Well, the fiber has been there since the late 80s, so it's not like we're putting in new fiber. Besides, laptop users will either use 100 Mbps or wireless. I suspect most laptop users will opt for wireless.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention wireless at all. A pity.
As stated previously, we already have fiber run to every desktop. Besides, we all know the length limitations for GigE over copper aren't that good.
In short, we already have the necessary fiber infrastructure there, so why not use that?
It should be noted, though, that new faceplate installations (notably, for our business school) also have copper run to them as well as fiber optics (both single and multimode)
Likely more... the equipment to handle this is a lot different than your garden variety CompUSA switch or, for that matter, your run of the mill Cisco.
I believe one of the design goals here is to also prevent the need to upgrade the network every 4 years. With 100 Mbps... chances are we will have to upgrade again. The more upgrades, the more chances for problems and the more disruption for users. Doing it less often will help to extend the investment. These issues have been argued ad nauseum on campus. There are certainly some downsides that few can argue against. However, I believe the benefits will far outweigh the potential downside issues.
Actually, we're using Netgear cards (GA621) for most installations. Getting a fiber to UTP converter will get the Mac folks up and running. Considering we're getting volume discount pricing, the pricewatch prices don't matter much. Our only concern at present is what to do with the Suns. Those GigE cards certainly aren't cheap!
Well look who got up on the wrong side of the bed today.. tsk tsk.
I'm sorry you're still bitter about whatever it was that made you angry. I don't know, but I'm sad just the same.
You're absolutely right on both "Important Notes", at least for the time being. The mail system is in the process of being switched out for a system that will allow for all the encryption you could want and more. Also, I believe the card reader system is in the planning stages for being replaced as well.
No need to be so bitter. CWRU isn't by far the best school in the world. I think anyone can admit that. However, being mean-spirited by saying, "their ability to utilize it lags behind, you know, CMU, and... the other smart schools," really isn't convincing and only helps to drive home the point that you're a bitter individual.
Well, I think it's going to be a good idea, too. Previously people had a choice between a shared 10 Mbps network (yes, shared... sloooow) or a 155 Mbps ATM connection (ATM never became the standard we thought it was going to be back in 1994/1995... oh well).
I know students who already have striped RAID arrays (have to hold those research reports on something, eh?) I think, too, that that kind of thing will become more prevalent. There are already some high profile centers on campus that could use the bandwidth... and those folks stuck on the basic 10 Mbps network are going to gladly move up to something faster and actually switched.
As far as off-campus connectivity goes, we have the equivalent of an OC-3, but only handle about 36 Mbps in commodity internet and the rest for Internet 2 (minus about 55 Mbps or so.... the firewall only has 100 Mbps cards or something like that).
In any case, we have plenty of bandwidth to the outside world, but I expect we acquire more as time progresses.
Well, yes and no. The current off campus connection is equivalent to about an OC-3, with portions for both commodity Internet and Internet 2. I believe the idea is that we'll be increasing those caps and installing additional fiber to connect to the rest of the world. Granted, there will be a bottleneck SOMEWHERE.
The Internet2 is actually going to make a big difference here... cheap costs to hook up host institutions and no need to deal with the hassles of the current crappy commodity Internet. Other Universities will probably follow step, I2 will be upgraded and then it will make a bit more sense.
In any case, the whole upgrade will take about 18 months and we've just gotten started. Students are already set up to go, and the comp-sci buildings are going to be next (I know, because I'm responsible for making sure the upgrades go as smoothly as possible for my users).
Still, I think there's a lot of experimentation to do with the GigE network even if we can only realize those speeds off campus. Will this make us a huge target for DDoS attack machines? Sure, but that's why we try to be proactive in protecting our machines.;)
Well, those are two of the things I know that are in the planning stages. What isn't in this article is that about 10,000 WAPs will be deployed across campus to allow for as much seamless coverage as possible. The WAPs will be capable of holding 2 radios (ostensibly for 802.11b/g and 802.11a). One of the neat ideas being bantered about is perhaps the ability to do VoIP over 802.11... so... cellular service with a twist.
Also, CATV might possible be streamed as well.
