Absolutely, apologies, a rushed typo in my comment. I normally type just "DSL" in this context, hence my emphasis on the "symmetric" component which wouldn't have been required if I'd typed "SDSL".
I've recently gone from ADSL (1.5Mb/s symmetric) back to 56k dial (on a pay-as-you-go account) due to a house move out in to the countryside.
To be honest, apart from when there is more than one person using the link, it's perfectly adequate for Web (on relatively graphics-lite sites) and Shell access.
The only downer is larger downloads which I can do at work and then just copy over at home on the Wireless/Wired LAN.
I've also found that it stops me wasting nearly as much time on the 'Net doing "pointless browsing"!
*Please* can we stop this "Microsoft is Evil" ranting, it's _SO_ last season.
Seriously, if people want to get a serious point across, please try to drop the "Militant Linux Activist" edge on your articles. People who matter will take them a lot more seriously.
Absolutely, and the world would be a more interesting place if more ISPs had implemented in-house CDNs rather than leaving it at basic HTTP proxying.
Like you say, it is relatively easy to implement some sort of DNS proximity testing, possibly using BIND views (or a box from Alteon/Cisco/whoever) and some standard caches (Squid, NetCache etc.). Streaming media can also delivered in this manner to save on core network bandwidth using application-layer stream splitting from people such as Network Appliance.
The generally accepted term for this type of technology is "Content Distribution Networking" or "Content Delivery Networking". Akamai, Speedera, Digital Island etc. are Content Distribution companies which will (according to the necessary commercial agreements), take a customer's content and distribute it around their overlay CDNs. Generally speaking, these CDNs overlay the traditional Internet using co-located space in customer or exchange point datacentres. There are, however, some CDN organisations who take the approach of building their own infrastructure.
"Transparent Web Caching" on the other hand is generally a term applied to the transparent redirection of TCP port 80 IP traffic on access equipment through a set of HTTP proxy devices. This technique is used by many ISPs to force users to use their Webcaches even if the user thinks they are being clever by disabling the pre-defined HTTP Proxy settings in their Web browser.
Until recently, you could build your own CDN ($$$) using software from people such as Inktomi, but can still use devices from other manufacturers such as Network Appliance or Cisco Systems.
Well, I've had an OSX system for 2 months and in that time the only application to crash has been MS IE.
My other experience in this area was when I installed MusicMatch on Windows XP. It crashed three times trying to install. Then, when I finally plugged my iPod in, it erased all the data on the iPod and converted it to a "Windows" iPod. "Thanks, no, really".
I've sworn never to let my iPod touch another Windows system, and apart from Mac Office (which on the whole has been pretty good), I'll endevour to avoid MS Apps on OSX at all costs.
As many people (keep) saying, Apple kit isn't necessarily the fastest out there in terms of raw speed. However, from a day-to-day point of view, is raw speed what you want on a minute-by-minute basis? Probably not. If you do, then you've probably got a dual or quad processor x86 box churning away with your favourite SMP kernel-based OS.
For everyday use (productivity apps, Internet, media manipulation) Apple kit does a really good job. Firewire is fast and convenient. More importantly, Apple kit (and software) is very stable in my experience.
Apple looks like it is selective in its choice of cool new tech (tm) to incorporate into its products. This is a Good Thing.
It's about time CS students got back to learning some proper programming languages, methods, algorithms and system-level understanding. Having seen numerous UK Universities go from teaching assembler and hardware-level courses to being a middle-of-the-road Microsoft house, I think this type of course can give students a true understanding of the systems with which they're working.
I just hope they're not only concentrated on.Net viri built using a template "virus wizard".
--
Core Wars should be part of every curriculum!
Absolutely. I think that for most common applications, a handful of Mb/s (anything from 2-8) is fine. As people have said, 11b only really gives around 5-7Mb/s in the Real World anyway. Furthermore, most multimedia applications are geared for DSL-level connections and therefore fit into this sort of wireless pipe.
Therefore, the concept of cranking up the 802.11whatever bandwidth to tens or hundreds of Mb/s is sort of lost on me. Yes, it makes things snappier, but if I want to transfer a gigabyte of data, I won't do it over a WLAN, I'll find a 100Mb/s or 1000Mb/s port and get it done in a fraction of the time. Furthermore, if you're transporting this volume of data, it's highly likely that there's something [important|confidentail|illegal] in there and I'd rather do it over a wired connection given the appauling security on most WLANs.
