A switch is a switch. What? So you'd be perfectly fine with using a 3com switch at your corporate headquarters for your company with 120+ employees and 100+ servers?

Performance and feature set were known at the time of purpose. No, just like the subject that was originally being discussed, the switch was put in place a long time ago and never swapped out, even though performance and work arounds had to constantly be put in place for it. (In this case, it was daisy-chaining additional switches, including, and I don't know why it wasn't moved into place as the core switch, a 6506.

The switch was chosen for a reason. And that reason was no longer valid. It was, again, going back to the crux of the article, more of a hindrance than a helper at that point. But rather than fix the problem, people kept slapping on band-aids.

If it gets the job done, then what are you complaining about? Because when I went into that company, it WASN'T getting the job done.

How will a NewFangledSuperSwitch make things better? Uh, by not having tons of collisions, dropped packets, slowness and causing loss of production?
How much will it cost? The recommendation (which they followed) cost around $15,000 to add an additional sup II and a couple GB cards to the 6506.
How long will it be until you recommend NewerRangledSuperDuperSwitch? That all depends on how long it takes before the company runs out of space on the 6506, and also takes into consideration EOL and EOS requirements from Cisco. So...for the time being, they're good (and happy now) for the next several years.

Actually, what I said was "Google had no reason to do this". There was absolutely no reason for them to map SIDS and mac addresses and take snippets of data while they were mapping streets.

All that information has nothing at all to do with the project they were working on.

I suspect that if this company doing this were not named Google but instead Microsoft that this forum would jump all over them for it.

The double-standard is amazing here.

I wish someone with mods points would mod this post up for you. A lot of people on here are not alarmed that this didn't come to light until German authorities audited what information they were actually recording.

I find it frightening that people genuinely believe that google hasn't done anything wrong here.

No, I maintain that they did what they did thinking they wouldn't get caught. When they got caught, they acted like it was an error.

This blind faith in a huge organization is scary.

Does google have a good track record when it comes to privacy? Google Docs, Buzz, etc would indicate no.

So far, I don't believe they've done anything with that data, but the opportunity, if they wish to do so, is there.

And that's not a good thing, IMO.

Really? So you have no problems posting the make, model, license plate # and vin number of your car on this forum then?

After all, it's not an invasion of privacy for any of us to do so, is it?

I mean, no one could do anything with that data, right?

The issue as I see it is that google had NO reason at all to do this while they were "mapping" streets. None. There was no need for it.

Slashdot is so hypocritical. On the one hand, privacy concerns abound over sites like facebook and twitter, etc., but if Google does something morally questionable, well, that information is freely available, so it's no big deal.

Bullshit. Frankly, you have no idea what google was going to do with that data. If they hadn't been called in it, you wouldn't have even known they had it. That doesn't bother you? Because it bothers the hell out of me.

PS, I'm a network and security guy. It's my job to be paranoid. I'd suggest a lot more people should be paranoid, because we're headed down a long and slippery slope.

No, that is not an accurate analogy at all.

People understand that if they leave their doors open and have an argument, that people outside the door can hear them having said argument. However, do the people outside the door have the right to record said argument? It's a grey area, it isn't clear cut at all in my opinion.

I could sniff traffic on the 10 unsecured wifi networks in and around the building I am in, but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep that traffic, or go through it for information so I can sell services to the people using those networks does it?

That's the thing here...there is absolutely no reason AT ALL in my opinion why google, or the company(ies) they used to do the street view should have done ANYTHING AT ALL with wifi networks, macs and data. What the hell does that have to do with mapping streets?

Nothing. Nothing at all. That's why it's a bad thing. If I freely offer to give you directions to the gas station down the street, and then record the make, model, license plate and VIN number of your car without your knowledge would you have an issue with that? That information is available, right? But most would consider it an invasion of privacy. Could I? Sure. Should I? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

They collected it by accident, and when they realized they had it, they publicly stated that they had the information, and were purging it.

