If you can't afford an iPod, don't look at the currently pricier iRiver. While they will probably match the iPod price when the 20GB iRiver ships, their 10GB player is currently the price of the 20GB iPod ($399), while the 10GB iPod is $299.
The Zen is cheaper, but also has a shitty interface.
Oh, it's killer alright, when you factor in the lack of PPPoE, netblock, Router and the fact that the connectivity upstream from the Reback is all OC grade circuits on the alter.net backbone.
3M/768K Static mapped DSL will usually outperform 3.5M/1M PPPoE DSL.
Admittedly tightvnc sucks less than basic VNC. It still doesn't match RDP for performance. It's also not as ubitquous as basic VNC (And that's VNC's win, the fact it runs on EVERYTHING)
Not to mention 4 hour MTTR's, no worries of ATM saturation (Since T1's are almost always CBR when traversing ATM clouds) and SLA, which is what you're paying for.
DSL is great for medium-speed connectivity for an office or such. A T1 (or better) is what you get when reliability and performance are issues. DSL is never going to be as reliable as a T1.
LinuxInDallas is correct. DSL is either Symetric (SDSL or IDSL) or Asymetric (ADSL). A T1 is always Symetric.
Synchronous refers how the communications work, not whether or not the upload and dowload speeds are the same. I'm too tired to get into the difference between Sync and Async connections though.
How about the fact that it's significantly more responsive than VNC over the same speed link? The RDP Protocol is simply much more efficient than the very basic RFB protocol.
RDP is a development of Citrix Meta/Winframe, not RFB (Which is a nice, but poor-performing protocol).
So RDC/RDP wins not because of support (I'd kill to have working RDP servers for OS X, Linux and *BSD) but because of clearly superior performance. The truth on this one hurts, but VNC's performance is quite bad, when compared to the competition.
Windows doesn't support secure remote shells (Out of the box), but it certainly has remote admin capabilities. In some ways (RDC especially) they are better than anything Linux has, in others (MMC), I'll take SSH and vi instead.
Quite possible. WS 2003 Is a great improvement over previous versions, especially from a security standpoint (Who'd have thought there's be a version of windows with all services turned off by default). A base install of WS 2003 is better than Redhat from a security standpoint (RedHat has more services on by default, both have 1 known exploitable remote vulnerability). And RDC is much superior than X or VNC for remote graphical management.
So you aren't going to see as many scare stories about WS 2003, and the PHB's will almost always choose Windows over Linux on the same hardware.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but it does that by tunneling over TCP/IP (UDP based HyperSCSI doesn't appear to be implemented). It's pretty much tunneling Ethernet frames over TCP/IP.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 2, Informative
IP is Layer 3. IP Rides the raw Datalink. IP is the same layer as HyperSCSI. Raw Datalink is layer 2.
Ethernet is both a Layer 1 topology and a Layer 2 Datalink protocol. That's why you can push ethernet frames over dissimilar topologies (Like 100baseFX and LANE over ATM).
OSI Layer 1 is Physical (Ethernet is here) OSI Layer 2 is Datalink (Ethernet is also here) OSI Layer 3 is Network (IP and HyperSCSI live here) OSI Layer 4 is Protocol (TCP, UDP and the SCSI side of HyperSCSI live here)
Well, since the SCSI protocol was duplicating alot of what TCP does (Error Correction especially), eliminating the duplication is a performance-booster.
This isn't a replacement for NFS or CIFS/SMB, but for FC and iSCSI.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you read the docs, you will note that they mention running over UDP/IP as a possible outgrowth. But they note as it's only really useful for Storage WANs (Since it does add some overhead), why not just use iSCSI. HyperSCSI is designed for Switched Networks, iSCSI is somewhat more flexible, if also somewhat slower.
For what they want UDP offers nothing that straight ethernet frames don't. And UDP has more overhead.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 2, Informative
NO, Ethernet is also a layer 2 protocol. HyperSCSI runs as a layer 3 protocol over Ethernet's layer 2. Remember, Ethernet is both a layer 1 protocol (At the physical side) and a layer 2 protocol (Data Link).
Some of the Ethnic Swede's do speak Swedish natively, but the distinction is Ethnic, not Language. They're a leftover from Sweden's control of Finland under the Vasa Dynasty.
Your sister-in-law was probably referring to the easily noticed distincion (Language) rather than the actual distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
3 problems with that argument.
1. Maya is an Alias Wavefront product, not SGI.
2. Maya runs on Linux.
3. SGI sells Linux/IA-64(Itanium 2) machines.
I suspect they'll be dropping their prices when the iHP-120 comes out. The current iPods are only a few weeks old anyways.
But it is funny to see all the folks complaining that the iPod is too pricey, then drooling over the more expensive iRiver.
That's nice, considering iRiver sells the 10GB iHP-100 for $399.
If you can't afford an iPod, don't look at the currently pricier iRiver. While they will probably match the iPod price when the 20GB iRiver ships, their 10GB player is currently the price of the 20GB iPod ($399), while the 10GB iPod is $299.
The Zen is cheaper, but also has a shitty interface.
Considering that the 10GB iRiver is the same price as the 20GB iPod ($399). I don't think the normally pricey iPod is in much danger.
