Upgrading Wi-Fi — What, When, and Why 206
lessthan0 writes "Wi-Fi (802.11x) networks have been around long enough that many businesses and home users run their own. The first widely deployed standard was 802.11b, while most new hardware uses 802.11g. The latest 802.11n hardware is just around the corner. If you run an existing wireless network, is it time to upgrade?"
Shouldn't it read... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:5, Informative)
It should read "move on, nothing to see here ..." since you can't upgrade to something that isn't available yet.
Besides, why would you want to upgrade when nobody can use it? Wait until its been out a few years.
After all, gigbit ethernet has been out for a couple of years now, and look at how many people get along just fine with 100mb.
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't it read... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, gigabit ethernet is no longer "much more expensive." I saw a 5-port gigabit switch at a retailer yesterday for under $12/port. Cards are equally cheap. The problem is that for most users, they won't notice the difference, or they'd have to change the cabling fro cat5 to cat6, or they have one or more boxes that are still runing 100mb, so there is zero point in upgrading.
Give it 5 years ...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Like you're the only one....
No way. (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is that it's unlikely that switch supports JUMBO frames. 1500 bytes don't cut it at gigE speeds. Even on a Barton XP 2500+, you get 100% CPU saturation around 250MBps with 1500 byte ethernet packets. My very high quality Intel gigE NICs support jumbo frames of 9000 mtu (and up), but this cheap Airlink switch (the only one I could find in town) is broken past 1500 MTU, meaning it's garbage (don't buy Airlink gear).
I'm sure the Airlink would be fine if you had garbage gigE nics, though, which is probably their target market.
" or they'd have to change the cabling fro cat5 to cat6, or they have one or more boxes that are still runing 100mb, so there is zero point in upgrading."
All of these are bunk. Most cat5 that's properly wired has 4 conductors in it (which is what you need for gigE) and are shielded well enough. You mentioned a switch; you should know that a switch allows for mixed speed devices with no general speed drop (unlike the old hubs that used to exist).
If you have a fileserver in your house serving up to 3-4 client machines like I do, gigE is well worth it, since the network is no longer the bottleneck.
Airlink (OT) (Score:2, Informative)
I'm running a mix of Airlink (rt8169), nFORCE4 onboard, Marvell, etc. on the NIC side. All cheap cards (the rt8169 is now $6 at frys).
I can typically push 350Mbps (all machines are running with an MTU of 1500). CPU utilization on my Athlon64 is maybe 20%. Same on my friend's computer (sempron barton 2800).
I ha
Re: (Score:2)
"you should know that a switch allows for mixed speed devices with no general speed drop (unlike the old hubs that used to exist)."
I'm well aware of it - I used to work for a switch manufacturer. A switch isn't going to fix the situation where one of the devices in the conversation is slower, so it doesn't matter if you stick a 1gig nic on your server - your 100mp client card is going to force the server to talk to it at 100mpbs.
And a lot of cat5 is marginal because of the way its installed - people st
Re: (Score:2)
All of these are bunk. Most cat5 that's properly wired has 4 conductors in it (which is what you need for gigE) and are shielded well enough. You mentioned a switch; you should know that a switch allows for mixed speed devices with no general speed drop (unlike the old hubs that used to exist).
Cat5e (enhanced) is required for gigE, which has 8 wires (conductors?) or 4 pairs, all of which are required. As for being shielded well enough, UTP -
Re: (Score:2)
That's still pretty damn expensive, considering that there are (admittedly rather shitty) 100MB switches for $2.5 (8 ports) to $3 (3 ports) per port.
Of course, it's relatively cheap if you need to move a lot of data often, so it's more of a time=money equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wifi Woes (Score:2, Insightful)
Just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both 802.11b and 802.11g use the 2.4 Megahertz frequency...
The 802.11a standard runs at 5 Megahertz...
Either the author is running equipment that's operating ridiculously out of frequency spec, or he's woefully unfamiliar with SI unit prefixes. I'm betting the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it seems everything in the technology world is "just around the corner."
I'm still baffled as to how people can buy something that isn't fully standarized. You know its going to change. Its like shelling out cash for a beta program. Would you buy a development model car with a 6 cylinder engine that curently only runs on 4 cylinders? No!
