|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 122 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 122:
| 
Dec 22 01:12 UTC 2006 |
re #90: You're right that "it's not rocket science", but
it's not universally or consistently applied, either, which
means making assumptions based on the use of "k" or "K" is
dangerous if you need better than approximate numbers.
|
ball
|
|
response 94 of 122:
|
Dec 22 01:16 UTC 2006 |
It's been consistently applied in my experience, but it's
true that a few people don't use it correctly.
|
ball
|
|
response 95 of 122:
|
Dec 22 01:21 UTC 2006 |
Take a random sample of computer manuals, text books (I hope
they're right!) or EPROM / SRAM data sheets. K = 1,024 is a
long-standing convention.
|
cross
|
|
response 96 of 122:
|
Dec 22 01:55 UTC 2006 |
Yes, but you were talking specifically about K = 1024 and k = 1000, and in
neither of the two references that you posted can I find such a distinction.
Everyone knows that most computer manuals refer to K as 2^10 = 1024. Your
claim was that they also refer to k as 1000, which is not universal, and in
fact, is a convention I've never heard of before, and is not supported by your
evidence.
If telecom people refer to kbits as 1000 bits, that's great, but what McNally
says is true: if you want to be exact, you've really got to specify.
|
ball
|
|
response 97 of 122:
|
Dec 22 02:01 UTC 2006 |
k is 1,000 because of S.I. (km, kg, kW etc.) It's only
necessary to specify because some people seem underinformed.
|
cross
|
|
response 98 of 122:
|
Dec 22 02:06 UTC 2006 |
*sigh* It's not being underinformed, Andy, it's recognizing that standards
aren't universally followed. I don't know how to explain it better than that.
Really, though, it's true: not everyone follows the same standards.
|
ball
|
|
response 99 of 122:
|
Dec 22 05:20 UTC 2006 |
Never mind. Let's talk about wireless networking. My next
wireless networking task is to find a PCI 802.11g adaptor
that works with NetBSD. This could take a while.
|
keesan
|
|
response 100 of 122:
|
Dec 22 18:29 UTC 2006 |
How are you searching, in BSD online discussions?
|
ball
|
|
response 101 of 122:
|
Dec 22 18:58 UTC 2006 |
I'll probably start with the man pages for common device
drivers such as ath(4) and perhaps wi(4). Hopefully I'll be
able to find a card that has an appropriate chipset.
|
keesan
|
|
response 102 of 122:
|
Dec 22 19:20 UTC 2006 |
There are lists of linux-compatible pcmcia cards. Why don't you search on
BSD PCI wireless?
|
ball
|
|
response 103 of 122:
|
Dec 22 23:06 UTC 2006 |
The man pages that I mentioned include lists of cards that
are supposed to work. Sadly some manufacturers will change
the chipset in a product without changing the model number
so it can be something of a lottery.
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 122:
|
Dec 23 03:25 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:75: My impression is that the computer world pretty universally
used K=1,024 until marketing types realized they could put a bigger
number on hard disk packages if they used K=1000. For a while they
tried to avoid confusion (and presumably false advertising claims) by
using the phrase "million bytes" instead of "megabytes."
|
ball
|
|
response 105 of 122:
|
Dec 23 03:32 UTC 2006 |
I never saw them use K=1,000, but I did see them use
M=1,000,000 which makes sense in the context of S.I. They
could have excusably used k=1,000 but I never saw that
either.
|
ball
|
|
response 106 of 122:
|
Jan 20 01:51 UTC 2007 |
I now have a D-Link DWL-G510 802.11g PCI wireless network
adaptor working under NetBSD-current.
|
keesan
|
|
response 107 of 122:
|
Jan 20 02:00 UTC 2007 |
What module(s) and what else did you need to do?
|
ball
|
|
response 108 of 122:
|
Jan 20 03:07 UTC 2007 |
I didn't use any modules, but I had to upgrade to NetBSD 4
which is not quite released as stable yet (it's in Beta
testing). My kernel includes the ath(4) driver and for some
reason that I'm not clear about yet, bpf (the Berkeley
packet filter) was also required. I have to launch a thing
called wpa_supplicant because the wireless network uses WPA,
which is supposedly less insecure than WEP. The usual
procedure for launching the supplicant didn't work for me,
so as a temporary measure I launch it from the rc.local
script. Hopefully that will be fixed before 4.0 is released.
|
gull
|
|
response 109 of 122:
|
Jan 27 21:42 UTC 2007 |
It annoys me that some Linux distributions no longer have an rc.local
script. There are some applications where creating a full SYSV init
script is major overkill.
|
dtk
|
|
response 110 of 122:
|
Jan 7 03:28 UTC 2013 |
Do you include SATCOM in the list of wireless networking
techniques/technologies? When I deploy in the wake of natural disasters,
I am responsible for backhauling unclassified voice and data
communications over a satellite link, as well as management and
maintenance of the solution. -DTK
|
cross
|
|
response 111 of 122:
|
Jan 9 00:01 UTC 2013 |
Sure! Sounds reasonable to me.
|
dtk
|
|
response 112 of 122:
|
Jan 10 19:49 UTC 2013 |
Probably like a less cool version of the rig your brothers took out to
the mountains or the sandbox. -DTK
|
ball
|
|
response 113 of 122:
|
Jan 12 16:41 UTC 2013 |
Re. #110: That qualifies. Is that done using VoIP
or something else?
It's telling that even though years have passed
since I asked the question, adding a NetBSD host
to a WiFi network is still awkward to the point
where I tell people not to bother.
|
dtk
|
|
response 114 of 122:
|
Jan 12 17:58 UTC 2013 |
We use VoIP phones, connecting back to a phone switch at the HQ. The
phones use lightweight codec-specific signalling, common to both the
phones and the switch. Nothing terribly novel.
|
ball
|
|
response 115 of 122:
|
Jan 12 23:00 UTC 2013 |
Is latency much of an issue with the satellite link or is
that better with today's LEO birds?
|
dtk
|
|
response 116 of 122:
|
Jan 13 01:19 UTC 2013 |
We do not bounce off a LEO bird; they move too much. Instead, we bounce
off of a geostationary bird. We set expectations about latency, and
people adapt pretty quickly to the latency, as long as it is
consistent. Jitter is your big killer, not delay. Oh, and SAA on Cisco
gear, or SmokePing on UNIX (or Linux) is absolutely your friend,
followed closely by any NetFlow analyzer you can cope with.
|
ball
|
|
response 117 of 122:
|
Jan 13 01:58 UTC 2013 |
I'll ask the packet pushers what SmokePing is.
|