I suspect they'll co-brand, for the most part, though Cisco may spin off a line of high-end NICs that don't carry the Linksys name. For the most part though, there's not too much overlap between Cisco products and Linksys products, and Linksys has a good name and good distribution channels in the consumer market (you can get Linksys anywhere, and even broadband providers are pushing Linksys stuff for home networking), so I suspect we'll see lots of current Linksys products rebadged as 'Cisco/Linksys.'
Well bravo. Cisco's inraods into the consumer market didn't do too well, so it's a smart move to pick up an established brand. This also puts Cisco into direct competition with companies making both client and infrastructure devices (i.e. 3Com, Intel, etc).
Not necessarily. Even organizations with extremely high-bandwidth connections have budgets. If you can up throughput by 10% using a QoS solution when a corresponding bandwidth increase would cost twice as much, which would you choose? Obviously this particular project is more geared toward end users and small shops with limited bandwidth, but QoS as a whole does have benefits for everyone.
I had the PC Tools desktop enhancement or environment or whatever for Windows 3.1. The virtual desktops were great. The whole package was great, for that matter.
You are also falling into the trap of believing that the poor, necessarily, have limited computer experience.
Generally, their experience is limited, otherwise no 'digital divide' would exist and projects like this wouldn't get off the ground.
I've had the pleasure of converse with many an engineer, physicist, university trained musician or poet
As have I, and plenty of them were completely clueless about all things computer related. Just having an education doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing when you sit down in front of a computer.
No offense, because I do agree, but let's be realistic--very few people with limited computer experience are going to be willing to nuke their semi-functional Windows install and replace it with something that maybe, with lots of tweaking, will work marginally better than their previous OS, assuming they can get their wireless NIC working. Granted, if someone gives them a preconfigured Linux or BSD system, the story changes, but as it is, I just don't see it happening
Anyhow, it seemed that free dialup failed because it was a) too slow, and b) had way too many ads. I suspect this will be more successful, as these aren't such a problem.
True, but then, how long until that changes?
Being that more websites are being built for high bandwidth users, this will truly allow equal access to information.
Maybe, maybe not. Much of that information is formatted for modern systems. How much good does broadband do for someone with a 486 and a 640x480, 256-color monitor, 40 megs of RAM, etc?
Mid-way through the first chapter and it sucks already. Amatuerish and annoying. Oh yeah, someone might want to inform the author that "fuck" is no longer daring, just trite.
That morons the sort of which get addicted to games like this are not likely to heed your wanring anyway. I mean, seriously people, it's a game, it's meant to fun, if it's not, don't play. It's called free will, and no, it's not $12.95 a month.
Well, the GPU isn't ready for release. So by the time it hits the market, it may be competing, price-wise, with offerings from ATi and nVidia that perform similar to the cards they benchmarked it against.
Of course, if Trident can increase performance a bit and keep the price down, they'll no doubt capture a good portion of the low-end market. That is, assuming ATi and nVidia aren't preparing similar products...
Uh, the fucking press release they linked to was absolutely useless anyway, as it's in a language maybe 5% of us can read. Is there any indication of this given on the frontpage of slashdot? Such as, "hey, guys, don't bother, you can't read it anyway." Or did anyone consider that a site hosted at a facility whose NOC just got gutted by an arsonist might not be quite up to handling/. traffic? I mean, christ, fine, it's a technical issue that their site can't handle the traffic. But all things considered, even operating at peak performance, there's no reason why it should be able to deal with the load/. generates. And under the circumstances, it's absolutely absurd to think they should just "fix" their site so it doesn't get/.ed when a million of us click a link to a document that we can't even read anyway
Actually, it's a social/ethical issue, not a legal issue./. can show a little restraint and respect when linking. Use mirrors, caches, etc.
And what's the point of the WWW if 5 seconds after a site is linked to from here, the server hosting it has been hosed and nobody can see it anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect they'll co-brand, for the most part, though Cisco may spin off a line of high-end NICs that don't carry the Linksys name. For the most part though, there's not too much overlap between Cisco products and Linksys products, and Linksys has a good name and good distribution channels in the consumer market (you can get Linksys anywhere, and even broadband providers are pushing Linksys stuff for home networking), so I suspect we'll see lots of current Linksys products rebadged as 'Cisco/Linksys.'
