If you are talking about an individual or corporation then your inclination would be ok.
Public systems paid for with public tax dollars do not in any way go by the same litmus tests. Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.
No government documents should ever be in a proprietary format. Also, when it comes to tax dollars, it seems to me that "good enough" makes a tool the right tool for the job when the price is free (OpenOffice.org) versus Microsoft Office. Price MUST be a factor when determining the "right" tool. Also, if proprietary vendor products attempt to lock in an organization and lock out competing products from interoperating, that is unacceptable.
Right tool for the job? Ok, but let's talk about what DEFINES the right tool. It isn't purely function.
Let me ask my boss . . . oh wait--that's me! I make the IT decisions. The CEO and CFO either agree to pay for it or not. They do not question my decisions since that would be micromanagment. They hired me for my expertise. Since replacing MySQL with Postgres costs . . . nothing, there is no discussion to be had.
Nice troll though. Good luck flipping those burgers.
I can't speak for others, but when I read that MySQL got cozy with SCO, I added ripping out MySQL and replacing it with Postgres to every server I manage and to never install MySQL again to my to do list.
I'm sorry MySQL, but you should have known that there would be many people that would not take this well. If not, you've been living in a hole.
Too bad as I liked your product. But since in my case it isn't irreplacable, so long and thanks for all the queries.
If MS fixed their shoddy product so that these kinds of products wouldn't be needed, that would be one thing. But to sell or especially give away this kind of software that is being sold by a third party is beyond dirty.
Selling is dirty because it is a band-aid to their inability to produce a secure product. Giving away is dirty because that is leveraging their monopoly to supplant another company.
Fixing their product issues is the only route that would be right thing to do.
Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
Maybe this is a typo, but web processing already is that way. If you meant Word Processing, that might make a bit more sense.
But even still, I think the problem is that most of us are being hampered by the old school thinking of the software being the heart of your computing experience. That is quickly changing as various software packages and operating systems are on a level playing field. Exactly what do you think the Open Documents standard is meant to accomplish? That your data is ubiquitous and the software behind it is irrelevant. You can move effortlessly from software to software with your data--even on the web.
I'm not a big fan of making all the desktops in the World into dumb terminals
I don't think that is necessary nor what Google is after. Once upon a time, mainframe/terminals was the epicenter of computing. Then the dawn of the PC swang the pendulum in the other direction. What I think we are seeing and Google is after is not a full swing in the other direction, but rather a hybrid version where it makes sense. Have a copy of Open Office on your computer and edit your documents locally. Have them sync with a copy on Google's servers. Then you go to a friend's house and open your document in a web browser there and edit it.
I like to think of it like cell phones. The value in cell service inevitably is your number, contacts, etc. The cell phone is just a portal to use those services which is why number portability became important. Number portability was to cell phones what Open Document is to your office data. You can go down the line with the analogies there, but I hope you see the connection.
A large and fully redundant fault tolerant server is more flexible. Use virtualization and have many reliable servers of many different operating systems in one unit as opposed to a highly specialized cluster.
For certain tasks, clustering will certainly offer a performance advantage from a scalability standpoint. Yet a fully fault tolerant hardware system like from Stratus offers just a touch more reliability than a fault tolerant software system.
Do you mean MS VB or just general VB? Because it's already there. I've written macros with it before. Granted in version 1.x the programming environment and documentation was beyond crappy. I haven't explored it in the 2.x beta.
I can only assume you mean with MIMO clients as it doesn't matter what your AP is capable of if it is talking to an 802.11b client. The client cannot push more than the 802.11b standard, period.
No, the inefficiency comes from the construction of an 802.11b packet. Only a portion of a wireless packet actually contains data. The rest contains WEP information, AP information, MAC information and such.
If 802.11b says it is capable of 11MB, then you figure the amount of data than can carry is at MOST the percentage of the 802.11b packet that is actually data. Then you figure on the collisions and retransmissions and it goes even lower.
Based on what the release says, I think it uses as many as four or five different channels. MIMO really only provides increased signal to noise and helps manage and utilize multipath. In and of itself, it doesn't provide a speed boost.
This sounds like they are using MIMO in conjuction with multiple channels to boost speed. I'm willing to bet that it does this and maintains backwards compatibility with 802.11a/b/g (as it claims) by allowing legacy clients to connect as normal to one of the channels and allows 240Mbit clients to connect on all channels.