For everyday "editing a $word_processor document" or doing 90% of Internet stuff, 11b is just fine -- at least until the level of wired bandwidth to the SME/home is significantly increased.
Having Apple port OSX to x86 would be nice, but where would it really get us? I admit that it would be great to have strong competition in the desktop OS market (yes, Linux is good on the desktop, but not quite as good as OSX/Windows), but most of the office applications are still MS-sourced anyway.
I am in this dilemma myself. Do I carry on upgrading my x86 "investment" (there's a joke) or bite the bullet, stop upgrading and start saving for an Apple box?
I'm personally past caring too much about upgrading and tuning my hardware. My time is too limited these days. I just need a box that does what I need, has the apps that I need to run and the flexibility to grow with me. If this means upgrading the entire box every few years I'm prepared to do that. However, it would be nice to be able to stick in a new GFX card, more memory or whatever.
Getting OSX on x86 would just give us the same nightmares as with MS Windows. A plethora of hardware to support, leading to an unstable and bloated OS. OK, so I gather that OSX isn't that skinny, but I've used it and it seems a heck of a lot snappier than any MS offering.
OSX on x86 would slow down and complicate Apple's development effort to the extent that they would stop becoming innovative and spend all their time chasing their tails.
Absolutely. I have a GNU/Linux (Debian) system at home which uses Fetchmail to pop emails off my ISP account. Fetchmail delivers to Postfix for local delivery. Postfix calls Procmail as part of its configuration. Procmail first pipes incoming mails through Spamassassin. If Spamassassin decides that the mail is suspect, it is placed in to a "caughtspam" mbox for later examination/deletion.
The postfix config is a basic:
mailbox_command = procmail -a "$EXTENSION"
The procmail config is as simple as: :0fw
| spamassassin
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
caughtspam
This has cut down my personal time spent on processing emails by many many times. OK, so it's not exactly the most computationally cheap method of filtering spam, but the box isn't doing anything else particularly important and CPU cycles are cheap.
All I now need to do is go through the "caughtspam" mbox every now and again (nicely managed using Mutt) and double-check whether anything has slipped through. Only one email has been badly marked by Spamassassin and that was due to the sender incorporating lots of spam phrases in the email.
The initial reason for running MS Windows was that "that was what you run" on an x86 platform. Bear in mind this was years ago before Linux surfaced.
Once I started doing development work on Solaris and Irix, I tried out Linux for x86. This was around the time of Linux 1.2.13 using a reasonable Slackware release. However, I still needed to maintain a Windows partition for gaming and the production of reports in MS Word format.
This trend seems to have continued with many people running Linux to do "serious stuff" but then dropping to Windows for Web browsing (and other "Internet Apps"), Gaming, and serious office applications. Let's face it. Until the advent of reasonable font rendering in X, Web browsing using Netscape etc. was a painful experience! (OK so there is lynx but most of the.com-generation sites throw mud in the face of all good HTML practices).
Even today, I still need to maintain a Windows platform for applications such as Visio for network architecture design and MS Office for 100% compatibility with colleagues. I have managed to transfer all my gaming to the PS2 platform, so no longer need it for leisure apps. Also, Web browsing in apps such as Konqueror and Galeon is (in my opinion) better than in MS Windows Internet Explorer.
So I'm nearly there but its been a very slow process. Even now, I'm not sure that I will finally delete that MS Windows partition while the rest of my contacts and colleagues still rely on MS Office and those applications that are specific to the platform.
As an aside, I would gladly change to a Mac platform, but have a large investment in x86 PC tin that I just can't afford to abandon. Now if only Apple would do a buyback offer...
Whenever I'm recruiting, I'd much rather interview someone who has a solid technical mind with a splash of creativity and self-motivation. This will go a lot further than someone with a bunch of paper qualifications but no true passion for the subject.
Those who have self-motivation and a passion for technology, whether this is networking, MS Windows, Unix, whatever, will generally pick up whatever technology you throw at them. i.e. a solid investment for the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, apologies, a rushed typo in my comment. I normally type just "DSL" in this context, hence my emphasis on the "symmetric" component which wouldn't have been required if I'd typed "SDSL".