Re: (Score:2)
No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the general question, the answer is: Upgrade if you have to. If your users are bitching that the net is too slow, upgrade.
If you just want to be hip and spout the latest and greatest
Tom
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, you could just allow standard port access and remove all the crap, its a wireless web interface not a bittorrent seeding point.
(Note, I'm talking about public shared access connections, what you do with your home connection is up to you)
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:5, Funny)
No, if your users are bitching that the net is too slow then you should schedule a three day long upgrade window during their peak usage times, wander around the site changing all of the patch cables on the access points from blue to yellow, and then turn it back on again five days later without changing anything else.
They'll be raving about the increased speed for at least a week and then forget that anything ever happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrat's on that lofty acomplishment!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the gold plated wall jacks [only 25% of which are allowed to work].
I was the type of person to bring an AP with me. Screw the lousy 802.11b. So I brought a bg with me. Plugged it into the ethernet jacks and gave all the people around me decent network access. Loads of fun.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That and when you're in a group of 8 working in the cafe (again, only open tables) and there is no wifi and only 3 usable ethernet ports... again "bite me".
Many schools treat their students poorly because the halfwit techs they hire couldn't manage a lab let alone a standalone 8 port switch...
Tom
Re:No, its not time to upgrade. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't pay attention to who is on the network, then the network will cease to work. Would you want 10 people to use your home network and drive your performance through the floor?
I'm honestly interested: What is the reason for not wanting "rogue access points" on a network, except for the foolish belief that the network security is at risk?
First, it is not a foolish belief. The fact you believe it is foolish shows you do not really understand the underlying issues. While there are too many to list, here are a few off the top of my head:
Where I work, we've had people install wireless routers with DHCP turned on and giving out real network IPs because they wanted to get their assigned IP for their notebook. Of course, they made their SSID the same as the normal APs. Addressing and routing problems occured all over the building.
You can also interfere with other access points. If you set yours to the same channel as a nearby AP, you can wreck their performance. Your performance may be fine since you are in the same room as your rogue AP and your signal is strong enough. Not neccesarily true for neighboring rooms/buildings.
If you plug in a router that assigns IPs, even reserved IPs, you may be allowing an attacker to operate anonymously. The official APs may be set up to log all MAC addresses that attempt to connect or otherwise maintain information on the users. If your AP doesn't, then the attacker can't be traced in any way. Our location requires the MAC addresses to be registered - by going through a router this is eliminated. (MAC address is only seen by the router.)
There may be a firewall or IDS immediately "behind" official APs. There might not be a firewall where you connect into the wired network. Especially if you are in a lab, the machines might be patched with a firewall, anti-virus and other protection mechanisms in place, such as no administrator access to users. So anything entering from those machines has already made it past their defenses.
As for being connected to the internet thingy, sure there are a lot of bad things out there. However, if you look at properly secured networks, you would find that there is usually an "outer" firewall, then the DMZ with the machines (mail, web) that need to be accessed from the internet thingy, then there is an "inner" firewall with even more restrictive rules. Then you throw in a few IDS systems, proxy servers and other systems and any attacker has to really work to get into your network without at least alerting you something is going on.
Now, your point that someone can connect their laptop to the network is a valid one - which is why most corporations provide the laptops AND the administrative support for them to make sure they have the latest patches and security apps installed. Ideally, they also have a policy about how and where the laptop can be used. For example, the laptop is for work related business only - no online gambling, pr0n, etc. This greatly reduces the risk. Also, properly managed, the user doesn't have administrative access to the machine.
On a final note, don't assume that bad service indicates a bad admin. They may be operating under restrictions that you aren't aware of. For example, if a corporation donates equipment for a new lab, the school has to spend the time and money to wire it and maintain it. It's great that there is an additional lab, but there is no corresponding increase in staff, so everyone has to work harder. Lack of funds may prevent network upgrades or equipment replacements that are recommended by the admins. Maybe a switch went down and they can't replace it right away, so they decided to provide some service in each lab instead of eliminating all service in one lab.
