I work at the campus NOC at the University of Utah... this is definitely not "normal" IMO. We don't have anything nearly this restrictive... so I think you're getting fed a line, for what it's worth.
Your points are certainly valid... ask your administration for examples of other schools that are doing this. It's likely that they'll balk if you ask them for real information.
Most of this stuff isn't even based on a draft. A lot of the "Pre-N" gear came out before the first IEEE draft of the 802.11n document was even up for vote. Belkin's initial gear was released long before a draft of the IEEE document was ever available. Now they're claiming to be "draft 802.11n", whatever that means.;)
It's unlikely that any of this gear is actually going to be compatible with the 802.11n standard, which isn't due until early 2008. If you really need the speed it might be worth the investment, but don't expect the gear to work when the standard is finshed...
"Wee" is most definitely one of the syllables in the Japanese language.
In fact, it COULD be argued that the only reason that the extra "i" is in "Wii" is so lazy Americans will hold the "ee" sound as long as the Japanese do with the corresponding Japanese name.
If you're referring to the English spelling, I can see a Japanese user pronouncing that "Wee-ee", but the Japanese version of "Wii" isn't written in English...
Why would Nintendo (A Japanese company) brand their Japanese products with an English translation anyway?;)
The "Pre-N" stuff floating around is all Airgo manufactured. The Airgo design differs from the 802.11n draft, and I suspect that's what this is really all about.
Airgo has a *LOT* to lose by not getting the standard changed in their favor. They put all their eggs in one basket on this one... and the IEEE didn't go with their solution.
I'd take anything that comes out of an interview with somebody who works for Airgo with a healthy dose of salt...
It sounds like they're spreading FUD about the IEEE draft because they're upset that their gear isn't compatible with it... I doubt the real concern is of backwards compatibility with existing gear.
Last year when Steve Jobs announced on stage that Apple was switching to Intel, he cited the future roadmap as the reason.
Steve new darn well what IBM had coming, and he knew what Intel had coming... and I'm sure he knew what AMD had coming.
One of the big reasons for the switch is Intel's superior low-power/high-performance chips. Apple's new slogan "Performance Per Watt" is the proof of that.
At MWSF 2006 Steve said they were disappointed with IBM because they've been trying to shoehorn a G5 into the Powerbook for well over a year (or was it two?)... What makes you think that the new IBM chips would offer Apple anything?
Sure they might have a centi-processor 5Ghz high-end desktop system, but that doesn't help their bottom line.
Apple's planning is much much more strategic than that.... I mean come on, they've had OS X in production for Intel for over 5 years. Steve's been planning a mass-exodus for a while now.
I agree that there may not be a DMCA case (if there was no CSS), but I don't agree that they were within their rights. The author and copyright holder EXPLICITLY requested the MPAA not to make copies, and they did it anyway. He's got that in writing...
Broadcom is one of the only vendors that doesn't provide a mechanism for native Linux drivers.
Personally, I've never been happy with Broadcom's chips, and even less happy that they refuse to support the Open Source community even with a closed-source or partially closed-source driver. Even Atheros is supporting us with MADWifi and their closed-source HAL... Broadcom could do something similar.
Most of the projects either have support from chip vendors (Intel, Atheros, Agere) or there has been some reverse engineering done (TI).
I think the wrapper stuff is interesting for the geek factor, but it makes me shudder when people (who don't really know what they are doing) try to use it as an end all be all solution for their wireless needs in Linux, but I'm happy for those who have actually been able to make this solution work for them.;)
My advice is to shop around very careful, and choose a card that does what you need it to... don't just go with the cheapest thing you can find. A lot of OEM cards have the same chipsets... you can still find some decent stuff for cheap, but it's quite likely you'll run into something that doesn't have good Linux support.
You say that macs aren't easy to fix or upgrade on your own?
Well speaking from experience, I've never had a problem with any of my Macs since 1995, so I don't have to worry about them fixing (maybe I've just been lucky).
