then FreeBSD. The 3 years without a remote exploit in the default install (which includes apache and sendmail) is comforting. I assume that FreeBSD can be secure as well, but they have always said that performance was their main concern whereas OpenBSD has always said that security is their main concern.
Compared to Linux I prefer OpenBSD as a gateway. I really like IPFilter and IPNat over IPchains. I find the configuration files much easier to read. For example the following blocks and logs all attempts to telnet to my gateway:
block in log from any to <my_ip> proto tcp port telnet flags S
(The above is a quick'n'dirty example. Please consult the docs before making your own rules).
IPFilter and IPNat do lack the proxies that come with Linux IP-MASQ. Generally this is not a problem as the IPFilter 'keep state' rule and IPNat seem to be smarter then Linux IP-MASQ. However I have not used Linux as a gateway for over a year so I could be wrong. If you IRC get the tircproxy package (look on freshmeat.net) and set it up as a tranparent proxy. Tircproxy proxies DCC connections and I recommend it to anyone using using IP-MASQ or *BSD IPNat
along those same lines I would an agent that would rember what links I have visited and type of content at that link. I would like to be able to ask this agent quesions like: "What page had the pizza recipe on it? Where was that howto on building a low power amp?"
The whole fonts issue is my number 1 pet peeve with most web sites. Why can't the "web developers" use the fonts I specify at the size I specify? I swear some developers must be using 640x480 screen sizes on 21" monitors. How else can they read those ugly[1] 8pt fonts they insist on using?
[1] Ugly is relative. I may not like the fonts you use. You might think my font selection sucks.
Chernobyl is an example of pure human error and poor control systems that allowed the error to occur. Basically an operator removed too many control rods to conduct a test. The fallout was devestateing to much of Europe but it is debatable wether the effects are any worst then the equivalent exposure to waste from fossil fuel plants.
While nuclear plants themselves are pretty clean compared to fossil fuel plants. Uranium mines are far worst then any oil well. For every ton of useable uranium extracted from the mine at Elliot Lake (Canada) there is eight to ten tons of radioactive slag. It makes for a very big mess.
Unless English becomes more universal quickly I think translation software will replace the need for a universal language. Quickly is relative. I am thinking in the next 10 years. The number of internet connected people is still small and for much of the world they are not going to have the option to be connected anytime soon. Today a clear majority of internet users are native english speakers. It makes sense that today the language of the Internet is english. This won't always be the case. Even now, think of the number of German news stories that get posted to/.
English is the dominant language of the Internet today and is somewhat universal. As non english spaekers join the Internet they will adopt english to better communicate. However there is a strong interest in computer interpretation of natural languages. This will lead to good translation software which would fill the need of a universal language.
The man pages are very well written. Kudos to the developers for writeing them. My only complain is finding which man page I should be reading. I have found that man -k does not always return the page I want. The man pages need a proper index.
Any decent monitor will support 110hz refresh or better at 640x480. Check out this low end viewsonic monitor: G655 15". If you want something larger there is this very nice PS790 19"(I have one of these) and the totally outrageous P817 21". Both support better then 110hz at 1024x780, and don't even list the refresh rate at 640x480. Ofcourse if you insist on getting that $200 19" monitor, you get what you pay for. There is much more to monitors then just the numbers. Better, more expensive monitors last longer and, more importantly, look better.
Re:Those are not PC's, those are industrial SBC's
on
Quad G4 Boards
·
· Score: 1
I have an IBM PC clone. I believe it is nigh-invulnerable and could withstand a fire hose.
Sorry dude this game sucks. I finished the first mission found most of the secrets and started onto the greek catacombs. The game play is just hedious. Everything is green, the monsters are tiny and annoying, and the visuals are awfull. I spent too much time on this game wanting it to be something special. I played it before reading any comments here so that I wouldn't have any prejudice. The game is just not fun.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not so much a question of Rogers being better then Bell/Sympatico. Rather it is a question of which service sucks less.
Rogers/@home wins in a few areas over DSL/Sympatico HSE: Mostly static ips (the IPs could change but haven't). More raw bandwidth. Distance is less of a factor: People living at the edge of the DSL range seem to get very unreliable service. Cisco PIX/NAT/Proxy games: some Sympatico users are stuck behind unruly proxy/nat firewalls. The biggest gripe is probably the "newness" and general poor implementation of PPPoE. This ranges from a poor packet latency (some say an extra 70ms round trip), to unstable/unreliable servers and clients.
Locally Sympatico have much more reliable servers. Sympactico users, as with all DSL users, are not affected nearly as much by the number of subcribers on a link. Sympatico does not seem to have the same frequent short disconnects that plague Rogers.
