Valid points but by not voting Larry and Sergey can keep themselves squeeky clean and carry on with their "do no evil" motto.
Reality is that by not voting they have passed the responsibility to other shareholders, who will obviously will vote to remain in china, hence they are indirectly voting in favour.
Their non-vote is dud.
Some cases they do extra production runs... but more and more commonly they setup complete production lines by getting the know how of inside guys of the real Cisco factories. They even spend good money reverse engineering multi layer boards.
They will also repair cisco stuff that failed Q&A etc and sell it. Overall it is ugly and the counterfeit stuff is not the same quality. It fails quicker.
Most of the Cisco rip-off artists trying to pretend they are a HK based companies but in reality they are Shenzhen based companies with phone numbers starting with +86755 They destroy the reputation and chances of real used Cisco traders operating out of Hong Kong.
Also don't buy Cisco gear on ebay, mostly it is fake.
Netapp are a company that do their best to make sure their products are not sold in the 2nd hand market and once a product EOL there is little chance to use it.
I have a few Netapps here and can't use them because Netapp will not release the activation license key.
An IT future without Netapp's built in obsolescence is a better future. I hope Sun has a field day with them.
Cisco does pump out "PIG" versions of their IOS specially if you load the latest and greatest. You will get poor performance out of them. Always go for older versions, stability, higher performance etc...
I've never maxed out 3640, so I don't have personal stats but know of one of the portals in HK a few years ago was running more than 20Mbit through a 3640.
Wouldn't those companies do far far better getting a US$20 9V DC Taiwanese router, which consumes less power has less parts to fail and is simpler to install?
Does a PC have the backplane to move 32/80/120Gbit/s?
Can it distribute the routing tables to the different interfaces so that switching is done at the card level not at CPU level? Oh wait you have a 64bit cpu so you don't care, but doesn't that mean that the data will be once more on the PCI bus of the machine, which is not designed for switching?
It is not just cpu that matters, you need the right architecture, which the PC does not really have.
When comparing the products of the two companies in say Wifi routers, Cisco Aironet (even though it can't be reflashed for Linux), is a far superior product to the Linksys equivalent in terms of quality, configuration etc.
You also forgot to mention the fact that the likelyhood of a hardware failure on a PC to a Cisco unit is like 20:1 (for most products).
Cisco has a far fatter margins on the hardware than PC vendors and can provide a much higher quality product, can afford to underclock the machines for higher reliability etc.
It is great that someone is out there tyring to put some preassure on Cisco however this company is not it. I think the average Linux installation with NAT is a bigger threat that this project.
PC hardware is a joke, slow backplanes, limitation on how many interfaces you can plug in. On the techspecs the number of interfaces types they use is well very very limited. Then reliability of PCs a joke compared to a Cisco box.
Where is this product used? - Is this a bloated replacement for the US$20 taiwan PPPoE router you can buy? The taiwanese will beat it on TCO hands down on power consumption. - Is this for the edge of the network to service downstream customers? Why part away from the thousands of installations which live, have predictable and very proven track record of something like a Cisco 7200VXR..
The article (Advertorial) is nicely skewed as making Cisco seem expensive. Go on ebay and look for Cisco routers with FE ports, you can find them for a few hundred dollars. Or try to compare this with 3550 which will provide 24 ports with Layer 3 functionality for way below the US$2000.
I am tired of Cisco killing products off when they feel like it. They could go into the market of breathing new life into a product that is being cancelled by other vendors. Firebox II anyone?
It is not, it is a chance for us better educated people to make choices we are happy with.
For all you Google Crack addicts, here are some of the privacy risks that Gmail brings us with their BIG mail boxes.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html#1
What privacy risks are presented by Gmail?
a. Non-Subscribers Do Not Consent to "Content Extraction." Subscribers consent to "content extraction" and analysis of their e-mail ("We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology," according to the privacy policy). But non-subscribers who are e-mailing a Gmail user have not consented, and indeed may not even be aware that their communications are being analyzed or that a profile may being compiled on him or her. (See 2.3 "Will Google Build Profiles of Subscribers and/or Non-subscribers?")
b. Unlimited Data Retention. While the prospect of never having to delete or file an e-mail is an attractive feature for space-hungry users, the implications of indefinite storage of e-mail communications presents several serious implications. Although Google has is held in high esteem by the public as a good corporate citizen, past performance is no guarantee of future behavior -- especially following Google's IPO when the company will have a legal duty to maximize shareholder wealth. Although Google currently says that they will not record the "concepts" extracted from scanned e-mails, they could decide to do so in the future and thereby create detailed profiles of users. Building such profiles on years of past communication in addition to current communications is made easier if users never delete e-mails. Additionally, communications stored for more than 180 days are exposed to lower protections from law enforcement access; with Gmail, many such e-mails could be made easily available to police.