If not, they have made one remarkable breakthrough in wireless modulation.
So it follows that Airgo's new cards will permit 40 to 80 megabits
No it doesn't. The release doesn't specifically say, but in order to achieve the full data rate, a different modulation technique MUST be used. If the modulation is more efficient than 802.11b/g/a, then you're calculations will be erroneous.
In fact, the release hints at that already as it says it is backwards compatible with 802.11a as well (which seems to hint that multiple frequency spaces are used simultaneously). 802.11a modulation is more efficient than 802.11g and despite both claiming 54Mbps throughput, neither comes close although 802.11a does a better job.
Oh, and unless some major modulation breakthrough has been made, the full 240Mbps will most likely use four or five different channels simultaneously.
we think it should be up to the mother (and father, though probably to a smaller extent)
This is off topic, but if men are expected not to have an equal voice in this choice, why are we expected to have equal responsibility once it is made?
If the information is out there, someone will do it.
To satisfy your paranoia, might I suggest 1) Working on a cash only basis, 2) Spending only cash, 3) Never sign anything, 4) Never own anything and 5) Live off the land.
I don't know what things are like in the realm of Hams (as I am not one), but in the Wifi world, antenna quality is important, but not more than radio sensitivity. Since the data stream is sensitive to loss, if the S/N ratio isn't sufficient and the radio/processor is losing parts of the data and/or the processor is overwhelmed sorting out the noise, then there will be massive resends and that just makes a connection unusable.
In audio communications, you can have static and such and still consider it a usable signal. Not so in data communications. But I am sure you already know that.
There is no such thing. The most powerful FM station ever was (and maybe still is) 500,000 watts (half a megawatt). The FCC has limits now in place that make is such that no FM station will ever be multi-megawatt. I do not know about other countries.
Regardless, you can't possibly compare the FM frequencies to 2.4ghz. FM is so much lower on the scale that it has no trouble travelling as far as the curvature of the earth will allow. 2.4ghz will not since the size of its Fresnel zone is huge at long distances whereas FM isn't.
Actually the backbones connecting COs to major backbones are usually vastly underutilized since voice calls leave such a small footprint comparitively speaking. What can happen is if your neighborhood is remote and connected by a fiber backhaul to the CO. In that case, you are sharing that backhaul with your neighbors and are at the mercy of how much bandwidth it can carry.
With cable, you are undoubtedly more at the mercy of sharing, but chances are your cable provider has plenty of bandwidth to spare as well.
Oh, and lets not forget that the technology to provide 100MB connections over cable is coming down the pipeline soon.
Or how about this: You are going away for a month on vacation. You print out access codes to your house alarm system. Heck, just for fun, you also print out some temporary admin passwords to some servers you run and give the paper to your most trusted friend in the world to fill in for you while you are gone to watch over the servers and water your plants.
He accidentally loses the paper. Somehow it ends up in the hands of a black hat. Now all the black hat needs is to know WHO printed this list to take advantage of the situation.
Now how do you feel about your identity stored on that paper?
It isn't what it WILL be used for, it's what it COULD be used for that bothers me.
For a WISP, it's a different story than for a wired line ISP. A WISP only has so much bandwidth for a given frequency whereas a wired line ISP can keep adding massive bandwidth. In order to make a tower site cost-effective, "overselling" the bandwidth is the only way to go at low cost consumer prices. The law of averages says that at any one time, not everyone will be pulling data.
If someone resells to their neighbors, then they will be more likely to peg their bandwidth slice all the time. As someone else made mention, it isn't a big deal if it is a commercial account because the WISP probably charges a premium for a CIR on the bandwidth as opposed to charging a minimum for a consumer MIR.
CIR = Confirmed information rate (guaranteed bandwidth)
MIR = Minimum information rate (best effort bandwidth)
Slashdot Mirror
If you are talking about an individual or corporation then your inclination would be ok.
Public systems paid for with public tax dollars do not in any way go by the same litmus tests. Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.
No government documents should ever be in a proprietary format. Also, when it comes to tax dollars, it seems to me that "good enough" makes a tool the right tool for the job when the price is free (OpenOffice.org) versus Microsoft Office. Price MUST be a factor when determining the "right" tool. Also, if proprietary vendor products attempt to lock in an organization and lock out competing products from interoperating, that is unacceptable.
