Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score 5, Insightful) 79

That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good", when the sum of cost of 100 cupholders is less than two engines, so the upkeep cost of the "reliable" car is higher than the "unreliable" car.

Comment Re:Goodbye Discounted Internet Access (Score 1) 105

In most acquisitions of this type, if approved, AT&T would have to sell in areas where they'd be the only choice. So you'd remain with two choices. Likely AT&T and Comcast (as the phone company would tend to keep the phone system, and that'd mean they'd have to sell the cable, and Comcast is the biggest in that area now, and would likely profit from the merger in the short term).

Comment Re:Fickle as the wind (Score 1) 105

Not by Bush, but by the CIA. When the CIA asserts that Saddam Hussein is buying Yellow Cake, do you really want Congress ignoring that when passing laws?

And funny how conservatives insist we worship the presidency when a Republican is in office, and the opposite when the office is held by a Democrat.

Comment Re:Really... (Score 1) 105

TW also gave to Republicans and Trump. Most organizations double-donate, to hedge their bets. The donations are less an indication of who they want to see, and more an indication of who they think will win, as the more they give, the more influence they expect. It's simple bribery. Except without a result pre-planned. So like a bribery retainer. And perfectly legal. If you don't like it, get the Republican Congress to end it. Oh, wait. They are explicitly for the bribery, and when the Democratic Party tried to end it, the Republicans blocked that. Couldn't end the bribery, and actively working to promote and extend it. Though, maybe the Democratic Party proposed it as a publicity stunt, knowing the Republicans would block anything proposed, and the Dems wouldn't have supported their own thing, if it went to a final vote, but we'll never know, because the Republicans voted to extend bribery.

Comment Re:Really... (Score 1) 105

It's common in these for AT&T to agree to sell the cable franchise anywhere where they are already the local phone company. Such "restrictions" are common in these types of mergers, and don't reduce the customers available choices, but increase the area wher AT&T is one of the two choices. THe idea of a "natural monopoly" requiring government rules to establish and protect monopolies is the problem. A "natural monopoly" had a meaning in the start of phone service, where the 3 overlapping phone companies refused to intertie, to the point you couldn't call someone on the other network. Requiring FRAND intertie removes any need for monopolistic protections. Internet POPs are FRAND (in practice, if not in legislation). And that's fine. IF all local providers tie together at a central point with FRAND terms, there's no need to continue to defend monopolies. Perhaps adjust the USF fees to discourage cherry-picking of urban areas and better fund rural areas, but no need for a government-enforced monopoly.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 1) 234

I thought it was about single points of failure. That's what I was talking about. That's the focus for network availability I generally see. People spending $10,000,000 to take a 99.999% uptime network to 99.99% and claiming victory.

In my experience, simpler is more reliable. Even when that gives up redundancy. The redundancy failure I saw last week was the secondary system failed, and nobody knew, until the primary system failed, and the backup failed to kick in. When you have one and only one system, you tend to maintain it better. No need with 10 redundant systems, and when 9 of them fails, nobody is looking.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 1) 234

STP failures and flaps can cause outages, but requiring an admin to manually move patch cables and activate hardware almost always causes larger, longer outages.

Yes. But how often have you had an untouched cable fail? Maybe once in a lifetime career? How many times should you expect STP to take down a network? I've seen that happen many more times. Though, touched cables fail often. The barely-on connector that fails when you brush it getting to a power connection on an unrelated piece of gear. But, you are right there and prepared for it, so you can fix it before STP convergence time.

Comment Re: Never Down (Score 1) 234

(And I'm not involved in networking in our team, I look after servers and applications).

Good, because 802.1x isn't MAC authentication, so MAC spoofing is unrelated to that topic. And your solution of active/active load balancers still leaves you with a single point of failure. Active/active, by definition, has a single configuration across the devices. So one typo on one device can take down both. Back to a single point of failure.

Comment Re:Imagine that (Score 1) 196

So, you are saying that you believe Trump to be the best candidate? You are simply filled with hate. In your case for Hillary, as you can't stand to see someone who hates Hillary talk bad about Trump. You are an irrational little hate monger.

I'm not voting Clinton. Your lies and stupidity have blinded you. You assume anyone who recoginzes serial rapist and fraudster Trump to be a bad choice must be a Hillary worshipper. You are just an idiot. I've never said a good word about Hillary (aside from pointing out lies said about her as such). Yet you think I'm delusional and a Hillary worshipper. That makes you the delusional liar.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 4, Insightful) 234

And no, redundancy doesn't make things harder as long as it's implemented properly

"properly" by your definition is prohibitively expensive. Almost nobody does it. Realistic redundancy leaves lots of gaps and holes. And in many cases, active/standby is dangerous. HSRP, STP, and many other protocols are active/standby with errors in the standby allowing massive networking failures. And, of course, the protocol to manage that redundancy is a single point of failure. You could abandon HSRP to avoid that single point of failure, and instead have multiple gateways and every endpoint running a dynamic routing protocol but that just moves the single point of failure to whatever routing protocol you pick, and isn't generally done for a variety of very good reasons.

Nope, the simplest network is often more reliable than the rube goldberg redundant networks I've seen experts like yourself put together. KISS is one of the first rules, and the more you know, the more it matters. KISS. Anything else is expense for the sake of complexity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.