|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 63 of 139:
|
Jan 19 01:13 UTC 2006 |
re #60:
> Why use cable for a local network? WiFi is now available and it
> isn't expensive.
Because for the forseeable future cable technologies will always
outpace wireless technologies. And because cable is much less
subject to interference. And less vulnerable to privacy problems.
And much easier to control. And less susceptible to bandwidth
saturation. And for a whole host of other reasons. And if you
don't have to spend a fortune to put the wiring into place it's
not only more reliable, it's also cheaper.
> Since installing WiFi I will never run another networking cable
> (and when TV is digital, it'll work for that too).
Don't be so sure of that. Your wireless access point may promise
you that it's capable of 54Mbps (or even 108Mbps) but you'll never
get close to that theoretical bandwidth with a bunch of computers
talking to one another.
In my home, the TV signal arrives via IP over high-speed DSL to
the house. Each MPEG-encoded video stream is from 3-7Mbps and that's
for standard def -- things'll be much more bandwidth hungry when
the content all goes high def. I've got a (theoretically) 20Mbps
DSL link to the house (most of which is dedicated for video, alas)
and a 54Mbps Linksys wireless access point within the house. You'd
think that I'd easily be able to carry everything from that 20Mbps
link over the wireless net and still have lots of bandwidth left
over but just try to do that and see how soon your video begins
freezing and/or macro blocking (degrading into little square tiles
of garbage in some portion of the screen..) You'll notice the
difference, I promise you. Plug everything into a cheap 100Mbps
switch, however, and you're good to go.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 139:
|
Jan 19 01:17 UTC 2006 |
WiFi is much less expensive than paying someone to install a cable
network. Cable networks also are very inflexible for moving computers
around. Today, cable networks are in the "do it yourself" category for
those with a lot of time to waste (or for people that just really enjoy
drilling holes in their house and snaking cables around it).
(I do have a cabled network I installed in my house....and there are no
longer any computers near its terminals.)
As far as I know, WiFi is compatible among all major platforms. I happen
to run Macs on mine, but windows machines have used it too, although I
have not networked with them. I don't think there is any problems in doing
so, if one has the software.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 139:
|
Jan 19 01:22 UTC 2006 |
I am, of course, not talking major networking of very high speed machines,
where fiber optics might be best anyway. My experience is just home networking
and when I got broadband, there was no contest between installing new cables
versus installing WiFi.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 66 of 139:
|
Jan 19 02:03 UTC 2006 |
re #64:
> WiFi is much less expensive than paying someone to install a cable
> network.
Yes, it is, which explains its rapid adoption in the marketplace and
substantial consumer appeal. However, we were discussing jep's plans
to run coaxial cable wiring through his house. The marginal cost of
running additional cabling at that time is virtually nil.
> As far as I know, WiFi is compatible among all major platforms.
All major personal computer platforms, true. And it's also built into
an increasing number of consumer devices. But believe me -- we're about
to see a real explosion in the number of networked devices in the
average household. Will your cable set-top box talk wirelessly?
How about that fancy new stereo? How soon before the refrigerator
is on-line, as silly as that may seem now?
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 139:
|
Jan 19 04:48 UTC 2006 |
I would be fascinated to hear more about homes having a lot more network
devices. Mike, would you be willing to enter a new item for that? I
know practically nothing about what is going on (or what is going to be)
in that area. It sounds like it would be good information.
Never mind, I'll enter the item.
|
jep
|
|
response 68 of 139:
|
Jan 19 04:49 UTC 2006 |
It's item 63.
|
glenda
|
|
response 69 of 139:
|
Jan 19 06:18 UTC 2006 |
I don't and won't use wifi, STeve and Staci do and Damon is talking about
getting a card. Being the Tech Support Specialist for the Computer Security
program at WCC has made me very, very leary of wifi. STeve feels safer since
he runs OpenBSD (and I will be as well once I get the new machine built), but
I still don't like the idea. It is much slower than cabled. After all the
expense and time to build a fancy, fast machine I really don't feel like
using something that is going to make it run slower, it seems to be a bit
of a waste to me.
When we finally get around to adding extra electrical service
with its attendant wiring, I will be running CAT 5 or 6 and fiber optic at
the same time. If I am going to be pulling one set of cabling, I might as
well pull 3. It will be pulled such that it ends near every electrical
outlet. Not all of it will be terminated, but it will be there ready to go
if and when it is needed/wanted.
|
drew
|
|
response 70 of 139:
|
Feb 13 21:47 UTC 2006 |
How might I send mail out, preferably with the "mail" command, with a Reply-to
line?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 71 of 139:
|
Feb 14 17:23 UTC 2006 |
I don't use "mail" myself, but in "man mail" it says that during composition
you can use the ~h command to edit headers; presumably Reply-To is one of them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 72 of 139:
|
Feb 14 17:24 UTC 2006 |
MH generally offers the easiest and most flexible way to control the headers
you send out, but if you're not a true UNIX geek it's got a wicked learning
curve.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 73 of 139:
|
Feb 14 17:32 UTC 2006 |
For something at or near a happy medium in between, try pine..
|
kingjon
|
|
response 74 of 139:
|
Feb 14 17:33 UTC 2006 |
I much prefer elm, myself. (Btw, "pine" stands for "pine is not elm.")
|
marcvh
|
|
response 75 of 139:
|
Feb 14 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Actually it's "Pine is no-longer Elm." About twelve years ago I wrote
an essay entitled "Elm Considered Harmful;" most of the reasons still
seem to apply today.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 76 of 139:
|
Feb 14 19:08 UTC 2006 |
I did a quick google search on that phrase, turning up no matches. Do you still
have it somewhere?
Back when I was first trying out Grex I tried pine and didn't like it.
(From what my dad said the last time I was home, Red Hat Fedora Core no longer
ships with Elm.)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 77 of 139:
|
Feb 14 19:16 UTC 2006 |
It's item 116 in jellyware. Mind the cobwebs.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 78 of 139:
|
Feb 14 19:17 UTC 2006 |
Ah. I'll go look; I was bored a couple of days ago and did a "r all" in
jellyware but didn't get that far.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 79 of 139:
|
Feb 14 19:29 UTC 2006 |
All right, I've read it. I can agree with some of your criticisms, but I've
gotten the habits needed to use elm in my fingers, and I've also got 58
megabytes of old messages on my Linux box in elm mailbox format.
|