There's a lot of new technologies that are going to be pushed and tried out on this network. Some if it will be great, some of it will fail miserably. In any case, it should be interesting and hopefully everyone else will be able to enjoy the fruits of our labors and heartaches once we figure out what works and what doesn't!
No, fiber will be going to every desktop that can support it... all staff, all faculty and all students, regardless of major or degree. In fact, I bet some of the non comp-sci students here can think of better ways to use it than the comp-sci students themselves!
(Disclaimer, I work in the EECS department at CWRU!)
Well, it's called CWRU, too, yes. but the shortened form "Case Western" is still reviled today.
The spitwad is there, as is the phallic fountain. Presti's still does brisk business, albeit in classier quarters. Eating a donut at 2 AM with the cop that just broke up your party there is still common.
The name of the school is "Case Western Reserve". I know because I work, teach, and take classes here. Feel free to post your questions about it and I'll do my best to answer.
I realize this is a little off-topic, but I felt it necessary to try to showcase a little better who the man behind the article is.
Not many of you may really know who Boucher is, heck, I admit that I would be unable to write even a small biography on the man without a lot of hard work. However, this guy is perhaps one of the few folk in Congress who really understands and cares about what the Internet is and what it can become.
While most politicians can be seen as either paying lip service about Internet freedoms or attacking outright the freedoms guaranteed to us, Boucher has proven time and time again that there politicians out there who, for the most part, look out for us.
Now, I'm not in his district and I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted to. He's never seen a dime of my money and I have never even so much have written an email or letter to him. Hell, I'm not even a Democrat. However, this man is perhaps one of the few people whom we need to encourage to continue to fight for our rights. Likewise, we need to begin encouraging our own representatives to follow his lead.
It may sound like I'm bullshitting you about this and that I have some ulterior motive. I don't. I'll let his record speak for itself,
Anyway, I don't post on Slashdot anymore unless I really have something to say. All I'm trying to say now is, "take a look at this guy, see what he's about, what he's done and decide for yourself."
As a closing thought as to what kind of vision this guy has, he was the one back in 1992 that allowed the NSF (National Science Foundation) network to carry non-educational or scientific traffic... i.e., commodity Internet traffic. This effectively made the Internet what it is today. Al Gore and others may claim they invented the Internet. Boucher makes no such claim, but could largely be credited with the one that made it legal to become what it is today.
Anywho, I'll get off the podium now... but when someone does something right by me I want to make sure everyone who has an interest knows so. This guy is the real deal. Support him and tell your representatives to support him. He is truly "our man on the inside".
I don't like Microsoft operating systems, but jeebus, come on and get real. Anyone with any experience can keep a Windows machine patched and well protected with a little effort. Nimda could have been prevented with patching and virus detection, "unexplained software instability" usually results from shitty third-party software.
You say that you've never taken your linux servers down for any reason except by acts of God. Come on, give me a break. You're telling me you've never updated your kernel? Why not? That's a security issue in and of itself. Machines not responding to pings? I have had the same problems... turns out it was hardware and not software.
Any system can be properly administered. Uptime is not a guarantee of quality by any means. Attention paid to patching often and patching quickly is the mark of a good system administrator. Quickly released patches by vendors is a hallmark of a good product. Having a product that has few patches because it's done right in the first place is the hallmark of a great product.
Now, obviuosly Microsoft does not fit into this final rubrick very well. Hence, their product isn't very good.
Your comparisons are flawed. Your overall gut feelings may be right, but your anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing.
This is called dumping and, even though IANAL, I believe it is illegal. That's kind of the whole point regarding the MS anti-trust case... they were dumping IE for free when Netscape was trying to make it a product... effectively shoving them out of business.
Dumping is really quite common. It's been happening in the steel industry for years. Sell your product below cost until your smaller competitotrs whither away. If you have the cash reserves to last that long and no one calls you to task on it, you're home free.
Don't even start that crap with me today when I've spent all day working on a professor's laptop that has a virus that required a complete reinstall because, for some mysterious reason, he had shut off his anti-virus software. If he had had it running it would have saved about a days worth of my time, which is far more than the cost of the antivirus software in the first place.
Virii are a big deal and any Windows user without protection is an idiot plain and simple. Antivirus companies make money because their products work pretty well most of the time. Why argue with their ability to make a profit? It's not like they're a monopoly, as there are numerous anti-virus vendors out there.
I guarantee, too, once Linux/BSD virii become more prevalent, that many of you will be purchasing antivirus software from your vendors. And don't give me this "But I can't get infected because I only run my stuff as a regular user..." blah blah blah. Every bit of software you run probably has an exploit in it. Just wait... the script kiddies just haven't been that creative yet.
I wasn't impressed at all with the results. Basic searches for oddball sites I can easily find within the first 2 or 3 google hits end up 20 or 30 on Teoma. I did searches for myself, too, under various names, guises and projects I've participated in... some of them with rather unique names. Teoma didn't even come up with my project's page at all while Google had it on the first link.
I also smell rank selling in Teoma's results, as some results are suspiciously high in the rankings for no real reason whatsoever.
Eh... You can have that Teoma shit, I'll keep Google thank you very much.
I'm not much of a 1337 hax0r, but if I were, that would be one box I'd love to root.
Lack of center? So what!
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Whether you love him or hate him, Jon really brings out a few salient talking points in this article. I might even venture out and say that I agree with him on most of his points. However, "me too" does not a good Slashdot comment make, so let me expound a little on why the gloom and doom of the corporatization of the Internet isn't all that bad.
First of all, the corporatization of the Internet has helped to push higher speeds and ubiquity. These two factors alone, while meant to benefit the middle class users, have only helped to lower the cost of entry to future nerds, geeks, hackers and coders.
I'm 25 now, but as a kid growing up in the late 80s, getting any kind of net access was a struggle and a hopeless quest. Enter BBSes and the like. Most of us probably cut our teeth on the BBS. Then enter Freenets (like Cleveland Freenet) and the like. Back then the network was considered blazingly fast at 14.4K. However, my view of what the Internet was and could be was completely blown away upon my visit to the campus of Case Western Reserve in Late 1993. What I saw there was a completely fiber network and the web.
Wow. *that* was cool.
Fast forward to now. Most of the kids coming into college have already experienced the Internet much as I was only able to do once reaching the university. The young hackers in their larval stage come in with a store of knowledge that I could only dream about. I am convinced that we now have more hackers and more technological enthusiasts than we ever have had before. While this may seem like an obvious and trite observation, we need to consider this when also taking into account the fact that the "commodity" usage of the Internet has gone up as well.
In other words, sure, the vast majority of Internet users use it in a utilitarian way. However, now, more than ever, there are users who are using it as a tool to expand their own knowledge and to explore new frontiers of technology. I almost look upon this as romantic, in a weird sort of way, in the way that New York is romantic. I draw the analogy by thinking of both the city and the Internet as being unimaginably dense with people, ideas, culture and thought. However, just underneath the surface, if you look close enough, you'll find your niche, you'll find the "underground".
Granted, most people don't give a shit about the underground. But who cares? It's still there and we can still use. We can still build and we can still expand it. The Internet doesn't exist to fill one purpose or to have one center. The Internet exists to be whatever we want it to be. Again, at the risk of sounding trite, we are slowly and quietly moving towards the concept of cyberspace discussed in early and seminal cyberpunk literature. Think back to the writings of Gibson and Sterling.
So, in closing, in response to the questioned lack of center and the concept that most Internet users are simply Internet consumers, I simply respond, "So what". All we can hope is that right minded individuals will find their calling and explore what makes this whole thing tick. We can hope that they will find out about Open Source software and becoming contributing members to the global computing community. It's not a utopian goal by far, but it is the way things have been and continue to be moving. In every group of people who are content with the status quo and accepting the medium for what it is, there are those individuals like ourselves who are willing to take the next step to make the medium do what we want. There's nothing wrong with that. Let the Internet continue to grow!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the fiber has been there since the late 80s, so it's not like we're putting in new fiber. Besides, laptop users will either use 100 Mbps or wireless. I suspect most laptop users will opt for wireless.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention wireless at all. A pity.
Oh, I know. I was there. Sorry to hear that you were one of those folks.
As stated previously, we already have fiber run to every desktop. Besides, we all know the length limitations for GigE over copper aren't that good.