I have not had a DSL with PPPoE service in my house. I have only used it friends' houses. I would like to try DSL but it is not offered where I live (old/poorly wired neighbourhood). Generally I find that both services stink. The reliability in particular is awfull. (I should never lose a connection to my first hop gateway.) I have been hosting Diablo II games on Rogers with two friends connecting through two different DSL providers in diffrent ends of the city. One gets kicked out for timeouts atleast once durring a 2 hour game. The other has only been dropped once when Rogers went down for more then a minute.
Both rogers and sympatico have been going at each others throats over high speed access. Both claim to be faster then the other. However neither one is dicussing reliabiltiy. Neither company really knows what they are doing as an ISP. Both are used to deploying high end, redundant gear with 99.99999% (seven sigma?) uptimes. Yet for the ISP side they choose to deploy cheap NT boxes without failovers/hot-backups. Both services have been expanding too quickly without enough infrastucture to support their existing user base. In their own deffence both companies know that they must get serious marketshare now or they will be dead in a decade. Still I would trade 25% of my speed for a more reliable service. (can't we get atleast 99.9% uptimes?)
While Rogers may be better then Sympatico/DSL there is much room for improvement. There are constant short service interuptions happening hourly or worst, lasting a few seconds to a minute . Usually once a day there is a 5 minute or longer break in service. I measured these outages with a tcp ping to my first hop gateway, and the mail and name servers. This gets very annoying when trying to play games and dling larger files.
The worst though are the Rogers mail servers. I run my own mail server now, policy be damned. Mail is randomly delayed for minutes to days. Today I recieved an email 48hours late. I had already read and replied to it as it was included in another email sent by a third person. It can make for some very interesting email threads between 3 or more parties.
Ofcourse you can use PPPoE and Nat on BSD or Linux. With PPPoE the external interface is now tun0/ppp0 (or what have you) instead of an ethernet device.
The reason PPPoE is used in my area is to simplfy the install from the providers point of view. The local telco provides ethernet over phone lines. The customers use PPPoE to connect to the actuall ISP. From the providers point of view this is much nicer then the old way of physically wireing the customer's DSL wires to the ISP's gear all housed in the local telcol's buildings. If setup properly a customer can change ISPs by simply changeing their PPPoE authentication settings.
Part of the problem with encryption is that it has to be used carefully and properly to be of any use. Towards that goal it actually helps to have the crypto in the user's face. I am waiting for someone to code something that proves me wrong. I have seen too many systems where the user is never sure if the file/email was encrypted or not or the system imports any untrusted key by default.
PGP/GPG use a symetric key algorithm such as 3DES to encrypt the contents of the email. With each and every email a new symetric key is randomly generated. This is called the session key. To have a stronger system the symetric session key must be randomly generated each and every time. The public/private key pairs are used to encrypt the symetric session key. Read the docs, it is all there.
Like other posters I don't see the big deal. I don't see how this could be any stronger then pgp/gpg.
Same here. I was impressed that with Debian I could install a base potato/frozen and upgrade to woody/unstable with apt-get before installing any other packages. I love Debian package management. Package management is why Debian is my Linux distro of choice. However even if you don't run dselect the Debian installer is still a mess of menus and user input boxes. Additionaly Debian really dosen't have a default complete "Unix" install like OpenBSD. Part of the Debian philosophy is freedom of choice. I respect that. However I really wish that Debian would come out with a simple yet complete default install with all other packages as add-ons.
The only package choices that OpenBSD gives at install time are: Base, etc, man, compilers, misc, BSDgames, xbase, xsevers, xfonts, xlinkkit (for compiling X). "etc" is split off from base so that you can upgrade without over writeing your config files in /etc. Base includes csh, vi, apache, bind, ftpd, telnetd, sshd, nfsd, sendmail, ipfilter/ipnat, and the other base Unix tools you would expect like more and tar. Everything else is in ports.
Because of its default clean and simple install OpenBSD is great for setting up servers in a hurry. It is also fine for workstations (please put those flamethrowers away). However as most cutting edge desktop development (KDE/GNOME) is being developed on Linux first I have found that Linux makes a better desktop.
Having installed both, and as a current user of both, I feel free to comment. Debian dosen't compare in that it gives too much choice, and asks many more questions at install. I agree with the original poster: OpenBSD has an excellent default install. Not that many packages are installed, but everything that a unix system should have is there.
nt
FM radio has a 200 kHz bandwidth. You need some seperation between channels so assume that each FM channel has a useable bandwidth of 150 kHz (as per the article). As for FM audio it only uses about 56 kHz. There is a subband of about 20 kHz that most FM stations lease out to transmit things like shopping mail music. There is a whole lot more bandwidth, but today's FM stations are not equipped to use it.
