Well, I disagree with you that the author probably knows s/he is being technically inacurate. It's far more likely s/he does not understand DNS at all and was just to lazy to learn it or consult and expert for this short of a piece. If you are knowledgable you could easily describe the function of the root servers without going into techical details of how they work.
And, I'd also like to add to your comments to clarify things for those how have been misinformed by this article. The info the root servers maintain are listings of nameservers which are to be consulted when you want to find info on hosts within domains like marthastewart.com, yahoo.com, and so on for all the top level (com, net, org, etc) domains that NSI is authoritative for. They don't maintian any more level of detail about a particular domain than that.
Discrete modules. It facilitates component upgrades and reduces the expense of brokenness. I can understand why a manufacturer would want to sucker consumers into buying a system that has "everything in one box", but why the f would someone knowledgeable enough to hack his PC this way be stupid enough to buy one of these piece of craps in the first place? It's staring you right in the face! If it's this difficult to do something simple like upgrading the monitor on your system, then the system is BAD! Please folks, for your own sakes, avoid these sort of systems.
The article referenced was really poor. Major problems with this article: - Writer uses personal experience with two providers to make generalizations about what to expect from the two technologies. His experiences with MediaOne Cable Modem (CM) and Bell Altantic DSL (ADSL, but the writer never tells you that) in no way reflects on what you will get with other Cable Modem or DSL providers. In fact, given Media One's greater experience with CM than virtually any other provider of that service, it's likely that you will not see as stable or high performance results from other CM providers such as RCN, Cablevision, etc. Likewise, given Bell Atlantic's inexperience with DSL and Internetworking, it's likely that they will give worse performance than other DSL providers. - Writer talks of bandwidth and latency results without discussing his testing methods. It's possible, and I suspect likely, that some of the writer's poor results may have been due to his own incompetence. It's misleading to bring up such points without providing proof that the tests where done fairly. For instance, results could easily be skewed for one service or the other by simply running the two tests at different times of the day. - Writer makes no indication of the differences between DSL offerings, a necessity for any article which claims to "Explain" Cable vs. DSL. Annoyances: - RISC vs. CISC as an example of where an inferior technology won over a supperior one is poor. Firstly, it's only true in the context of PCs. If you count total processor sales, RISC based chips have greater market share. Two, the CISC chips which currenlty have the larger market share of PC systems borrowed heavily from RISC technology. Lastly, the battle is hardly over, if we are all running PowerPC or Alpha bases systems on our desktops five years from now will the writer still claim CISC won the battle? At what point does the writer believe the battle ended? - Jim Collins
Slashdot Mirror
Get your facts straight. And don't tell me "I was talking about Mosaic Communications' browser..."
Well, I disagree with you that the author probably knows s/he is being technically inacurate. It's far more likely s/he does not understand DNS at all and was just to lazy to learn it or consult and expert for this short of a piece. If you are knowledgable you could easily describe the function of the root servers without going into techical details of how they work.
And, I'd also like to add to your comments to clarify things for those how have been misinformed by this article. The info the root servers maintain are listings of nameservers which are to be consulted when you want to find info on hosts within domains like marthastewart.com, yahoo.com, and so on for all the top level (com, net, org, etc) domains that NSI is authoritative for. They don't maintian any more level of detail about a particular domain than that.
Discrete modules. It facilitates component upgrades and reduces the expense of brokenness. I can understand why a manufacturer would want to sucker consumers into buying a system that has "everything in one box", but why the f would someone knowledgeable enough to hack his PC this way be stupid enough to buy one of these piece of craps in the first place? It's staring you right in the face! If it's this difficult to do something simple like upgrading the monitor on your system, then the system is BAD! Please folks, for your own sakes, avoid these sort of systems.
The article referenced was really poor. Major problems with this article: - Writer uses personal experience with two providers to make generalizations about what to expect from the two technologies. His experiences with MediaOne Cable Modem (CM) and Bell Altantic DSL (ADSL, but the writer never tells you that) in no way reflects on what you will get with other Cable Modem or DSL providers. In fact, given Media One's greater experience with CM than virtually any other provider of that service, it's likely that you will not see as stable or high performance results from other CM providers such as RCN, Cablevision, etc. Likewise, given Bell Atlantic's inexperience with DSL and Internetworking, it's likely that they will give worse performance than other DSL providers. - Writer talks of bandwidth and latency results without discussing his testing methods. It's possible, and I suspect likely, that some of the writer's poor results may have been due to his own incompetence. It's misleading to bring up such points without providing proof that the tests where done fairly. For instance, results could easily be skewed for one service or the other by simply running the two tests at different times of the day. - Writer makes no indication of the differences between DSL offerings, a necessity for any article which claims to "Explain" Cable vs. DSL. Annoyances: - RISC vs. CISC as an example of where an inferior technology won over a supperior one is poor. Firstly, it's only true in the context of PCs. If you count total processor sales, RISC based chips have greater market share. Two, the CISC chips which currenlty have the larger market share of PC systems borrowed heavily from RISC technology. Lastly, the battle is hardly over, if we are all running PowerPC or Alpha bases systems on our desktops five years from now will the writer still claim CISC won the battle? At what point does the writer believe the battle ended? - Jim Collins