In short, we already have the necessary fiber infrastructure there, so why not use that?
It should be noted, though, that new faceplate installations (notably, for our business school) also have copper run to them as well as fiber optics (both single and multimode)
Likely more... the equipment to handle this is a lot different than your garden variety CompUSA switch or, for that matter, your run of the mill Cisco.
I believe one of the design goals here is to also prevent the need to upgrade the network every 4 years. With 100 Mbps... chances are we will have to upgrade again. The more upgrades, the more chances for problems and the more disruption for users. Doing it less often will help to extend the investment. These issues have been argued ad nauseum on campus. There are certainly some downsides that few can argue against. However, I believe the benefits will far outweigh the potential downside issues.
Actually, we're using Netgear cards (GA621) for most installations. Getting a fiber to UTP converter will get the Mac folks up and running. Considering we're getting volume discount pricing, the pricewatch prices don't matter much. Our only concern at present is what to do with the Suns. Those GigE cards certainly aren't cheap!
Well look who got up on the wrong side of the bed today.. tsk tsk.
I'm sorry you're still bitter about whatever it was that made you angry. I don't know, but I'm sad just the same.
You're absolutely right on both "Important Notes", at least for the time being. The mail system is in the process of being switched out for a system that will allow for all the encryption you could want and more. Also, I believe the card reader system is in the planning stages for being replaced as well.
No need to be so bitter. CWRU isn't by far the best school in the world. I think anyone can admit that. However, being mean-spirited by saying, "their ability to utilize it lags behind, you know, CMU, and... the other smart schools," really isn't convincing and only helps to drive home the point that you're a bitter individual.
Have a better day... from another CWRU alum.
Well, I think it's going to be a good idea, too. Previously people had a choice between a shared 10 Mbps network (yes, shared... sloooow) or a 155 Mbps ATM connection (ATM never became the standard we thought it was going to be back in 1994/1995... oh well).
I know students who already have striped RAID arrays (have to hold those research reports on something, eh?) I think, too, that that kind of thing will become more prevalent. There are already some high profile centers on campus that could use the bandwidth... and those folks stuck on the basic 10 Mbps network are going to gladly move up to something faster and actually switched.
As far as off-campus connectivity goes, we have the equivalent of an OC-3, but only handle about 36 Mbps in commodity internet and the rest for Internet 2 (minus about 55 Mbps or so.... the firewall only has 100 Mbps cards or something like that).
In any case, we have plenty of bandwidth to the outside world, but I expect we acquire more as time progresses.
Well, yes and no. The current off campus connection is equivalent to about an OC-3, with portions for both commodity Internet and Internet 2. I believe the idea is that we'll be increasing those caps and installing additional fiber to connect to the rest of the world. Granted, there will be a bottleneck SOMEWHERE.
;)
The Internet2 is actually going to make a big difference here... cheap costs to hook up host institutions and no need to deal with the hassles of the current crappy commodity Internet. Other Universities will probably follow step, I2 will be upgraded and then it will make a bit more sense.
In any case, the whole upgrade will take about 18 months and we've just gotten started. Students are already set up to go, and the comp-sci buildings are going to be next (I know, because I'm responsible for making sure the upgrades go as smoothly as possible for my users).
Still, I think there's a lot of experimentation to do with the GigE network even if we can only realize those speeds off campus. Will this make us a huge target for DDoS attack machines? Sure, but that's why we try to be proactive in protecting our machines.
Well, those are two of the things I know that are in the planning stages. What isn't in this article is that about 10,000 WAPs will be deployed across campus to allow for as much seamless coverage as possible. The WAPs will be capable of holding 2 radios (ostensibly for 802.11b/g and 802.11a). One of the neat ideas being bantered about is perhaps the ability to do VoIP over 802.11... so... cellular service with a twist.
Also, CATV might possible be streamed as well.
There's a lot of new technologies that are going to be pushed and tried out on this network. Some if it will be great, some of it will fail miserably. In any case, it should be interesting and hopefully everyone else will be able to enjoy the fruits of our labors and heartaches once we figure out what works and what doesn't!
Yes he will. He'll just have to use a transceiver. *shrug*. Copper is yucky, anyways, especially for installations as large as this.