As for the upgradability... I don't know what you're talking about. My G5 is easier to get into than ANY PC I've ever owned... have you ever looked inside one?
Not to mention that with the new x86 based systems, you can put any PC hardware you want in. If you're running Windows, they'll work in Windows. If they have Mac drivers they'll also work in Mac OS X.
The upgradability problem is long gone... and if you buy a laptop from any PC vendor they're just as hard to fix anyway, so that's also a non-issue.
As I mentioned in another post, what it really boils down to for me is the fact that I *AM* a cross-platform power user that uses Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X... and buying 1 piece of hardware (even if it's a bit more expensive up front) is going to save me a hell of a lot of money in the long run.
If you have no interest in Mac OS X, then no, this platform is absolutely not for you.
If you have a need for multiple platforms then it makes a lot of sense.
If you haven't used Mac OS X, then you're truly missing out.
I think you're totally off base on the Windows thing... no "port" necessary. The Macs are 100% native Intel. They just happen to be using NEWER technology than you can find in most PC systems. Case in point, full PCIe bus (no, people, it isn't just a graphics standard) and ExpressCard technology - which is very cool stuff.
I can understand just not being interested in using Mac OS X, and hence having no need to buy the systems, but I have yet to hear a really compelling reason other than that why these systems are a bad idea.
You're right... VPC also doesn't allow DirectX, except really old versions (v3, IIRC).
This is a software limitation that Microsoft imposed on Connectix back in the day, before they bought the software.
They could do it... the current Mac cards ALL support DirectX in hardware. That would be easy enough to hook into, but I doubt they will. There were some rumors about VP7 supporting hardware accelerated video (although not DirectX) but that certainly didn't make it into VP7. I think it got cut because they were rushing to make VP7 compatible with the G5s, which are missing a "little endian" mode that the older PPC chips had.
a) Mac OS X is my primary system. b) I also use Linux and Windows. c) Having a Mac would allow me to use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X without extra hardware cost.
I currently have 3 PCs running in my livingroom. That's an awful lot of power consumption, not to mention the cost of the systems themselves.
Buying a Mac and putting Windows and Linux on it is actually going to save me money.
Why wouldn't I want that?
Maybe you don't want to use Mac OS X... maybe you aren't a power user, or maybe you are just in denial.;)
The truth of the matter is that this makes a lot of sense to a lot of people, and it *WILL* happen. I'm quite versed with Linux and Windows and magic incantations, and I will happily hack away until I get all 3 operating systems running on my shiney new MacBook Pro (But I have to say I hate the name).
GCC doesn't come with a "standard object" that everything inherets from. That's actually something added by Apple (well, NeXT). The NSObject object, if you will. It's part of Cocoa... Everything in Cocoa is a child of NSObject. You don't get this unless you use an API that provides it, such as Cocoa, or GNUStep... which leads into the comment about Frameworks:
A *LOT* of Apple-provided functionality is available with GNUStep, including, essentially, the framworks... or at least the headers and object files needed to compile. You have, for instance, just about everything in FoundationKit, and even some of the AppKit functionality.
It's possible to write a Cocoa app, and port it to GNUStep with little work... possible, but not recommended, it's quite messy.
In reality, Objective C doesn't give you any of the API bits that Apple (or OpenStep or GNUStep) give you. It's just a language like C++ or Java, or any of the others.
The only thing that makes ObjC special on Mac OS X is that Apple has provided such a feature-rich and powerful API. This is the reason people like it so much.
There's also a skin that lets Windows look like Mac OS X! Sorry kiddies, you don't get any of the security benefits.
Seriously though... why would you want to skin I.E. to look like FireFox just so you can get the benefits that FireFox already provides? I'm a bit confused... Also, I find FireFox to be a bit snappier than I.E. generally speaking... I'd hate to think what happens to I.E. with the skin applied... wait, I take that back, maybe it *DOES* get faster.;)
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of worrying about what the students needs are without really considering the big picture.