I've recently gone from ADSL (1.5Mb/s symmetric) back to 56k dial (on a pay-as-you-go account) due to a house move out in to the countryside. To be honest, apart from when there is more than one person using the link, it's perfectly adequate for Web (on relatively graphics-lite sites) and Shell access. The only downer is larger downloads which I can do at work and then just copy over at home on the Wireless/Wired LAN. I've also found that it stops me wasting nearly as much time on the 'Net doing "pointless browsing"!
*Please* can we stop this "Microsoft is Evil" ranting, it's _SO_ last season.
Seriously, if people want to get a serious point across, please try to drop the "Militant Linux Activist" edge on your articles. People who matter will take them a lot more seriously.
So this explains my shift-reload addiction to Slashdot and other news sites?
Absolutely, and the world would be a more interesting place if more ISPs had implemented in-house CDNs rather than leaving it at basic HTTP proxying.
Like you say, it is relatively easy to implement some sort of DNS proximity testing, possibly using BIND views (or a box from Alteon/Cisco/whoever) and some standard caches (Squid, NetCache etc.). Streaming media can also delivered in this manner to save on core network bandwidth using application-layer stream splitting from people such as Network Appliance.
The generally accepted term for this type of technology is "Content Distribution Networking" or "Content Delivery Networking". Akamai, Speedera, Digital Island etc. are Content Distribution companies which will (according to the necessary commercial agreements), take a customer's content and distribute it around their overlay CDNs. Generally speaking, these CDNs overlay the traditional Internet using co-located space in customer or exchange point datacentres. There are, however, some CDN organisations who take the approach of building their own infrastructure.
"Transparent Web Caching" on the other hand is generally a term applied to the transparent redirection of TCP port 80 IP traffic on access equipment through a set of HTTP proxy devices. This technique is used by many ISPs to force users to use their Webcaches even if the user thinks they are being clever by disabling the pre-defined HTTP Proxy settings in their Web browser.
Until recently, you could build your own CDN ($$$) using software from people such as Inktomi, but can still use devices from other manufacturers such as Network Appliance or Cisco Systems.
Well, I've had an OSX system for 2 months and in that time the only application to crash has been MS IE. My other experience in this area was when I installed MusicMatch on Windows XP. It crashed three times trying to install. Then, when I finally plugged my iPod in, it erased all the data on the iPod and converted it to a "Windows" iPod. "Thanks, no, really". I've sworn never to let my iPod touch another Windows system, and apart from Mac Office (which on the whole has been pretty good), I'll endevour to avoid MS Apps on OSX at all costs.
As many people (keep) saying, Apple kit isn't necessarily the fastest out there in terms of raw speed. However, from a day-to-day point of view, is raw speed what you want on a minute-by-minute basis? Probably not. If you do, then you've probably got a dual or quad processor x86 box churning away with your favourite SMP kernel-based OS. For everyday use (productivity apps, Internet, media manipulation) Apple kit does a really good job. Firewire is fast and convenient. More importantly, Apple kit (and software) is very stable in my experience. Apple looks like it is selective in its choice of cool new tech (tm) to incorporate into its products. This is a Good Thing.
It's about time CS students got back to learning some proper programming languages, methods, algorithms and system-level understanding. Having seen numerous UK Universities go from teaching assembler and hardware-level courses to being a middle-of-the-road Microsoft house, I think this type of course can give students a true understanding of the systems with which they're working. I just hope they're not only concentrated on .Net viri built using a template "virus wizard".
--
Core Wars should be part of every curriculum!
Absolutely. I think that for most common applications, a handful of Mb/s (anything from 2-8) is fine. As people have said, 11b only really gives around 5-7Mb/s in the Real World anyway. Furthermore, most multimedia applications are geared for DSL-level connections and therefore fit into this sort of wireless pipe. Therefore, the concept of cranking up the 802.11whatever bandwidth to tens or hundreds of Mb/s is sort of lost on me. Yes, it makes things snappier, but if I want to transfer a gigabyte of data, I won't do it over a WLAN, I'll find a 100Mb/s or 1000Mb/s port and get it done in a fraction of the time. Furthermore, if you're transporting this volume of data, it's highly likely that there's something [important|confidentail|illegal] in there and I'd rather do it over a wired connection given the appauling security on most WLANs. For everyday "editing a $word_processor document" or doing 90% of Internet stuff, 11b is just fine -- at least until the level of wired bandwidth to the SME/home is significantly increased.