No, fiber will be going to every desktop that can support it... all staff, all faculty and all students, regardless of major or degree. In fact, I bet some of the non comp-sci students here can think of better ways to use it than the comp-sci students themselves!
(Disclaimer, I work in the EECS department at CWRU!)
Well, it's called CWRU, too, yes. but the shortened form "Case Western" is still reviled today.
The spitwad is there, as is the phallic fountain. Presti's still does brisk business, albeit in classier quarters. Eating a donut at 2 AM with the cop that just broke up your party there is still common.
and a bit of a pet peeve.
The name of the school is "Case Western Reserve". I know because I work, teach, and take classes here. Feel free to post your questions about it and I'll do my best to answer.
>have you ever seen a PC for sale in a retail walmart store? i sure haven't.
I have. They do exist. They aren't great PCs, but I've seen HPs and others being sold.
I realize this is a little off-topic, but I felt it necessary to try to showcase a little better who the man behind the article is.
Not many of you may really know who Boucher is, heck, I admit that I would be unable to write even a small biography on the man without a lot of hard work. However, this guy is perhaps one of the few folk in Congress who really understands and cares about what the Internet is and what it can become.
While most politicians can be seen as either paying lip service about Internet freedoms or attacking outright the freedoms guaranteed to us, Boucher has proven time and time again that there politicians out there who, for the most part, look out for us.
Now, I'm not in his district and I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted to. He's never seen a dime of my money and I have never even so much have written an email or letter to him. Hell, I'm not even a Democrat. However, this man is perhaps one of the few people whom we need to encourage to continue to fight for our rights. Likewise, we need to begin encouraging our own representatives to follow his lead.
It may sound like I'm bullshitting you about this and that I have some ulterior motive. I don't. I'll let his record speak for itself,
http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm
Anyway, I don't post on Slashdot anymore unless I really have something to say. All I'm trying to say now is, "take a look at this guy, see what he's about, what he's done and decide for yourself."
As a closing thought as to what kind of vision this guy has, he was the one back in 1992 that allowed the NSF (National Science Foundation) network to carry non-educational or scientific traffic... i.e., commodity Internet traffic. This effectively made the Internet what it is today. Al Gore and others may claim they invented the Internet. Boucher makes no such claim, but could largely be credited with the one that made it legal to become what it is today.
Anywho, I'll get off the podium now... but when someone does something right by me I want to make sure everyone who has an interest knows so. This guy is the real deal. Support him and tell your representatives to support him. He is truly "our man on the inside".
I don't like Microsoft operating systems, but jeebus, come on and get real. Anyone with any experience can keep a Windows machine patched and well protected with a little effort. Nimda could have been prevented with patching and virus detection, "unexplained software instability" usually results from shitty third-party software.
You say that you've never taken your linux servers down for any reason except by acts of God. Come on, give me a break. You're telling me you've never updated your kernel? Why not? That's a security issue in and of itself. Machines not responding to pings? I have had the same problems... turns out it was hardware and not software.
Any system can be properly administered. Uptime is not a guarantee of quality by any means. Attention paid to patching often and patching quickly is the mark of a good system administrator. Quickly released patches by vendors is a hallmark of a good product. Having a product that has few patches because it's done right in the first place is the hallmark of a great product.
Now, obviuosly Microsoft does not fit into this final rubrick very well. Hence, their product isn't very good.
Your comparisons are flawed. Your overall gut feelings may be right, but your anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing.
This is called dumping and, even though IANAL, I believe it is illegal. That's kind of the whole point regarding the MS anti-trust case... they were dumping IE for free when Netscape was trying to make it a product... effectively shoving them out of business.
Dumping is really quite common. It's been happening in the steel industry for years. Sell your product below cost until your smaller competitotrs whither away. If you have the cash reserves to last that long and no one calls you to task on it, you're home free.
Don't even start that crap with me today when I've spent all day working on a professor's laptop that has a virus that required a complete reinstall because, for some mysterious reason, he had shut off his anti-virus software. If he had had it running it would have saved about a days worth of my time, which is far more than the cost of the antivirus software in the first place.