Yes it's valid to say they have work to do and that unplugging them is unfair to them, but also consider the impact that offending users have on the rest of the students.
Take a poll and ask the students if they think that offending students with virus-laden computer should be unplugged from the network. Explain the situation that even a few compromised machines can take down the network.
I bet the answer will be an astounding "Yes, unplug the jerks." but you won't truly know until you ask them.
Students have a reasonable expectation that their network will be useable for their classwork etc, but by the same token they have a responsibility not to interfere with the right of others to use the network.
Re:University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard
on
Are You Using 802.1X?
·
· Score: 1
It's card dependent, but for those cards that handle WEP properly, it works just like on Windows.
The key rotation is iniated by the access point, so when the AP gives us new keys, we set them and tell the card to encrypt with the unicast key.
As long as the AP is handing out per-user keys you get more secure encryption. Some APs don't do that properly.
If I haven't answered your question yet, then I don't understand what you're asking.
key rotation is simply a function of the driver... some drivers actually reset the card when WEP keys are set, which cause the supplicant to enter a nasty authentication loop, but that's a problem with the driver, not xsupplicant, and we can't do anything about that except patch the drivers and hope the maintainers accept them.
The Lucent-derived cards currently require such a patch. The Amtel based cards do too.
Both patches are currently in xsupplicant, the later only currently available in CVS.
Slashdot Mirror
I work at the campus NOC at the University of Utah... this is definitely not "normal" IMO. We don't have anything nearly this restrictive... so I think you're getting fed a line, for what it's worth.
Your points are certainly valid... ask your administration for examples of other schools that are doing this. It's likely that they'll balk if you ask them for real information.
Most of this stuff isn't even based on a draft. A lot of the "Pre-N" gear came out before the first IEEE draft of the 802.11n document was even up for vote. Belkin's initial gear was released long before a draft of the IEEE document was ever available. Now they're claiming to be "draft 802.11n", whatever that means. ;)
It's unlikely that any of this gear is actually going to be compatible with the 802.11n standard, which isn't due until early 2008. If you really need the speed it might be worth the investment, but don't expect the gear to work when the standard is finshed...
Really?
m l
;)
http://www.ioxperts.com/devices/devices_80211b.ht
You were saying?
Sweet!
;)
This means Apple doesn't have to open source their OS.
The Japanese can't pronounce it?
;)
What the hell are you smoking?
"Wee" is most definitely one of the syllables in the Japanese language.
In fact, it COULD be argued that the only reason that the extra "i" is in "Wii" is so lazy Americans will hold the "ee" sound as long as the Japanese do with the corresponding Japanese name.
If you're referring to the English spelling, I can see a Japanese user pronouncing that "Wee-ee", but the Japanese version of "Wii" isn't written in English...
Why would Nintendo (A Japanese company) brand their Japanese products with an English translation anyway?
Uhhh...
The "Pre-N" stuff floating around is all Airgo manufactured. The Airgo design differs from the 802.11n draft, and I suspect that's what this is really all about.
Airgo has a *LOT* to lose by not getting the standard changed in their favor. They put all their eggs in one basket on this one... and the IEEE didn't go with their solution.
I'd take anything that comes out of an interview with somebody who works for Airgo with a healthy dose of salt...
It sounds like they're spreading FUD about the IEEE draft because they're upset that their gear isn't compatible with it... I doubt the real concern is of backwards compatibility with existing gear.
Now you can buy an XBox 360 for your gaming, and you won't have to run Windows at all! ;)
Sounds fishy to me...
Why do you need to know the type of business conducted?
Oh, but Apple is using Intel chips now! That means the viruses will automagically start infecting Macs! OMGBBQ! ;)
Last year when Steve Jobs announced on stage that Apple was switching to Intel, he cited the future roadmap as the reason.
Steve new darn well what IBM had coming, and he knew what Intel had coming... and I'm sure he knew what AMD had coming.
One of the big reasons for the switch is Intel's superior low-power/high-performance chips. Apple's new slogan "Performance Per Watt" is the proof of that.