Well bravo. Cisco's inraods into the consumer market didn't do too well, so it's a smart move to pick up an established brand. This also puts Cisco into direct competition with companies making both client and infrastructure devices (i.e. 3Com, Intel, etc).
Not necessarily. Even organizations with extremely high-bandwidth connections have budgets. If you can up throughput by 10% using a QoS solution when a corresponding bandwidth increase would cost twice as much, which would you choose? Obviously this particular project is more geared toward end users and small shops with limited bandwidth, but QoS as a whole does have benefits for everyone.
Wouldn't the fact that the default behaviour for the mouse doesn't emulate X mean that MS in fact did not copy that particular feature?
I had the PC Tools desktop enhancement or environment or whatever for Windows 3.1. The virtual desktops were great. The whole package was great, for that matter.
Generally, their experience is limited, otherwise no 'digital divide' would exist and projects like this wouldn't get off the ground.
I've had the pleasure of converse with many an engineer, physicist, university trained musician or poet
As have I, and plenty of them were completely clueless about all things computer related. Just having an education doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing when you sit down in front of a computer.
No offense, because I do agree, but let's be realistic--very few people with limited computer experience are going to be willing to nuke their semi-functional Windows install and replace it with something that maybe, with lots of tweaking, will work marginally better than their previous OS, assuming they can get their wireless NIC working. Granted, if someone gives them a preconfigured Linux or BSD system, the story changes, but as it is, I just don't see it happening
Anyhow, it seemed that free dialup failed because it was a) too slow, and b) had way too many ads. I suspect this will be more successful, as these aren't such a problem. True, but then, how long until that changes?
Maybe, maybe not. Much of that information is formatted for modern systems. How much good does broadband do for someone with a 486 and a 640x480, 256-color monitor, 40 megs of RAM, etc?
Will this do any more than free dialup access did?
And you can find dedicated VPN servers on eBay these days for like $25. Stick it behind your AP and your problems are solved.
Seriously, stick an IPSec VPN gateway behind your AP and just use VPN tunnels to get your wireless clients on your network.
Mid-way through the first chapter and it sucks already. Amatuerish and annoying. Oh yeah, someone might want to inform the author that "fuck" is no longer daring, just trite.
Wow, 3 pages of specs. It's almost like reading a brochure.
Heh. Wanring.
That morons the sort of which get addicted to games like this are not likely to heed your wanring anyway. I mean, seriously people, it's a game, it's meant to fun, if it's not, don't play. It's called free will, and no, it's not $12.95 a month.
Fuck yeah! Naan and that bangin' Martha crap. bang tan barta or something. With that green mint sauce. Ohh yeah.
Yeah, I mean, good for him catching the guy and all, but let's be real for a moment--that's what you get when you ship a $3000 laptop COD.
Oh, yeah, at least it's not Katz.
Uh. Dude--Mary Shelley?
Well, the GPU isn't ready for release. So by the time it hits the market, it may be competing, price-wise, with offerings from ATi and nVidia that perform similar to the cards they benchmarked it against. Of course, if Trident can increase performance a bit and keep the price down, they'll no doubt capture a good portion of the low-end market. That is, assuming ATi and nVidia aren't preparing similar products...
Are just taking them home and loading pirated copies of Windows onto them?
Presumably, then, my Wal-Mart receipt is copyrighted as well.
Uh, the fucking press release they linked to was absolutely useless anyway, as it's in a language maybe 5% of us can read. Is there any indication of this given on the frontpage of slashdot? Such as, "hey, guys, don't bother, you can't read it anyway." Or did anyone consider that a site hosted at a facility whose NOC just got gutted by an arsonist might not be quite up to handling /. traffic? I mean, christ, fine, it's a technical issue that their site can't handle the traffic. But all things considered, even operating at peak performance, there's no reason why it should be able to deal with the load /. generates. And under the circumstances, it's absolutely absurd to think they should just "fix" their site so it doesn't get /.ed when a million of us click a link to a document that we can't even read anyway
Actually, it's a social/ethical issue, not a legal issue. /. can show a little restraint and respect when linking. Use mirrors, caches, etc.
And what's the point of the WWW if 5 seconds after a site is linked to from here, the server hosting it has been hosed and nobody can see it anyway?