Anyway, just because you don't think there is a problem with doing something doesn't mean there isn't. Respect the opinion of a professional - unless you know, from experience, they are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For downloading, maybe, however I find that there's much higher packet loss and ping while using wireless... it's not a big deal for web browsing, but gaming is pretty annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only reason I can think to upgrade is for better encryption and range.
if it ain't broke, don't fix it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most comments seem to indicate upgrading is useless because speed improvements don't matter as long as the slowest wifi protocol is still faster than your internet connection, but speed is not the only concern. Future protocols are said to offer better/easier security and more reliabality, which if true is a good enough reason to me
I installed b in '00 or '01 and just upgraded to g (Score:4, Insightful)
My DSL is (supposedly) 6Mbps downstream, so I could've justified it just on that grounds. My wireless was definitely slower than my network connection. But, at the end of the day, the fact that I process video and (now very large RAW) pictures on my laptop caused me to pull the trigger. After I'm done processing, I generally want to copy my files up to a server for backup. On a recent trip, I shot 8 GB of photos. Copying that on b would take about 18 hours. Copying it on g would take about 20 minutes. Obviously, even bigger video files would be worse.
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option. It's hard for me to imagine upgrading to g or n just for security - anything that does need to be secure in my world already is. Trusting ANY network is a good way to get caught with your pants down.
So, don't dismiss the performance gains from b to g. I increased my Internet download speed from 1Mbps to 6Mbps, and that was certainly worth the (compared to 2001) cheap cost of my new WAP. Even if your Internet connection is 1Mbps or slower, you may still have significant benefits if you copy large files around inside your network.
Re:I installed b in '00 or '01 and just upgraded t (Score:4, Informative)
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option.
Properly configured WPA and WPA2 are just as secure as your application-level security or VPN (and more secure than some crappy VPNs). Although the weakness of WEP was a major problem, its failure ensured that its successors would get very heavy scrutiny, and the WPA variants have stood up very well. If you really want to be careful, use both wireless network security and end-to-end security. If you don't need to be that paranoid, WPA is just as good as and more convenient than using a home VPN.
OTOH, if you're like me, I like to leave my WLAN open so that passersby can use it if they need it. I appreciate all of the open WLANs I make use of, so I like to return the favor. In that case, a VPN is critical.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is that, and I do that at home, as well, as much for friends who come over as for strangers. But, in general, I find there is little that I would ever need to be secure from just one place - I'll need to access it from another place (e.g., work), even if the physical network it's conne
Re:I installed b in '00 or '01 and just upgraded t (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw an aritcle (which has since gone offline: Manufacturing: Probably made in China, by someone else [crmbuyer.com]) that said Intel made motherboards in Silicon Valley until 1999 or so. The massive movement to Chinese factories was triggered by the need to cut costs at the tail end of the dot-com bubble.
$700 sounds like a price you'd have to charge if you were paying Americans to put your industrial-grade wireless widget together... (I'm assuming your
Re: (Score:2)
Re:if it ain't broke, don't fix it (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, given that there isn't a finalized standard, I think it may generally be best to hold off on upgrades. If you need speed for your local network and can't wait, then buy matched sets of network devices, then for elsewhere, you can fall back to b/g which should be a lot more than enough for Internet stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll let you know next week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other things to upgrade, anyhow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lookee here, boa... I wouldn't want to see yew git yourself strung up for talkin' all Communist like that.
One man's Consumer Whore is another man's Early Adopter with high Consumer Confidence driving the Upward Economic Trend and generating wholesome, virtuous Profits that good Corporate Citizens reinvest in your community.
Ditto. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: You need n...
Besides no one trusts the idea of a mesh network yet, we need to develop n or i quickly for the 1,000,000 laptop project and to scare the telecoms into 100Mbit...
Time to upgrade? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have *never* been able to find an 802.11g PCI card that I could put on a purchase order by vendor and part number. The few devices I have found (b and g) that worked, have been changed by the vendors into incompatable devices without notice.
The linux wi-fi community routinely points questions on this matter to a compatability chart that doesn't answer the question. I know about NDISWrapper. I know to avoid Broadcom chips. That knowledge helps for my personal computing, but it doesn't help when the professional task involves making a purchase order for a device that can be reliably, consistently obtained, or even identified.