c. Profiling Across Google Product Line. Google uses cookies to track users (and preserve preference across sessions) on the Google search engine. Gmail also uses cookies. Google's personal information-rich social networking service, Orkut, does as well. Although Google said that it does not cross-reference the cookies, nothing is stopping them from doing so at any time ("It might be really useful for us to know that information. I'd hate to rule anything like that out," said Google co-founder Larry Page). Google retains a powerful ability to create incredibly detailed profiles on users, whether or not they do so today: e-mail addresses and "concept" information about a persons's friends, family and co-workers; the daily search terms typed into Google; and myriad personal information provided to Orkut. The Gmail privacy policy explicitly allows such uses: "Google may share cookie information among its other services for the purpose of providing you a better experience." (See also 2.3 "Will Google Build Profiles of Subscribers and/or Non-subscribers?") Additionally, Google has extremely long cookie expiration dates that preserve the cookie until the year 2038 (see 1.5 What other things has Google been doing that might affect my privacy?)
d. Bad Legal Precedent. In the United States, violations of privacy with respect to the Fourth Amendment are based partly on whether the person had a legitimate expectation of privacy. If a major online e-mail provider such as Google is allowed to monitor private communications -- even in an automated way -- the expectations of e-mail privacy may be eroded. That is, courts may consider the service as evidence of a lack of a reasonable expectation in e-mail. Businesses and government organizations may thus find it easier to legally monitor e-mail communications. These effects are long-term and will undoubtedly outlive Google.
e. Insufficient Privacy Policy. Google can transfer all of the information, including any profiles created, if and when it is
I think the most profitable thing for the comming years will violating privacy, and selling the data or the information derived from the data.
When you are violated you can't see it or are not aware of it, you con't see any of your assets go. As we can see many people will gladly hand over to all these giant "Santa-in-devil-clothes" companies that give us so many gifts for free.
Whilst those that care about about their privacy have to have a PHD in computer science to be able to protect themselves and be very aware.
There is a line in between these two groups of people and people should have a very clear option to chose and easily be which ever side of the line they want to be on.
Right now to protect yourself against google is not something that most people can do.
It is good that you have a such a view. However google don't give an option to those who don't wish to be profiled. We have not given consent for our emails sent to Gmail for them to be analyzed and profiled.
I think in the future some advanced countries will start to legislate as to what these companies can and can't record and what they can do with the information.
Google are able to also track, log and profile a lot of your browsing activities as they can track at sites which that displays google Adsense ads. By linking your cookie to the contents of the page, they can profile you.
Google is the ultimate Big brother tool isn't it?
I found Outpost firewall to have a function to be able to block browsing for specific URLs. Add a block googlesyndication.com and google adverts will not be displayed on any pages you visit. Google will not be able to know what you are browsing.
Gmail protection... I also run a autoresponder only sent to gmail users as suggested on URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html
Dear Friend
I have received your e-mail, but due to privacy concerns, I don't want to send my response to your Gmail account. Please give me another e-mail address where I can reach you. If you don't have another e-mail address, consider the following free e-mail accounts with generous storage which do not pose the same privacy risks:
* Rediffmail (1GB + no content extraction)
* Walla (1GB + no content extraction)
* Spymac (1GB + no content extraction)
* Aventure-mail (2GB + no content extraction)
For more information on the privacy risks posed by Gmail, see http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html.
I clearly see a benefit of using the client machine (PC) as part of the storage hierarchy, the data being moved belongs to a specific user. You can apply usage patterns, policies based on server storage available etc. Email could be moved from the client to the server transparently over IMAP even without modifying the protocol.
For most cases this makes it irrelevant whether you are given 100MB or 2.7GB of email storage by your email (online spyware) provider.
Here are my 2 cents.
http://blogs.hk.com/index.php?/archives/56-The-nee d-for-Hierarchical-Email-storage..html
Slashdot Mirror
Valid points but by not voting Larry and Sergey can keep themselves squeeky clean and carry on with their "do no evil" motto. Reality is that by not voting they have passed the responsibility to other shareholders, who will obviously will vote to remain in china, hence they are indirectly voting in favour. Their non-vote is dud.
Sorry but you are wrong.
Some cases they do extra production runs... but more and more commonly they setup complete production lines by getting the know how of inside guys of the real Cisco factories.
They even spend good money reverse engineering multi layer boards.
They will also repair cisco stuff that failed Q&A etc and sell it. Overall it is ugly and the counterfeit stuff is not the same quality. It fails quicker.
Most of the Cisco rip-off artists trying to pretend they are a HK based companies but in reality they are Shenzhen based companies with phone numbers starting with +86755 They destroy the reputation and chances of real used Cisco traders operating out of Hong Kong.
Also don't buy Cisco gear on ebay, mostly it is fake.
Netapp are a company that do their best to make sure their products are not sold in the 2nd hand market and once a product EOL there is little chance to use it.
I have a few Netapps here and can't use them because Netapp will not release the activation license key.
An IT future without Netapp's built in obsolescence is a better future.
I hope Sun has a field day with them.
In HK there is a lot of parallel imports. For Cisco, most of the parallel is fake stuff coming out of Shenzhen. Period.
Try Cisco, not Linksys.
As you said it is Linksys with a Cisco logo on it. Buy Cisco if you want Cisco.
Bravo! The voice of reason spoke!
I think most points have been covered now.
I think the way we can help Vyatta is by giving them suggestions as to where they should go in the market.
What direction should they take in your opinion?
General Motors owns many car companies. Are all General motors of the same quality as a Cadillac?
Cisco does pump out "PIG" versions of their IOS specially if you load the latest and greatest. You will get poor performance out of them. Always go for older versions, stability, higher performance etc...
I've never maxed out 3640, so I don't have personal stats but know of one of the portals in HK a few years ago was running more than 20Mbit through a 3640.
Wouldn't those companies do far far better getting a US$20 9V DC Taiwanese router, which consumes less power has less parts to fail and is simpler to install?
who cares how fast the 64bit dual core is?
Does a PC have the backplane to move 32/80/120Gbit/s?
Can it distribute the routing tables to the different interfaces so that switching is done at the card level not at CPU level? Oh wait you have a 64bit cpu so you don't care, but doesn't that mean that the data will be once more on the PCI bus of the machine, which is not designed for switching?
It is not just cpu that matters, you need the right architecture, which the PC does not really have.
They can also use Cisco PIX's which run on AMD cpus and handle DDoS and also can automatically fail over when used in pairs.
I suggest you buy Cisco next time, not Linksys.
When comparing the products of the two companies in say Wifi routers, Cisco Aironet (even though it can't be reflashed for Linux), is a far superior product to the Linksys equivalent in terms of quality, configuration etc.
You also forgot to mention the fact that the likelyhood of a hardware failure on a PC to a Cisco unit is like 20:1 (for most products).
Cisco has a far fatter margins on the hardware than PC vendors and can provide a much higher quality product, can afford to underclock the machines for higher reliability etc.
It is great that someone is out there tyring to put some preassure on Cisco however this company is not it. I think the average Linux installation with NAT is a bigger threat that this project.
PC hardware is a joke, slow backplanes, limitation on how many interfaces you can plug in. On the techspecs the number of interfaces types they use is well very very limited. Then reliability of PCs a joke compared to a Cisco box.
Where is this product used?
- Is this a bloated replacement for the US$20 taiwan PPPoE router you can buy? The taiwanese will beat it on TCO hands down on power consumption.
- Is this for the edge of the network to service downstream customers? Why part away from the thousands of installations which live, have predictable and very proven track record of something like a Cisco 7200VXR..
The article (Advertorial) is nicely skewed as making Cisco seem expensive. Go on ebay and look for Cisco routers with FE ports, you can find them for a few hundred dollars. Or try to compare this with 3550 which will provide 24 ports with Layer 3 functionality for way below the US$2000.
I am tired of Cisco killing products off when they feel like it.
They could go into the market of breathing new life into a product that is being cancelled by other vendors. Firebox II anyone?
Vyatta still need a strategy. period.
It is not, it is a chance for us better educated people to make choices we are happy with.