Having Apple port OSX to x86 would be nice, but where would it really get us? I admit that it would be great to have strong competition in the desktop OS market (yes, Linux is good on the desktop, but not quite as good as OSX/Windows), but most of the office applications are still MS-sourced anyway.
I am in this dilemma myself. Do I carry on upgrading my x86 "investment" (there's a joke) or bite the bullet, stop upgrading and start saving for an Apple box?
I'm personally past caring too much about upgrading and tuning my hardware. My time is too limited these days. I just need a box that does what I need, has the apps that I need to run and the flexibility to grow with me. If this means upgrading the entire box every few years I'm prepared to do that. However, it would be nice to be able to stick in a new GFX card, more memory or whatever.
Getting OSX on x86 would just give us the same nightmares as with MS Windows. A plethora of hardware to support, leading to an unstable and bloated OS. OK, so I gather that OSX isn't that skinny, but I've used it and it seems a heck of a lot snappier than any MS offering.
OSX on x86 would slow down and complicate Apple's development effort to the extent that they would stop becoming innovative and spend all their time chasing their tails.
Absolutely. I have a GNU/Linux (Debian) system at home which uses Fetchmail to pop emails off my ISP account. Fetchmail delivers to Postfix for local delivery. Postfix calls Procmail as part of its configuration. Procmail first pipes incoming mails through Spamassassin. If Spamassassin decides that the mail is suspect, it is placed in to a "caughtspam" mbox for later examination/deletion.
:0fw
:0:
The postfix config is a basic:
mailbox_command = procmail -a "$EXTENSION"
The procmail config is as simple as:
| spamassassin
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
caughtspam
This has cut down my personal time spent on processing emails by many many times. OK, so it's not exactly the most computationally cheap method of filtering spam, but the box isn't doing anything else particularly important and CPU cycles are cheap.
All I now need to do is go through the "caughtspam" mbox every now and again (nicely managed using Mutt) and double-check whether anything has slipped through. Only one email has been badly marked by Spamassassin and that was due to the sender incorporating lots of spam phrases in the email.
The initial reason for running MS Windows was that "that was what you run" on an x86 platform. Bear in mind this was years ago before Linux surfaced.
.com-generation sites throw mud in the face of all good HTML practices).
Once I started doing development work on Solaris and Irix, I tried out Linux for x86. This was around the time of Linux 1.2.13 using a reasonable Slackware release. However, I still needed to maintain a Windows partition for gaming and the production of reports in MS Word format.
This trend seems to have continued with many people running Linux to do "serious stuff" but then dropping to Windows for Web browsing (and other "Internet Apps"), Gaming, and serious office applications. Let's face it. Until the advent of reasonable font rendering in X, Web browsing using Netscape etc. was a painful experience! (OK so there is lynx but most of the
Even today, I still need to maintain a Windows platform for applications such as Visio for network architecture design and MS Office for 100% compatibility with colleagues. I have managed to transfer all my gaming to the PS2 platform, so no longer need it for leisure apps. Also, Web browsing in apps such as Konqueror and Galeon is (in my opinion) better than in MS Windows Internet Explorer.
So I'm nearly there but its been a very slow process. Even now, I'm not sure that I will finally delete that MS Windows partition while the rest of my contacts and colleagues still rely on MS Office and those applications that are specific to the platform.
As an aside, I would gladly change to a Mac platform, but have a large investment in x86 PC tin that I just can't afford to abandon. Now if only Apple would do a buyback offer...
Whenever I'm recruiting, I'd much rather interview someone who has a solid technical mind with a splash of creativity and self-motivation. This will go a lot further than someone with a bunch of paper qualifications but no true passion for the subject.
Those who have self-motivation and a passion for technology, whether this is networking, MS Windows, Unix, whatever, will generally pick up whatever technology you throw at them. i.e. a solid investment for the future.