On the end of the spectrum we'd like to be on, several competing vendors would warranty the merchandise as being compatable with linux, and would provide source-code compatable drivers (for kernel independence). We're at the extreme far other end of that spectrum, as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I/we have never had a problem finding what we were looking for and the vast majority of it works
great with Linux (WPA, WPA2 + RADIUS). We've achieved this by purchasing products we've used before
and are familiar with. Aside from a couple obvious examples, most vendors remain relatively consistent
if you're referring to the correct product + hw_rev + version. Not sure what your problem is....
Now if your argum
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.eupac.co.uk/s.nl/it.A/id.54/.f?category =217 [eupac.co.uk]
I've not used the pci but the pcmcia just needs plugging in to work with ubuntu.(However not advertised on the link)
what will it take for a manufacturer to admit to producing linux compatable hardware even usb memory sticks often will not say anywhere on the packaging linux compatable (LG does though).
I vote for a TUX mark and rating Tux mark means it will work under linux somehow. and a rating from 1 to 5
5 being reserved for full
no it is not. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have 3 problems with WiFi.
1) Too many people near by with WiFi makes the connectivity suck within my apartment(have tried many channels). How about a new system where base units can figure out the best configuration when there are others nearby and even change them when the radio pattern(/coverage) changes.
2) My existing devices are not compatible with "New" security standards, fx. Ipaq and wpa2. For every WiFi enabled unit you buy, you have the problem of not being able to upgrade your security unless all devices support it.
3) My HP notebook drops connection when a cellphone is used in my apartment.
There are so many things that can break my WiFi net that I still prefer to use cables. Thought about getting a Squeezebox with WiFi, but I think I might as well save the money and just use cable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2) This is not true. Aside from high-end units that are out of most consumer's price range, there is an Asus WAP that can broadcast multiple SSIDs and have separate security settings for each. In theory, this would mean you could have WPA-Radius encryption on one SSID and have a WEP encryption SSID for your Nintendo DS. I think the model is WL-500g Deluxe--it's hard to come by right now.
Re: (Score:2)
What about a hacked Linksys WRT54G/GL? Running open Linux, I suspect that the firmware can be made to go darn near any
Re: (Score:2)
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/16 [openwrt.org] The ASUS firmware has it implemented, as does (supposedly) DD-Wrt.
Quality and coolness (Score:3, Interesting)
Keeping the equipment cool also matters. For awhile I had the DGL 4300 on the floor, on its side, b
Re: (Score:2)
As to 2...valid point.
As to 3...see 1. Assuming your laptop uses mini-PCI cards, you should be able to find an 11a radio to replace the 11b one in the laptop.
Just a suggestion.
Sometimes connectivity is all you need (Score:4, Interesting)
Can I open a web page? Check.
Send an email? Check.
VNC into a box? With some patience, check.
SSH into a device? Check.
IM? Check.
Can I do 95% of what I do at work over a wireless connection? Check.
The other five percent? I'm hoping for Gig-E because I'm using all of it.
The key is having realistic expectations of wireless. If your users don't understand that then they'll probably be disappointed with whatever you rollout.
Re: (Score:3)
Even at home, I find 802.11g to be better than 802.11b. In particular for streaming video, which is handy if I want to watch a show on my laptop while doing dishes. IMHO wireless is not "good enough" until wires are obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO wireless is not "good enough" until wires are obsolete.
By that standard, wireless will never be good enough.
What kind of question is this? (Score:3, Informative)
If you are are unhappy with 802.11g, well, tough luck: as someone else already mentioned, 802.11n isn't coming out until 2008. Start punching holes in the wall and running some Ethernet cable!
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> If you're unhappy with it, upgrade to 802.11g. If you are are unhappy with 802.11g, well, tough
> luck: as someone else already mentioned, 802.11n isn't coming out until 2008.
802.11a is generally much less crowded than 802.11 b/g and as fast as 802.11g. Wireless
in a crowded area can suck quite bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you don't get cross-interference from 2.4GHz-band phones and microwave ovens. Did I mention that 2.4GHz microwaves are probably the worst for health, since the resonant frequency of water molecules is about 2.4...?
