There is absolutely longer latency using TCP as the process does not proceed forward without receiving the next packet.
You either don't know what a window is, or are ignoring all basic knowledge to attack. Either way, you have given up trying to discuss, but are so personally offended that it's all worthless anti-technical spew.I didn't get a single sentence in, without finding such a blatant error, so I'm not bothering to read the rest of the "I'm right, you're wrong (even though all the facts are on your side and I'm a bumbling idiot)" post.
But I appreciate the effort. Well, not really, but I'm trying to make you feel better, for having made such a fool of yourself in public.
TFTP is old as shit and rarely used,
Massive fail. It's a (the most?) common boot loader for network gear with config loaded at boot, most commonly used these days for IP telephones, though can be used for larger and more complex networking gear, but the people that work on networks trust them least for such things.
TFTP is newer than FTP, and you used that in your own example. So if old disqualifies something, FTP should be disqualified about 10 years before TFTP. I do more networking than server work, so I use TFTP more than FTP, so again by rarity of use, your example is worse than mine, despite your ill-informed protestations.
You sir, are the biggest douche the unnniiiveeerrrseee...
When some doucehbag tries to lecture others and is obviously (and easily) provably wrong, yes. I'll go douche in response to douchebaggery. You know enough to be dangerous, but I'd never hire you.
, if you switched them over to TCP, you would either have A - longer latency for communication or B - artifacts and jitter.
You'd not have any artifacts. You'd get no more drop with TCP than UDP. Latency, no. The latency would be identical. TCP takes no longer to travel than UDP. Jitter? Maybe, so long as you set poor window sizes.
You ignored my correct reasons, and tried to correct me with more worthless shit designed to attack and distract. You are an uninformed idiot who thinks himself an expert, but knows barely enough to poke fun at others, and not enough to actually do anything.
Talking to someone in europe from Canada does not give you control over the network and where my statement 'the internet' makes them correct. So don't try to get technical to weeny out of what looks like a troll post.
You are 100% wrong. I'm 100% right. I give facts. You give insults only. I gave insults this time because you apparently require them to communicate, and I'm trying to speak ape to you, as that's all you speak. You think it's a troll because you are never wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll. I spoke clear English with facts and you ignored it. TCP is superior for all configurations where the jitter buffer exceeds RTT. Whether you have to set your jitter buffer to 2s for that doesn't matter to the statement of fact. I never said TCP was superior in any real world application. You are just moving the goalposts because you realize you are 100% wrong.
So, move them again, insult me. You can't prove me wrong, or convince anyone reading this that you are right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
I notice Europeans are much less skeptical of their governments and society in general whereas Americans complain about and trash theirs all the time. I think the latter is actually a healthier attitude.
Americans complain and trash them, while supporting them 100%. It's very confusing.
With modern gigabit switches why would you meddle with manual duplex settings anyway.
Because, as the topic is about, a server admin who is good at maintaining the programs, but has no knowledge of basic networking will want to ensure that the server doesn't run at "half" speed, so will set the server manually to 1000/full, when the networking guy set the switch to auto/auto.
Then, after the server guy screws up basic config, he complains to everyone in the IT department (and every other department that doesn't kick him out) about the poor network, making his server run slow.
I've seen it many times.
Healthcare rationing by government run schemes tends to be a lot better than nothing at all when private schemes won't cover expensive treatment.
Rationing by a government with no profit motive is bad, but rationing by a corporation with profit motive is seen as a good thing. Making a moral choice between people is immoral. Making a profit-based choice about someone's life is the ideal of capitalism. Or something like that. I never can follow the rationale of the irrational.
There's a huge difference between a private contract you willingly enter into, and a government edict that you are forced into and cannot opt out of.
When all the private companies collude to matching contract terms, they are the same thing. You can't opt out anymore than you can opt out of the government edict.
Can we even define intelligence?
Yes, to anyone but those who would ask such a question. One could presume they'd reject any and all answers that could be given here.
"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics