|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 38 of 139:
| 
Jan 13 19:08 UTC 2006 |
Re #35: "mesg -h y" to make yourself available to field help requests. (Since
you're somewhat experienced in Linux, which is a Unix clone, and in the BBS,
you should be able to handle helpees as well as most anyone.)
|
bhoward
|
|
response 39 of 139:
|
Jan 14 03:39 UTC 2006 |
Yep. Most help seekers I speak with either want:
* help setting up Eggdrop/Psybnc
* basic guidance on how to edit files
* instructions on how to, get into (or out of) bbs
* details on how to gain access to outbound tcp
I also usually end up teaching them the "o" protocol
so they know went it is their turn to speak during a
write session.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 40 of 139:
|
Jan 14 03:56 UTC 2006 |
Most that I've encountered want to know how to get to and/or use the shell
(with a handful wanting this for the purpose of setting up servers of some
kind) -- the main problem is that the "menu" seems to be counterintuitive to
them. (It makes perfect sense to me, but then again I've used it off and on for
*years*.)
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 139:
|
Jan 18 17:02 UTC 2006 |
It appears I am going to be running cable TV to several more rooms in
my house. (Sigh.) I noticed when looking at supplies that there are
two kinds of cable; there's a more expensive kind which is labeled
as "digital cable" or "high def cable". In a few years, we all go
digital, so I want to know, do I need to install this "digital" cable?
If it's needed, I would rather get it done now than have to redo my
cable in a couple of years.
Thanks!
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 139:
|
Jan 18 17:55 UTC 2006 |
re #42
You should be able to simply use the indoor cable you can buy in bulk off the
reel at ACE Hardware. There's nothing magical going on other than how they
label it..though keep an eye on impedance. The cable between the receiver
and TV is a different Ohm rating than that of which comes from the cable
company into your house. Otherwise, knock yourself out.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 43 of 139:
|
Jan 18 18:00 UTC 2006 |
What's important is that it be good cable; typically what you want is RG6/U
quad-shield (RG59 is not good enough; RG11/U is likely overkill.) It
doesn't matter whether it's labeled "digital" or not, that's just a
marketing term with no technical meaning in this context.
It's also important that you get good connectors (F-type, and crimp-on
is generally regarded as better than twist-on, probably want a rubber
seal if they're going to be exposed to water) and splitters (they should
be 2-way and clean up to 1 GHz.)
Remember that every time you split the signal you make it weaker,
particularly with analog cable. If the quality was OK with 1 set but is
bad when you add more, you likely need to add a drop amp to boost the
signal before it's split. Don't use the cheap junk amps they sell at
Home Depot or Radio Shack.
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 139:
|
Jan 18 18:17 UTC 2006 |
How would I know the difference between a good signal amplifier and
a "cheap junk amp"?
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 139:
|
Jan 18 18:19 UTC 2006 |
You don't. Just hang on to the receipt if you get the amp from Radio Shack
and if it doesn't do the job then return it and try a higher end model.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 46 of 139:
|
Jan 18 18:56 UTC 2006 |
A good amplifier will support the full signal range from 5-1000 MHz and
a passive return (which lets data flow in the other direction, e.g. for
a cable modem or a set-top-box that does VOD and PPV.) Typically it
will also support a "power inserter" which allows you to place the amp
in a location where there isn't an electrical outlet nearby.
I've had good luck with the Electroline brand, which is available from
cabletvamps.com (but sometimes available cheaper on eBay.) Their web
site also has a fair amount of other useful info. But try it without an
amp first -- you may not need one at all.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 139:
|
Jan 18 18:58 UTC 2006 |
re #46
What is a good brand for satellite tv cable amplifier/splitters?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 139:
|
Jan 18 19:03 UTC 2006 |
I've split my incoming signal twice, one between the cable modem and the video
devices, and again between the VCR and TV. No problems, but of course problems
depend upon signal levels, equipment sensitivities, and impedance matching,
and these worked out for me.
Is there equipment available to distribute the cable signal wirelessly? There
is to distribute single channel PAL or NTSC signals. It would cost more than
running cables, of course, but there may be a lot of time and trouble involved
in running cables.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 49 of 139:
|
Jan 18 19:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #47, dunno, ask twinkie.
I know of wireless devices for single channels (baseband) but not for
broadband.
Your VCR also has another splitter built-in (which is how it can
send the signal on depending on the "VCR/TV" switch.) Other big
factors are screen size (a picture that looks fine on a 19" set
may look horrible on a 60" set) and your individual tolerance of
snow and ghosting and such.
|
tod
|
|
response 50 of 139:
|
Jan 18 19:16 UTC 2006 |
re #48
Is there equipment available to distribute the cable signal wirelessly?
Yea, its called satellite dish. ;) Ku and C band are the popular ones.
Smaller organizations multiplex their signals using microwave but that still
is an expensive solution. I think you could get it done for about $1,000 a
month using lowband RF microwave but the latency and signal loss from fog,
etc would be unbearable for so many cable channels. If you're referring just
from Room to Room then I'd have to say wireless is impractical.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 139:
|
Jan 18 19:46 UTC 2006 |
It would seem straigtforward to broadcast the cable signal itself, or some
modulation of it, locally to multiple receivers for TVs. Is there a
technical or political impediment to this?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 52 of 139:
|
Jan 18 19:59 UTC 2006 |
Well, those same frequencies are already allocated to other people for
other purposes (including, but not limited to, OTA TV.) You would end
up with these signals interfering with each other, which makes it both
technically impractical and illegal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 53 of 139:
|
Jan 18 20:17 UTC 2006 |
re #41: If you're running wire through your walls, in addition to the
coax for cable TV I strongly recommend that you consider running at least
a couple of strands of Cat 6 twisted pair. As more and more home devices
become network-aware, sooner or later you're likely to have a TV or a
stereo or some other entertainment device that wants to be on your home
ethernet.
|
jep
|
|
response 54 of 139:
|
Jan 18 20:21 UTC 2006 |
Yes, I am already interested in running computer network cable
throughout the house. If nothing else, the kids will want their
computers to be network connected at some point. I don't know any more
about computer cable than I do TV cable, though. Why CAT6 instead of
CAT5e?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 55 of 139:
|
Jan 18 20:24 UTC 2006 |
Cat 5 is probably fine for most purposes, it depends where you're going
to run it.
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 139:
|
Jan 18 21:57 UTC 2006 |
If I run network cable it will probably go from my basement to the
bedrooms in the upstairs, and possibly to other parts of the house.
Computers might have to be as far as 40' of cable away from the central
computer.
I also have an outside building apart from the house, which could
potentially become an apartment or an office. A network cable would
have to run about 35' underground if I put it out there -- a computer
might be as much as 100 or 125' from the central computer.
Does any of that sound like I'd need Cat-6 cable?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 57 of 139:
|
Jan 18 22:26 UTC 2006 |
Today? No way, probably nobody does. But cable is cheap (Cat6 is
something like 20 cents per foot) while snaking cables behind drywall
and other places is expensive and/or a pain in the ass. That's why
the general philosophy is to put in more cable (both quantity and
quality) than you currently need.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 139:
|
Jan 18 23:35 UTC 2006 |
What exactly is Cat-6 cable, anyway, compared to Cat-5 or Cat-5E or
whatever else is being sold?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 59 of 139:
|
Jan 18 23:54 UTC 2006 |
Cat5e are rated to 100 MHz of bandwidth, which allows roughly 1 Gb/s
throughput (e.g. gigabit Ethernet.) Cat6 are rated to 200 MHz of
bandwidth.
No, there are no current applications which actually need this much
bandwith.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 139:
|
Jan 19 00:49 UTC 2006 |
Why use cable for a local network? WiFi is now available and it isn't
expensive. Since installing WiFi I will never run another networking cable
(and when TV is digital, it'll work for that too).
|
twenex
|
|
response 61 of 139:
|
Jan 19 00:51 UTC 2006 |
WiFi is MORE expensive than a cabled network, and it's a PITA to set up.
Especially if your requirements aren't limited to Windows XP (and, I hope and
assume, Mac OS X).
|
marcvh
|
|
response 62 of 139:
|
Jan 19 01:11 UTC 2006 |
Wired networks are faster, more scalable, more reliable, more secure,
and have lower latency. Wireless is "good enough" for many purposes,
but it could not be used to stream high-definition video to multiple
devices at once. Maybe wireless networking will advance to the point
where it can do that reliably (even if your neighbors are doing it
too, and also running their microwave ovens.) But as long as you're
pulling cable anyway, it makes sense to pull some data cable in case
you need it someday (not just for networking, but also for phone lines,
or an intercom, or a camera in the baby's room, or a secondary doorbell
in the outbuilding, or whatever.)
For lots of people TV already is digital, either via DBS or digital
cable or digital OTA. But it won't work with wireless networking in
a way that most people would find practical, and I don't see this
changing anytime soon.
|