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html [lsbu.ac.uk]
802.11a and who needs wireless anyway? (Score:2)
I'm trying to help out some folks with a network in their home office - at the moment there are Ethernet cables strewn everywhere and it's a hazard (not to mention constant cable failures from chair casters, etc.). Wifi seemed to be a likely solution, but when I arrived, I discovered that I can pick up 4, sometimes 5 nearby 802.11b/g signals from many places in the house, on chann
Speed vs. Bandwidth (Score:2, Interesting)
saturation (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a look at your bandwidth utilization. If you are using less than 50% what would be the point of doubling your LAN speed? If you are using over 80% then I would think about upgrading to whatever suits the situation.
Another issue is getting a new machine and placing it on your LAN. Can you still easily and cheaply get ahold of an 802.11b/g
Only after the 802.11n spec is ratified (Score:5, Informative)
The conventional wisdom says: (Score:5, Informative)
2. 802.11n is faster than 802.11a,b, and g. But you need to buy everything from the same vendor, because that'll ensure it works together as compatibility is iffy. You can't do as nifty antenna tricks with 802.11n as you can with b and g. The 802.11a rules in the US currently prohibit antenna tricks. So, flexibility with standards means 802.11g.
3. If you use any 802.11 product, use WPA, or upgrade to it, and keep checking for firmware upgrades every few months, then do it.
4. Currently, the fastest *standardized* method is 802.11g. There are various turbo modes that may or may not allow you faster downloads, but most APs are inhibited by upstream throttle-back anyway. And for this reason, you might like it for home use but don't use it on mobile machines as hotspots sometimes have trouble with cards that are in 'auto-turbo' mode.
5. Unless you have backhaul that's faster than the WiFi transport, it's useless to buy anything faster because it will make no difference in speed. If you have a crappy DSL connection, the speed will still be crappy DSL speed. It's nice to have your WiFi router speed as the fastest common denominator because DSL and cable and other transports keep getting faster and faster. If you have asymetrical backhaul, that won't change no matter what you do (example: 3MB/s down, 750KB/s up).
WPA secures at minimum. Using AES with TLS is thought to be the most solid method. Having a temporal key is important as key life had a bearing on breaking the key. Currently, no one will sit around and wait for long keys to be broken unless THEY REALLY WANT YOU. If they do, they'll do something smarter. All WEP can be broken in under 22minutes, period.
For better paranoia, read WiFoo-- currently the most interesting hacker cookbook I've found.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's nominally illegal doesn't mean it's impossible. And if you're not in a populated area and don't aim a 5kw cantenna at low-flying aircraft, you'll likely be fine. If a bear shits in the woods...
-b.
Yah, like the old CB Radio kilowatt linear..... (Score:2)
Other people use clever designs.
That's how the 120mi+ Defcon 13 was done. Not with current, but with legal antennas.
It's like nuclear weapons: you don't have to be very accurate. However, with single xray pulse, knowing the right spot can be very effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Or tunnel all of your traffic via VPN and set the networked computers to only accept connections from VPNed computers on the local subnet. That way, passers-by will still be able to jump on your WiFi whenever they need a 'net connection without the risk of compromising your network!
-b.
Its not an improvement (Score:2)
Why are free channels on the radio spectrum so scarce?
Possible pedantry alert. (Score:2)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't use 802.11x to describe a bunch of different 802.11 protocols. I've recently rejoined the tech field (University HD) while I return to school, and we are rolling out 802.11x authentication support. When "802.11x support" was first mentioned to me, I asked "We already use b & g, so don't we already support 802.11x?" and was summarily pointed to about a billion articles on 802.11x.
No (Score:4, Informative)
At the moment the 802.11n standard is at draft 2 stage. The 802.11n gear available now is based on 802.11n draft 1.
The manufacturers of this hardware are betting that any changes in the spec between draft 1 and the final version can be fixed by a firmware upgrade. It is by no means certain that this will be the case.
In addition, it isn't clear whether hardware for the 802.11n draft from different manufacturers will work together.