For all you Google Crack addicts, here are some of the privacy risks that Gmail brings us with their BIG mail boxes.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html#1
What privacy risks are presented by Gmail?
a. Non-Subscribers Do Not Consent to "Content Extraction." Subscribers consent to "content extraction" and analysis of their e-mail ("We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology," according to the privacy policy). But non-subscribers who are e-mailing a Gmail user have not consented, and indeed may not even be aware that their communications are being analyzed or that a profile may being compiled on him or her. (See 2.3 "Will Google Build Profiles of Subscribers and/or Non-subscribers?")
b. Unlimited Data Retention. While the prospect of never having to delete or file an e-mail is an attractive feature for space-hungry users, the implications of indefinite storage of e-mail communications presents several serious implications. Although Google has is held in high esteem by the public as a good corporate citizen, past performance is no guarantee of future behavior -- especially following Google's IPO when the company will have a legal duty to maximize shareholder wealth. Although Google currently says that they will not record the "concepts" extracted from scanned e-mails, they could decide to do so in the future and thereby create detailed profiles of users. Building such profiles on years of past communication in addition to current communications is made easier if users never delete e-mails. Additionally, communications stored for more than 180 days are exposed to lower protections from law enforcement access; with Gmail, many such e-mails could be made easily available to police.
c. Profiling Across Google Product Line. Google uses cookies to track users (and preserve preference across sessions) on the Google search engine. Gmail also uses cookies. Google's personal information-rich social networking service, Orkut, does as well. Although Google said that it does not cross-reference the cookies, nothing is stopping them from doing so at any time ("It might be really useful for us to know that information. I'd hate to rule anything like that out," said Google co-founder Larry Page). Google retains a powerful ability to create incredibly detailed profiles on users, whether or not they do so today: e-mail addresses and "concept" information about a persons's friends, family and co-workers; the daily search terms typed into Google; and myriad personal information provided to Orkut. The Gmail privacy policy explicitly allows such uses: "Google may share cookie information among its other services for the purpose of providing you a better experience." (See also 2.3 "Will Google Build Profiles of Subscribers and/or Non-subscribers?") Additionally, Google has extremely long cookie expiration dates that preserve the cookie until the year 2038 (see 1.5 What other things has Google been doing that might affect my privacy?)
d. Bad Legal Precedent. In the United States, violations of privacy with respect to the Fourth Amendment are based partly on whether the person had a legitimate expectation of privacy. If a major online e-mail provider such as Google is allowed to monitor private communications -- even in an automated way -- the expectations of e-mail privacy may be eroded. That is, courts may consider the service as evidence of a lack of a reasonable expectation in e-mail. Businesses and government organizations may thus find it easier to legally monitor e-mail communications. These effects are long-term and will undoubtedly outlive Google.
e. Insufficient Privacy Policy. Google can transfer all of the information, including any profiles created, if and when it is
I think the most profitable thing for the comming years will violating privacy, and selling the data or the information derived from the data. When you are violated you can't see it or are not aware of it, you con't see any of your assets go. As we can see many people will gladly hand over to all these giant "Santa-in-devil-clothes" companies that give us so many gifts for free. Whilst those that care about about their privacy have to have a PHD in computer science to be able to protect themselves and be very aware. There is a line in between these two groups of people and people should have a very clear option to chose and easily be which ever side of the line they want to be on. Right now to protect yourself against google is not something that most people can do.
It is good that you have a such a view. However google don't give an option to those who don't wish to be profiled. We have not given consent for our emails sent to Gmail for them to be analyzed and profiled. I think in the future some advanced countries will start to legislate as to what these companies can and can't record and what they can do with the information.
Google are able to also track, log and profile a lot of your browsing activities as they can track at sites which that displays google Adsense ads. By linking your cookie to the contents of the page, they can profile you.
Google is the ultimate Big brother tool isn't it?
I found Outpost firewall to have a function to be able to block browsing for specific URLs. Add a block googlesyndication.com and google adverts will not be displayed on any pages you visit. Google will not be able to know what you are browsing.
Gmail protection...
I also run a autoresponder only sent to gmail users as suggested on URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html
Dear Friend
I have received your e-mail, but due to privacy concerns, I don't want to send my response to your Gmail account. Please give me another e-mail address where I can reach you. If you don't have another e-mail address, consider the following free e-mail accounts with generous storage which do not pose the same privacy risks:
* Rediffmail (1GB + no content extraction)
* Walla (1GB + no content extraction)
* Spymac (1GB + no content extraction)
* Aventure-mail (2GB + no content extraction)
For more information on the privacy risks posed by Gmail, see http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen
I clearly see a benefit of using the client machine (PC) as part of the storage hierarchy, the data being moved belongs to a specific user. You can apply usage patterns, policies based on server storage available etc. Email could be moved from the client to the server transparently over IMAP even without modifying the protocol. For most cases this makes it irrelevant whether you are given 100MB or 2.7GB of email storage by your email (online spyware) provider. Here are my 2 cents. http://blogs.hk.com/index.php?/archives/56-The-nee d-for-Hierarchical-Email-storage..html