At MWSF 2006 Steve said they were disappointed with IBM because they've been trying to shoehorn a G5 into the Powerbook for well over a year (or was it two?)... What makes you think that the new IBM chips would offer Apple anything?
Sure they might have a centi-processor 5Ghz high-end desktop system, but that doesn't help their bottom line.
Apple's planning is much much more strategic than that.... I mean come on, they've had OS X in production for Intel for over 5 years. Steve's been planning a mass-exodus for a while now.
Well he *claims* to have contacted the FBI... probably just a scare tactic.
;)
Turnabout is fair play.
I agree that there may not be a DMCA case (if there was no CSS), but I don't agree that they were within their rights. The author and copyright holder EXPLICITLY requested the MPAA not to make copies, and they did it anyway. He's got that in writing...
They had no right to distribute it, IMO.
Oops... I forgot to mention the Prism54 project... I really like this driver a lot:
http://prism54.org/
Broadcom is one of the only vendors that doesn't provide a mechanism for native Linux drivers.
;)
Personally, I've never been happy with Broadcom's chips, and even less happy that they refuse to support the Open Source community even with a closed-source or partially closed-source driver. Even Atheros is supporting us with MADWifi and their closed-source HAL... Broadcom could do something similar.
Most of the projects either have support from chip vendors (Intel, Atheros, Agere) or there has been some reverse engineering done (TI).
TI ACX1xx chips: http://acx100.sourceforge.net
Intel Centrino chips: http://ipw2100.sf.net and http://ipw2200.sf.net
Atheros-based chips: http://madwifi.org
I think the wrapper stuff is interesting for the geek factor, but it makes me shudder when people (who don't really know what they are doing) try to use it as an end all be all solution for their wireless needs in Linux, but I'm happy for those who have actually been able to make this solution work for them.
My advice is to shop around very careful, and choose a card that does what you need it to... don't just go with the cheapest thing you can find. A lot of OEM cards have the same chipsets... you can still find some decent stuff for cheap, but it's quite likely you'll run into something that doesn't have good Linux support.
Ok ok I stand corrected...
However, when I say "Cocoa" I assume that it is apparent that I mean NextStep... that's common knowledge, eh?
Me too. :)
Ummm I'm a little bit confused here.
You say that macs aren't easy to fix or upgrade on your own?
Well speaking from experience, I've never had a problem with any of my Macs since 1995, so I don't have to worry about them fixing (maybe I've just been lucky).
As for the upgradability... I don't know what you're talking about. My G5 is easier to get into than ANY PC I've ever owned... have you ever looked inside one?
Not to mention that with the new x86 based systems, you can put any PC hardware you want in. If you're running Windows, they'll work in Windows. If they have Mac drivers they'll also work in Mac OS X.
The upgradability problem is long gone... and if you buy a laptop from any PC vendor they're just as hard to fix anyway, so that's also a non-issue.
As I mentioned in another post, what it really boils down to for me is the fact that I *AM* a cross-platform power user that uses Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X... and buying 1 piece of hardware (even if it's a bit more expensive up front) is going to save me a hell of a lot of money in the long run.
If you have no interest in Mac OS X, then no, this platform is absolutely not for you.
If you have a need for multiple platforms then it makes a lot of sense.
If you haven't used Mac OS X, then you're truly missing out.
I think you're totally off base on the Windows thing... no "port" necessary. The Macs are 100% native Intel. They just happen to be using NEWER technology than you can find in most PC systems. Case in point, full PCIe bus (no, people, it isn't just a graphics standard) and ExpressCard technology - which is very cool stuff.
I can understand just not being interested in using Mac OS X, and hence having no need to buy the systems, but I have yet to hear a really compelling reason other than that why these systems are a bad idea.
You're right... VPC also doesn't allow DirectX, except really old versions (v3, IIRC).
This is a software limitation that Microsoft imposed on Connectix back in the day, before they bought the software.