So the answer (as with most technology) is to wait and see. In this case, given that this is based on a draft, that has been superceded, waiting is certianly a good idea.
Good Basic Info for Newbies (Score:2)
i would upgrade for the security (Score:4, Informative)
if anyone is thinking of going G the WRT54GL [amazon.com] with the dd-wrt [dd-wrt.com] firmware is pretty sweet.
whatever you do DO NOT buy a WRT54GS or later model WRT54G models..as they suck pretty much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G [wikipedia.org]
When all of the new hardware I buy supports it... (Score:3, Insightful)
My next laptop had 802.11b built in.
My next laptop had 802.11a/b/g built in.
I'm still using the 802.11b bridge that I originally bought. I'll get a new base station eventually, but there's not any hurry, since the bottleneck out of my apartment is the 1.5Mb DSL line, and the 11Mb WiFi is just fine.
I especially don't see the need to buy some add in card for my laptop that may hang out the side and cause other problems.
linksys (Score:2)
I had a bit of a fight with the new 54g I just got. It decided to stop allowing me into the admin menu. 25 minutes on the phone with some gal (in India, of course) and we finally got
Wireless isn't for me. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can call me paranoid if you want but I will never use the wireless access on my router. I use the very same router the guy used in the article. WEP, WPA or WPA2 are too insecure for me to use.
A wireless router I would use is a router that uses at least 256bit encryption but would prefer military strength. And I want routers to containt a SD Memory card so I can use multiple encryption keys.
Wireless Routers are not ready YET. They are to insecure.
Re: (Score:2)
I want encryption where you have to use a quantum computer or at very least a super computer to crack it.
I'm already at MIMO/108Mbps (Score:2)
While I'm getting 108Mbps, I haven't noticed any range increase (it seems to be about the same as it was for the back of my house).
I'm not worried about incompatibility with the final specs, since it works
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WPA with AES is pretty good (Score:3, Informative)
For those who don't know: WPA (1/2, tkip, AES) in pre-shared key mode is vulnerable to a brute force attack. The four packet authentication sequence can be captured and brute force attacked offline. There are WPA rainbow tables based on dictionary words "in the wild." A long multi word passphrase with some numbers should be sufficient. A 63 character string of upper and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$ dd if=/dev/random bs=1024 count=5 | tr -dc [:alnum:] | wc -c
0+5 records in
0+5 records out
13
dd if=/dev/random bs=1024 count=5 | tr -dc [:alnum:] | wc -c
0+5 records in
0+5 records out
46
$
You'll want to loop until you have enough entropy.
$ dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=5 | tr -dc [:alnum:] | wc -c
5+0 records in
5+0 reco
Re: (Score:2)
Under Linux,
I had forgotten how reading
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking it is. But then maybe somebody has some scriptable rollout interface that neither of us know about? There's always an unanticipated case, ain't thar? I hate it when that happens...
"Under Linux,
Yep. I should have inc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid I'm more in the 'espouse atheism' than 'eschew religion' camp. In different historical periods, I'm sure my answer would have been different. In fact, about ten years ago my answer would have been different: I didn't believe a thing about supernatural beings, but was willing to admit that that belief wa
Re:Or.. (Score:4, Informative)
> insane internet speed it's just a waste.
Many places there are quite simply too many nearby using 802.11b/g along with wireless
phones on the same frequency. It is too crowded.
"Upgrading" to 802.11a (different frequencies used than 802.11b/g) will help as there generally
are far fewer 802.11a users. The range may not be the same, though.
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
And what exists today is no better than g (Score:2)
Walt Mossberg's recent column [wsj.com] says they're not any better yet anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a media server or a file server that really doesn't depend on the internet at all.
About a year and a half ago I upgraded from B to G and, while that's still not good enough for wireless video, I saw a significant speed jump in backing up my files, transfering files from one machine to another, etc.
You may not think that it's even worth taking file and media servers into consideration, but their use is increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
I get 500KB/s (4000Kb/s) downloads from the Internet over my 802.11g link (almost twice his speed), and the bottleneck there is my external connection. It sounds like his local connection has some issues..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)