FM stereo uses 0 to 18 kHz for Left+Right, has a stereo pilot signal at 19 kHz, and has Left-Right centered around 38 kHz (20 to 56 kHz). I believe the Left-Right audio is double sideband modulated and the stereo pilot signal is frequency doubled to be used as its carrier. I can't remember where the subband is, but it somewhere above 56 kHz. I believe that the subband is either AM or double side band modulated (ie AM carrier surpressed). Yes the FM radio spec wastes a lot of bandwidth.
This is all from memory. Please correct me if I am wrong.
So my mature friend what do adults read?
FYI: the primary people working on FreeS/WAN are in Canada.
For IRC get tircproxy (look on freshmeat.net) and set it up as a transparent proxy. I would recommend this to Linux IP-MASQ users as well. I didn't bother with the oidentd part to tircproxy to set the usernames.
For ftp there is the 'proxy ftp' option for IPNat. I haven't really tested in though as my FTP client (lukemftp) is set to use passive by default. Netscape ftp seems to work though and I have no idea if it uses passive or not.
I have OpenBSD 2.6 on a 486dx33 running in the kind of configuration you are looking for. I choose Open as that is what I had used before. Speed is a non-issue if you are just passing packets. Even my cheap ISA ne2000 cards can keep up with the cable modem. Even if you want to serve a few pages with apache or ftp a 486 is up to the task. If you want a system that you can install and forget, OpenBSD may be a better choice then FreeBSD. The 3 years without a remote exploit in the default install (which includes apache and sendmail) is comforting. I assume that FreeBSD can be secure as well, but they have always said that performance was their main concern whereas OpenBSD has always said that security is their main concern.
Compared to Linux I prefer OpenBSD as a gateway. I really like IPFilter and IPNat over IPchains. I find the configuration files much easier to read. For example the following blocks and logs all attempts to telnet to my gateway:
(The above is a quick'n'dirty example. Please consult the docs before making your own rules).IPFilter and IPNat do lack the proxies that come with Linux IP-MASQ. Generally this is not a problem as the IPFilter 'keep state' rule and IPNat seem to be smarter then Linux IP-MASQ. However I have not used Linux as a gateway for over a year so I could be wrong. If you IRC get the tircproxy package (look on freshmeat.net) and set it up as a tranparent proxy. Tircproxy proxies DCC connections and I recommend it to anyone using using IP-MASQ or *BSD IPNat
A good OpenBSD resource site is www.deadly.org
The above post is classic FUD. Thanks for playing.
For writeing apps will you guys be useing PVM, MPI, or something else? Why did you choose that toolkit?
along those same lines I would an agent that would rember what links I have visited and type of content at that link. I would like to be able to ask this agent quesions like: "What page had the pizza recipe on it? Where was that howto on building a low power amp?"
The whole fonts issue is my number 1 pet peeve with most web sites. Why can't the "web developers" use the fonts I specify at the size I specify? I swear some developers must be using 640x480 screen sizes on 21" monitors. How else can they read those ugly[1] 8pt fonts they insist on using?
[1] Ugly is relative. I may not like the fonts you use. You might think my font selection sucks.
Chernobyl is an example of pure human error and poor control systems that allowed the error to occur. Basically an operator removed too many control rods to conduct a test. The fallout was devestateing to much of Europe but it is debatable wether the effects are any worst then the equivalent exposure to waste from fossil fuel plants.
While nuclear plants themselves are pretty clean compared to fossil fuel plants. Uranium mines are far worst then any oil well. For every ton of useable uranium extracted from the mine at Elliot Lake (Canada) there is eight to ten tons of radioactive slag. It makes for a very big mess.
The orignal Indigo used a 68030 I believe
English is the dominant language of the Internet today and is somewhat universal. As non english spaekers join the Internet they will adopt english to better communicate. However there is a strong interest in computer interpretation of natural languages. This will lead to good translation software which would fill the need of a universal language.
The man pages are very well written. Kudos to the developers for writeing them. My only complain is finding which man page I should be reading. I have found that man -k does not always return the page I want. The man pages need a proper index.
Any decent monitor will support 110hz refresh or better at 640x480. Check out this low end viewsonic monitor: G655 15". If you want something larger there is this very nice PS790 19"(I have one of these) and the totally outrageous P817 21". Both support better then 110hz at 1024x780, and don't even list the refresh rate at 640x480. Ofcourse if you insist on getting that $200 19" monitor, you get what you pay for. There is much more to monitors then just the numbers. Better, more expensive monitors last longer and, more importantly, look better.
I have an IBM PC clone. I believe it is nigh-invulnerable and could withstand a fire hose.
Sorry dude this game sucks. I finished the first mission found most of the secrets and started onto the greek catacombs. The game play is just hedious. Everything is green, the monsters are tiny and annoying, and the visuals are awfull. I spent too much time on this game wanting it to be something special. I played it before reading any comments here so that I wouldn't have any prejudice. The game is just not fun.
You don't NEED a special device to overclock them. It just makes it easier.