They could do it... the current Mac cards ALL support DirectX in hardware. That would be easy enough to hook into, but I doubt they will. There were some rumors about VP7 supporting hardware accelerated video (although not DirectX) but that certainly didn't make it into VP7. I think it got cut because they were rushing to make VP7 compatible with the G5s, which are missing a "little endian" mode that the older PPC chips had.
I look at all of this a little bit differently.
;)
a) Mac OS X is my primary system.
b) I also use Linux and Windows.
c) Having a Mac would allow me to use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X without extra hardware cost.
I currently have 3 PCs running in my livingroom. That's an awful lot of power consumption, not to mention the cost of the systems themselves.
Buying a Mac and putting Windows and Linux on it is actually going to save me money.
Why wouldn't I want that?
Maybe you don't want to use Mac OS X... maybe you aren't a power user, or maybe you are just in denial.
The truth of the matter is that this makes a lot of sense to a lot of people, and it *WILL* happen. I'm quite versed with Linux and Windows and magic incantations, and I will happily hack away until I get all 3 operating systems running on my shiney new MacBook Pro (But I have to say I hate the name).
Just food for thought.
I think you're a little bit confused...
GCC doesn't come with a "standard object" that everything inherets from. That's actually something added by Apple (well, NeXT). The NSObject object, if you will. It's part of Cocoa... Everything in Cocoa is a child of NSObject. You don't get this unless you use an API that provides it, such as Cocoa, or GNUStep... which leads into the comment about Frameworks:
A *LOT* of Apple-provided functionality is available with GNUStep, including, essentially, the framworks... or at least the headers and object files needed to compile. You have, for instance, just about everything in FoundationKit, and even some of the AppKit functionality.
It's possible to write a Cocoa app, and port it to GNUStep with little work... possible, but not recommended, it's quite messy.
In reality, Objective C doesn't give you any of the API bits that Apple (or OpenStep or GNUStep) give you. It's just a language like C++ or Java, or any of the others.
The only thing that makes ObjC special on Mac OS X is that Apple has provided such a feature-rich and powerful API. This is the reason people like it so much.
No.
There's also a skin that lets Windows look like Mac OS X! Sorry kiddies, you don't get any of the security benefits.
;)
Seriously though... why would you want to skin I.E. to look like FireFox just so you can get the benefits that FireFox already provides? I'm a bit confused... Also, I find FireFox to be a bit snappier than I.E. generally speaking... I'd hate to think what happens to I.E. with the skin applied... wait, I take that back, maybe it *DOES* get faster.
Rosetta isn't an emulator, you insensitive clod!
It's an instruction translator, much like Java translates byte code into native code.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of worrying about what the students needs are without really considering the big picture.
Yes it's valid to say they have work to do and that unplugging them is unfair to them, but also consider the impact that offending users have on the rest of the students.
Take a poll and ask the students if they think that offending students with virus-laden computer should be unplugged from the network. Explain the situation that even a few compromised machines can take down the network.
I bet the answer will be an astounding "Yes, unplug the jerks." but you won't truly know until you ask them.
Students have a reasonable expectation that their network will be useable for their classwork etc, but by the same token they have a responsibility not to interfere with the right of others to use the network.
It's card dependent, but for those cards that handle WEP properly, it works just like on Windows.
The key rotation is iniated by the access point, so when the AP gives us new keys, we set them and tell the card to encrypt with the unicast key.
As long as the AP is handing out per-user keys you get more secure encryption. Some APs don't do that properly.
If I haven't answered your question yet, then I don't understand what you're asking.
key rotation is simply a function of the driver... some drivers actually reset the card when WEP keys are set, which cause the supplicant to enter a nasty authentication loop, but that's a problem with the driver, not xsupplicant, and we can't do anything about that except patch the drivers and hope the maintainers accept them.
The Lucent-derived cards currently require such a patch. The Amtel based cards do too.
Both patches are currently in xsupplicant, the later only currently available in CVS.