Virii are a big deal and any Windows user without protection is an idiot plain and simple. Antivirus companies make money because their products work pretty well most of the time. Why argue with their ability to make a profit? It's not like they're a monopoly, as there are numerous anti-virus vendors out there.
I guarantee, too, once Linux/BSD virii become more prevalent, that many of you will be purchasing antivirus software from your vendors. And don't give me this "But I can't get infected because I only run my stuff as a regular user..." blah blah blah. Every bit of software you run probably has an exploit in it. Just wait... the script kiddies just haven't been that creative yet.
Most of them won't remember it because they're too young to know the difference.
:)
Come on, good sir, do not pretend that most of your readers have any common sense!
I wasn't impressed at all with the results. Basic searches for oddball sites I can easily find within the first 2 or 3 google hits end up 20 or 30 on Teoma. I did searches for myself, too, under various names, guises and projects I've participated in... some of them with rather unique names. Teoma didn't even come up with my project's page at all while Google had it on the first link.
I also smell rank selling in Teoma's results, as some results are suspiciously high in the rankings for no real reason whatsoever.
Eh... You can have that Teoma shit, I'll keep Google thank you very much.
What's worse the the "Founder's" webpage.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/mistybrooks/
Too bad she's kinda hot.
I, too, have had nothing but positive experiences with PayPal... and I've done a LOT of transactions with PayPal, both large and small.
I'm not much of a 1337 hax0r, but if I were, that would be one box I'd love to root.
Whether you love him or hate him, Jon really brings out a few salient talking points in this article. I might even venture out and say that I agree with him on most of his points. However, "me too" does not a good Slashdot comment make, so let me expound a little on why the gloom and doom of the corporatization of the Internet isn't all that bad.
First of all, the corporatization of the Internet has helped to push higher speeds and ubiquity. These two factors alone, while meant to benefit the middle class users, have only helped to lower the cost of entry to future nerds, geeks, hackers and coders.
I'm 25 now, but as a kid growing up in the late 80s, getting any kind of net access was a struggle and a hopeless quest. Enter BBSes and the like. Most of us probably cut our teeth on the BBS. Then enter Freenets (like Cleveland Freenet) and the like. Back then the network was considered blazingly fast at 14.4K. However, my view of what the Internet was and could be was completely blown away upon my visit to the campus of Case Western Reserve in Late 1993. What I saw there was a completely fiber network and the web.
Wow. *that* was cool.
Fast forward to now. Most of the kids coming into college have already experienced the Internet much as I was only able to do once reaching the university. The young hackers in their larval stage come in with a store of knowledge that I could only dream about. I am convinced that we now have more hackers and more technological enthusiasts than we ever have had before. While this may seem like an obvious and trite observation, we need to consider this when also taking into account the fact that the "commodity" usage of the Internet has gone up as well.
In other words, sure, the vast majority of Internet users use it in a utilitarian way. However, now, more than ever, there are users who are using it as a tool to expand their own knowledge and to explore new frontiers of technology. I almost look upon this as romantic, in a weird sort of way, in the way that New York is romantic. I draw the analogy by thinking of both the city and the Internet as being unimaginably dense with people, ideas, culture and thought. However, just underneath the surface, if you look close enough, you'll find your niche, you'll find the "underground".
Granted, most people don't give a shit about the underground. But who cares? It's still there and we can still use. We can still build and we can still expand it. The Internet doesn't exist to fill one purpose or to have one center. The Internet exists to be whatever we want it to be. Again, at the risk of sounding trite, we are slowly and quietly moving towards the concept of cyberspace discussed in early and seminal cyberpunk literature. Think back to the writings of Gibson and Sterling.
So, in closing, in response to the questioned lack of center and the concept that most Internet users are simply Internet consumers, I simply respond, "So what". All we can hope is that right minded individuals will find their calling and explore what makes this whole thing tick. We can hope that they will find out about Open Source software and becoming contributing members to the global computing community. It's not a utopian goal by far, but it is the way things have been and continue to be moving. In every group of people who are content with the status quo and accepting the medium for what it is, there are those individuals like ourselves who are willing to take the next step to make the medium do what we want. There's nothing wrong with that. Let the Internet continue to grow!