There was also a really neat 100Mbps standard called 100BASE-T4 which used 4 pairs of Cat3: 2 pairs switching directions (half duplex only) and 1 pair each dedicated TX/RX. It also used a trinary (3 state) carrier wave. I believe it's also covered under RFC 1925 section 2.3, "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."

It also ran at 10Mbps at half duplex, with a maximum utilization of about 35% - delivering a best-case rate of 3.5mbps (~350kBps) for a lightly-loaded network.

WiFi is arguably faster. Heck, his DSL is arguably faster.

> What next, Duke Nukem Forever?

What, no one told you that "Forever" is how long we have to wait for it?

Interesting that your post ends with "YMMV". If you see the other response that I posted about my printer problem, MMDV (My Mileage DID Vary!) In short, Linux handles my printer fine, and Windows refuses to talk to it without a resource-intensive application which tries to circumvent the normal printing process.

My personal interpretation of the reason behind this is that someone at MS decided to create a revenue center behind "Certified for Windows". The unintended consequence is that, rather than pay MS for the privilege of having hardware "just work", some manufacturers are refusing to accept things "the MS" way, and are releasing drivers not merely non-certified, but encumbered with "value added" software whose main claim to value, as far as I can tell, is forcing users to operate in a way inconsistent with the normal Windows method, not to mention the overall Windows user experience. Rather than assuring a quality customer experience, MS has almost architected the opposite effect.

This isn't just "fringe" players. My printer is a Brother. My fiancee's netbook is a Toshiba - and it came loaded with crapware for setting up WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. The UI is "high concept" which means it makes sense only after you puzzle out the metaphor that the designed thought you'd intuitively understand. At least it had less crapware than came on my Dell, most of which was trial versions of software I'd never use for free, much less pay for, and most of which was tedious to remove.

It's ironic that when I pay for Windows, it comes laden with invasive pseudo-advertising. Linux, which is free, doesn't.

But I digress from your response, which, if I read it right, boils down to "manufacturers can't write drivers for Linux unless they release the source code, which they would be stupid to do, so I can't guarantee that any given piece of hardware will work with any given Linux release."

Here's the problem: you're arguing that MS has provided end users with quality control through their "Buy a sticker from MS" certification program. However, their stable ABI allows vendors to bypass that quality control and hijack my user experience. You further argue that the Linux quality control procedure, namely releasing source code, is bad for business, so vendors should have a similar option of bypassing linux's quality control.

The discussion exposes 3 types of hardware vendor:
1) provide true enhanced value through better hardware.
2) claim to provide enhanced value by shipping common hardware with non-standard software.
3) ship the same thing as everyone else.

Type 1 vendors shouldn't have to worry about releasing source code, since they provide value through hardware, so having their software copied doesn't hurt them.

Type 2 vendors don't really add value to my conmputing experience. They are software vendors who are hiding as hardware vendors. Their software often has as UI which can most favorably be classified as "experimental". If there is a standard way in the OS to use the hardware, I will spend time trying to remove their non-standard software. This software often runs only on Windows, but thankfully the commodity hardware often already has driver support in Linux.

Type 3 vendors admit they're selling commodity hardware, which is cheap enough and common enough that there has been Linux support for quite some time.

Who loses in the Linux model? Vendor type 2, the "value adder" / "crapware pusher".

What about in the Windows model? Windows, lacking a native source to access drivers except through vendor support (or by vendors paying MS), requires that vendors include drivers with their hardware. Vendor type 3 therefore has to source a driver, often from some 3rd party, reducing quality control, adding cost, decreasing actual value. It is my hypothesis that this software outsourcing is what originally bred vendor type 2. In the Windows model, the party who loses is the end user, whose choice is indirectly paying MS more money (via inceased vendor costs) or taking their chances with uncertain software.

If you want what's best for your customers, then I argue that what's best is to maintain stability and consistent user experience by flushing crapware out of the cycle. If vendors don't provide drivers for Linux, buy from vendors who do. It's the same thing you yourself advocate by looking for the MS tax receipt / Certified logo. However, the linux drivers don't have a cost to the vendor other than having to be useful.

(Did I miss the part of the conversation that tied releasing source code to exposure to liability from patent trolls? I'm going to have to go find that. It strikes me that source code isn't required to demonstrate that something is behaving in a manner described by a claim in a patent. Releasing source is arguably a decent defense to show that the behavior is _different_ than described in the patent.)

Speaking of printers in Linux:

My fiancee just had me print a document for her, because she hasn't figured out how to add the printer to her XP netbook. (No CD drive) OTOH, adding that same printer to my Linux netbook was quick & painless.

Adding this printer in Windows requires either:
  a) installing the "enhanced" software that came with the printer, or
  b) downloading an installer for the same bloated crapware from the vendor's website - if you can find it.
If I want to download just the driver, that's not an option.

The infrastructure built into XP via Windows Update implies that the printer manufacturer could register the driver with MS and make it magically work, but oddly enough, manufacturers seem to prefer not to do this. Apparently, it's easier for them to ship dubious 3rd-party crapware than it is to get MS to host their driver.

("Crapware" in this case is defined as software which adds several seconds to my boot time, takes over 5% of my system memory, and _requires_ me to perform actions in a manner inconsistent with the standard ways Windows would do it for any other vendor. Extra credit if it crashes.)

In short, it is interesting to me that, going with Linux, I had less user effort, a more consistent user interface, and a more stable / faster system.

YMMV, this is anecdotal evidence, etc... but so is a lot of the MS-provided FUD. I bought the printer from Fry's (best price per feature - and it's Brother, which arguably isn't obscure), my fiancee's netbook from Best Buy, and my netbook from t3h internet.

You're right that drivers don't belong in the kernel. At the very least they belong in loadable modules. That way, if the driver's being flaky, it can be unloaded and a different driver loaded, just like in... huh, I guess Windows doesn't do that without a reboot.

Kidding aside, how does Windows address the critique you have of Linux in a way that provides more value to the end user or IT administrator?

Sci-fi written by a JPL scientist, well-written, with compelling stories and characters... and knowing that all of it, however fantastic it sounded (e.g. life on a neutron star), was completely plausible...

If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.

By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.

Since when has human life helped corporations make money?

The average corporation makes more money than the average individual. The average corporation can then afford to (through lobbying, etc) influence laws to protect the ability of corporations to make money - whereas the average individual has little influence to protect his/her ability to live, especially when that individual's life comes in conflict with the interests of a corporation.

There are a couple of commercial products which will handle the job. I'm most familiar with the Barracuda IM Firewall. For about $2k, you'll get everything you've listed - full logging of conversations and file xfers, plenty of capacity, integrated client, plus a few other nice features like keyword administrator notification & message blocking, LDAP integration, and reporting.

The biggest feature you might appreciate is its ability to BLOCK the public IM protocols. The larger models also connect to the public IM networks, so you can log & apply policy to those conversations on a per-user basis. Some people _insist_ on bypassing IT policies, so allowing those folks to connect in a way you control might make both you and them happier.

The factors I think need to be weighed are 1) the cost of your time 2) the cost of a HIPPA violation, and 3) your ability to set up something bulletproof (no offense intended - I wouldn't trust myself to do it right the first time!)

Disclaimer: I used to work for Barracuda a couple of years ago. Some of their technology is crap, but the IM firewall is IMHO one of the best things they've ever released.