Right tool for the job? Ok, but let's talk about what DEFINES the right tool. It isn't purely function.
So I buy software, never install it and thus never see the EULA (or agree to it). I fail to see how I am legally bound by anything.
Let me ask my boss . . . oh wait--that's me! I make the IT decisions. The CEO and CFO either agree to pay for it or not. They do not question my decisions since that would be micromanagment. They hired me for my expertise. Since replacing MySQL with Postgres costs . . . nothing, there is no discussion to be had.
Nice troll though. Good luck flipping those burgers.
I can't speak for others, but when I read that MySQL got cozy with SCO, I added ripping out MySQL and replacing it with Postgres to every server I manage and to never install MySQL again to my to do list.
I'm sorry MySQL, but you should have known that there would be many people that would not take this well. If not, you've been living in a hole.
Too bad as I liked your product. But since in my case it isn't irreplacable, so long and thanks for all the queries.
Forgive me if I don't get excited. I don't use products from companies that make deals with the devil.
MySQL working with SCO
If MS fixed their shoddy product so that these kinds of products wouldn't be needed, that would be one thing. But to sell or especially give away this kind of software that is being sold by a third party is beyond dirty.
Selling is dirty because it is a band-aid to their inability to produce a secure product. Giving away is dirty because that is leveraging their monopoly to supplant another company.
Fixing their product issues is the only route that would be right thing to do.
Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
Maybe this is a typo, but web processing already is that way. If you meant Word Processing, that might make a bit more sense.
But even still, I think the problem is that most of us are being hampered by the old school thinking of the software being the heart of your computing experience. That is quickly changing as various software packages and operating systems are on a level playing field. Exactly what do you think the Open Documents standard is meant to accomplish? That your data is ubiquitous and the software behind it is irrelevant. You can move effortlessly from software to software with your data--even on the web.
I'm not a big fan of making all the desktops in the World into dumb terminals
I don't think that is necessary nor what Google is after. Once upon a time, mainframe/terminals was the epicenter of computing. Then the dawn of the PC swang the pendulum in the other direction. What I think we are seeing and Google is after is not a full swing in the other direction, but rather a hybrid version where it makes sense. Have a copy of Open Office on your computer and edit your documents locally. Have them sync with a copy on Google's servers. Then you go to a friend's house and open your document in a web browser there and edit it.
I like to think of it like cell phones. The value in cell service inevitably is your number, contacts, etc. The cell phone is just a portal to use those services which is why number portability became important. Number portability was to cell phones what Open Document is to your office data. You can go down the line with the analogies there, but I hope you see the connection.
A large and fully redundant fault tolerant server is more flexible. Use virtualization and have many reliable servers of many different operating systems in one unit as opposed to a highly specialized cluster.
For certain tasks, clustering will certainly offer a performance advantage from a scalability standpoint. Yet a fully fault tolerant hardware system like from Stratus offers just a touch more reliability than a fault tolerant software system.
I should have been more specific. It is BASIC that you can use in OO.o and that is NOT MS created. Take out the Visual part.
(If only they could get vba in it)
Do you mean MS VB or just general VB? Because it's already there. I've written macros with it before. Granted in version 1.x the programming environment and documentation was beyond crappy. I haven't explored it in the 2.x beta.
I can only assume you mean with MIMO clients as it doesn't matter what your AP is capable of if it is talking to an 802.11b client. The client cannot push more than the 802.11b standard, period.
No, the inefficiency comes from the construction of an 802.11b packet. Only a portion of a wireless packet actually contains data. The rest contains WEP information, AP information, MAC information and such.
If 802.11b says it is capable of 11MB, then you figure the amount of data than can carry is at MOST the percentage of the 802.11b packet that is actually data. Then you figure on the collisions and retransmissions and it goes even lower.
Based on what the release says, I think it uses as many as four or five different channels. MIMO really only provides increased signal to noise and helps manage and utilize multipath. In and of itself, it doesn't provide a speed boost.
This sounds like they are using MIMO in conjuction with multiple channels to boost speed. I'm willing to bet that it does this and maintains backwards compatibility with 802.11a/b/g (as it claims) by allowing legacy clients to connect as normal to one of the channels and allows 240Mbit clients to connect on all channels.