Oh, it's killer alright, when you factor in the lack of PPPoE, netblock, Router and the fact that the connectivity upstream from the Reback is all OC grade circuits on the alter.net backbone.
3M/768K Static mapped DSL will usually outperform 3.5M/1M PPPoE DSL.
Admittedly tightvnc sucks less than basic VNC. It still doesn't match RDP for performance. It's also not as ubitquous as basic VNC (And that's VNC's win, the fact it runs on EVERYTHING)
So, go iStop or THT.net if you can get it. 3MB DSL, $70/mo.
Or get a killer connection from MCI (UUNET).
Roughly $600/mo gets you 3MB/768K bridged DSL with a netblock and a 1605.
Umm, UUNET Canada (Now MCI) has been selling Fast Ether for years (At least 5 years now).
We won;t sell GigE outside of a Datacentre, but we'll give you an OC48 instead.
Not to mention 4 hour MTTR's, no worries of ATM saturation (Since T1's are almost always CBR when traversing ATM clouds) and SLA, which is what you're paying for.
DSL is great for medium-speed connectivity for an office or such. A T1 (or better) is what you get when reliability and performance are issues. DSL is never going to be as reliable as a T1.
LinuxInDallas is correct. DSL is either Symetric (SDSL or IDSL) or Asymetric (ADSL). A T1 is always Symetric.
Synchronous refers how the communications work, not whether or not the upload and dowload speeds are the same. I'm too tired to get into the difference between Sync and Async connections though.
How about the fact that it's significantly more responsive than VNC over the same speed link? The RDP Protocol is simply much more efficient than the very basic RFB protocol.
RDP is a development of Citrix Meta/Winframe, not RFB (Which is a nice, but poor-performing protocol).
So RDC/RDP wins not because of support (I'd kill to have working RDP servers for OS X, Linux and *BSD) but because of clearly superior performance. The truth on this one hurts, but VNC's performance is quite bad, when compared to the competition.
He's referring to the XFree86 Drivers.
It's simply more idiot-proof. So less problems with idiots not turning off unnecessary services.
Of course, that still leaves the idiots who don't patch, or who turn up unnecessary services.
Better != good.
RDP is the protocol, RDC is the client app.
Considering MS was (And maybe still is) offering 180-day eval versions from it's website, via a free download, that's entirely possible.
I know my WS 2003 box is running an eval version.
Never played with RDC or MMC have you?
Windows doesn't support secure remote shells (Out of the box), but it certainly has remote admin capabilities. In some ways (RDC especially) they are better than anything Linux has, in others (MMC), I'll take SSH and vi instead.
Quite possible. WS 2003 Is a great improvement over previous versions, especially from a security standpoint (Who'd have thought there's be a version of windows with all services turned off by default). A base install of WS 2003 is better than Redhat from a security standpoint (RedHat has more services on by default, both have 1 known exploitable remote vulnerability). And RDC is much superior than X or VNC for remote graphical management.
So you aren't going to see as many scare stories about WS 2003, and the PHB's will almost always choose Windows over Linux on the same hardware.
Yeah, but it does that by tunneling over TCP/IP (UDP based HyperSCSI doesn't appear to be implemented).
It's pretty much tunneling Ethernet frames over TCP/IP.
IP is Layer 3. IP Rides the raw Datalink. IP is the same layer as HyperSCSI. Raw Datalink is layer 2.
Ethernet is both a Layer 1 topology and a Layer 2 Datalink protocol. That's why you can push ethernet frames over dissimilar topologies (Like 100baseFX and LANE over ATM).
OSI Layer 1 is Physical (Ethernet is here)
OSI Layer 2 is Datalink (Ethernet is also here)
OSI Layer 3 is Network (IP and HyperSCSI live here)
OSI Layer 4 is Protocol (TCP, UDP and the SCSI side of HyperSCSI live here)
Well, since the SCSI protocol was duplicating alot of what TCP does (Error Correction especially), eliminating the duplication is a performance-booster.
This isn't a replacement for NFS or CIFS/SMB, but for FC and iSCSI.
If you read the docs, you will note that they mention running over UDP/IP as a possible outgrowth. But they note as it's only really useful for Storage WANs (Since it does add some overhead), why not just use iSCSI. HyperSCSI is designed for Switched Networks, iSCSI is somewhat more flexible, if also somewhat slower.
For what they want UDP offers nothing that straight ethernet frames don't. And UDP has more overhead.
NO, Ethernet is also a layer 2 protocol. HyperSCSI runs as a layer 3 protocol over Ethernet's layer 2. Remember, Ethernet is both a layer 1 protocol (At the physical side) and a layer 2 protocol (Data Link).
IP is Layer 3. HyperSCSI is Layer 3.
Some of the Ethnic Swede's do speak Swedish natively, but the distinction is Ethnic, not Language. They're a leftover from Sweden's control of Finland under the Vasa Dynasty.
Your sister-in-law was probably referring to the easily noticed distincion (Language) rather than the actual distinction.
No, they're Ethnicly Swedish. Their native tongue is usually Finnish. It's a matter of Genetics, not language.
And Finland certainly is one of the 4 Scandinavian countries (Norway and Sweden are merely the two actually on the Scandinavian Peninsula).
So Linus was certainly a Scandinavian Grad Student when he one-uped RMS.