I apologize in advance for excessive use of quotes. Yeah, because as a part of the mapping process, they "just left on" the "part" that scans for wifi networks and mac addresses, oh and don't worry about that "sample" of traffic we took as well, we made it "disappear".

I'm sorry, I simply do not trust any company with any of my data. It's a necessary evil that I have to give up as much information as I do "voluntarily" to get services and goods. I wish there was a better way, one that doesn't require us to all jump through ridiculous hoops to secure our identities.

Personally, I draw the line at privacy jorts though.

Yes, people should definitely secure their communications.

That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.

The network it was running was not a small network. Not at all. It was a travesty that this poor switch was running the network. Well over 200 devices plugged into other 2548s all bridged back to the poor "core" switch.

Is this a problem in your Bizarro world?

Yes, in my "bizzaro world", most people call it the real world, using an edge switch as your core or "main" switch in your network is considered a very very bad thing.

No redundancy, is the biggest one. No real layer 3 switching is another.

Maintaining code is boring.

Everyone wants to work on the latest and greatest stuff, no one wants to maintain or even release patches.

It sucks, especially since it isn't limited to just software development.

I've seen companies where their "core switch" was a Cisco 2548. This wasn't 10 years ago, this was last year! Unreal.

I said...For the majority of the market, meaning the majority of the smart phone market, the iPhone is a great product. I even capitalized the smartphone part of that sentence. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all of phones. I merely don't understand slashdot's group-hate towards what is, in my opinion, a great product. I think the majority of "the haters" only hate it because they see others hating on it and think it would be nice to be a part of that group, for whatever reason. I really don't care that some developers "can't" develop for it (even though that's a flat out lie) or that everything has to run through the app store. I don't care about any of these things because I'm not a developer. When it comes to phones, I am a standard end-user, and for me, the iPhone (or Droid, it has some cool features too) does everything I want it to.

Anyway, based off your link, I went and looked up a few things myself. Does everyone who buys a cell phone buy a smart phone? No, obviously not. Of the smartphone market, Nokia has the largest marketshare, at 44%. Android is a distant fourth, behind RIM and Apple. Are they gaining ground? Sure. But between blackberries, Droid phones and iPhones, Nokia has decided to get out of the market completely.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/smartphones-to-overtake-feature-phones-in-u-s-by-2011/ --This link is for when smartphones are expected to over-take "regular" cell phones.

http://gizmodo.com/5418797/nokia-to-halve-smartphone-production-in-2010-official-suicide-watch-starts-now --Nokia getting out of the smartphone market?

I went to look for percentages in the US just to see what was what. I gotta say, I was rather intrigued by the results:

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/05/10/android-edges-apple-smart-phone-market-share/

Relevant quote: The Android train keeps gathering steam as evidenced by the latest report from The NPD Group. According to their estimates, Android has eclipsed Apple for second place in the United States in market share, behind Research in Motion. Android sits at a 28 percent share while RIM commands 36 percent. Apple trails in third with 21 percent.

Everything I was basing this off of is that of all the people I know, and the phones I've seen them with, exactly 1 guy uses an Android phone. Everyone else either uses a non-smart phone or a blackberry or iPhone.

Anyway, thanks for the links and whatnot.

P.S.: I expect, when Android gets a huge marketshare, for slashdot posters to start hating on those smartphones too, because that's the "cool kids" thing to do. Apple used to be "a great little company" that built quality computers and devices. Now, since they've had such huge successes, it's suddenly cool to hate on them. It gets old. I'm suspecting the majority of slashdot posters can't code Hello World properly and wouldn't know vi from emacs if emacs pimp-slapped them. (FTR, I am not referring to you in the above response, merely saying in general)
 

My sentence was poorly written. You're right, instead of majority, I should have said "a lot".

So yes, you're correct, it is not a majority. But in this space...is there really a majority?

Also, my question is...do the people who came up with these percentages consider the entire world to be the "global cell phone market"? Because I'd say that there is a huge chunk of this world where ANY cell phone is a pipe dream for the majority who live there.