If not, they have made one remarkable breakthrough in wireless modulation.
So it follows that Airgo's new cards will permit 40 to 80 megabits
No it doesn't. The release doesn't specifically say, but in order to achieve the full data rate, a different modulation technique MUST be used. If the modulation is more efficient than 802.11b/g/a, then you're calculations will be erroneous.
In fact, the release hints at that already as it says it is backwards compatible with 802.11a as well (which seems to hint that multiple frequency spaces are used simultaneously). 802.11a modulation is more efficient than 802.11g and despite both claiming 54Mbps throughput, neither comes close although 802.11a does a better job.
Oh, and unless some major modulation breakthrough has been made, the full 240Mbps will most likely use four or five different channels simultaneously.
put your power and other cables under ground etc.
Except when entire neighborhoods are under water and underground conduits fill will it.
It never helps when a huge chunk of your local National Guard is in another country. I wonder how they got there?
we think it should be up to the mother (and father, though probably to a smaller extent)
This is off topic, but if men are expected not to have an equal voice in this choice, why are we expected to have equal responsibility once it is made?
If the information is out there, someone will do it.
To satisfy your paranoia, might I suggest 1) Working on a cash only basis, 2) Spending only cash, 3) Never sign anything, 4) Never own anything and 5) Live off the land.
Welcome to the digital age.
I don't know what things are like in the realm of Hams (as I am not one), but in the Wifi world, antenna quality is important, but not more than radio sensitivity. Since the data stream is sensitive to loss, if the S/N ratio isn't sufficient and the radio/processor is losing parts of the data and/or the processor is overwhelmed sorting out the noise, then there will be massive resends and that just makes a connection unusable.
In audio communications, you can have static and such and still consider it a usable signal. Not so in data communications. But I am sure you already know that.
multi-megawatt FM stations
There is no such thing. The most powerful FM station ever was (and maybe still is) 500,000 watts (half a megawatt). The FCC has limits now in place that make is such that no FM station will ever be multi-megawatt. I do not know about other countries.
Regardless, you can't possibly compare the FM frequencies to 2.4ghz. FM is so much lower on the scale that it has no trouble travelling as far as the curvature of the earth will allow. 2.4ghz will not since the size of its Fresnel zone is huge at long distances whereas FM isn't.
Actually the backbones connecting COs to major backbones are usually vastly underutilized since voice calls leave such a small footprint comparitively speaking. What can happen is if your neighborhood is remote and connected by a fiber backhaul to the CO. In that case, you are sharing that backhaul with your neighbors and are at the mercy of how much bandwidth it can carry.
With cable, you are undoubtedly more at the mercy of sharing, but chances are your cable provider has plenty of bandwidth to spare as well.
Oh, and lets not forget that the technology to provide 100MB connections over cable is coming down the pipeline soon.
Or how about this: You are going away for a month on vacation. You print out access codes to your house alarm system. Heck, just for fun, you also print out some temporary admin passwords to some servers you run and give the paper to your most trusted friend in the world to fill in for you while you are gone to watch over the servers and water your plants.
He accidentally loses the paper. Somehow it ends up in the hands of a black hat. Now all the black hat needs is to know WHO printed this list to take advantage of the situation.
Now how do you feel about your identity stored on that paper?
It isn't what it WILL be used for, it's what it COULD be used for that bothers me.
For a WISP, it's a different story than for a wired line ISP. A WISP only has so much bandwidth for a given frequency whereas a wired line ISP can keep adding massive bandwidth. In order to make a tower site cost-effective, "overselling" the bandwidth is the only way to go at low cost consumer prices. The law of averages says that at any one time, not everyone will be pulling data.
If someone resells to their neighbors, then they will be more likely to peg their bandwidth slice all the time. As someone else made mention, it isn't a big deal if it is a commercial account because the WISP probably charges a premium for a CIR on the bandwidth as opposed to charging a minimum for a consumer MIR.
CIR = Confirmed information rate (guaranteed bandwidth)
MIR = Minimum information rate (best effort bandwidth)
Until Excel or an equivalent like Excel runs on Linux
That's been a reality for a long time now.
www.codeweavers.com
The legend is that the name hurt car sales. It didn't. Follow the link I gave for more information.