Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote in message news:<seeker1-258BA9.22233706072003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>...
> > Don't you know you can get a 2.66GHz Dell desktop system for only $699
> > with a $100-off coupon?
> >
> > Why on earth would anyone want an iMac that costs TWICE as much!
> >
> > Even though it has a very high-quality LCD screen, silent fanless
> > design, category-leading software from Microsoft and Adobe, and a UI
> > that Microsoft can't even try to match until 2005 at the earliest --
> > the iMac still costs MORE!
> >
> > Plus it's gay.
> >
> > =Heywood=
>
> Be careful, HM, you might be charged with impersonating a troll. Your
> bit is convincing.

That's what I get for wasting so much time in this frickin' n/g.

=Heywood=

In article <BB2E81C7.2D76%peejster01[at]insightbb.com>, Jim Lee Jr.
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

> in article dd5de929.0307062159.14b67379[at]posting.google.com, Heywood Mogroot
> at imouttahere[at]mac.com wrote on 7/7/03 12:59 AM:
>
> > Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:<seeker1-258BA9.22233706072003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>...
> >>> Don't you know you can get a 2.66GHz Dell desktop system for only $699
> >>> with a $100-off coupon?
> >>>
> >>> Why on earth would anyone want an iMac that costs TWICE as much!
> >>>
> >>> Even though it has a very high-quality LCD screen, silent fanless
> >>> design, category-leading software from Microsoft and Adobe, and a UI
> >>> that Microsoft can't even try to match until 2005 at the earliest --
> >>> the iMac still costs MORE!
> >>>
> >>> Plus it's gay.
> >>>
> >>> =Heywood=
> >>
> >> Be careful, HM, you might be charged with impersonating a troll. Your
> >> bit is convincing.
> >
> > That's what I get for wasting so much time in this frickin' n/g.
> >
> > =Heywood=
>
> Maybe Heywood is a troll, otherwise he would not have made that gay comment.

Trolling used to be an art form. It was subtle, sometimes ingenious.
Now, Heywood's a "troll" because you were too dim to get the joke, and
because a lot of folks responded to the first two paragraphs and read
no further.

Imminent death of Usenet predicted. Film at 11.

--
The idea of going completely crazy on laughing gas in the middle of
a DAs' drug conference had a definite warped appeal. But not on the
*first day,* I thought. Save that for later.
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * atticus[at]mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/

Jim Lee Jr. <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

> in article dd5de929.0307062159.14b67379[at]posting.google.com, Heywood Mogroot
> at imouttahere[at]mac.com wrote on 7/7/03 12:59 AM:
>
> > Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:<seeker1-258BA9.22233706072003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>...
> >>> Don't you know you can get a 2.66GHz Dell desktop system for only $699
> >>> with a $100-off coupon?
> >>>
> >>> Why on earth would anyone want an iMac that costs TWICE as much!
> >>>
> >>> Even though it has a very high-quality LCD screen, silent fanless
> >>> design, category-leading software from Microsoft and Adobe, and a UI
> >>> that Microsoft can't even try to match until 2005 at the earliest --
> >>> the iMac still costs MORE!
> >>>
> >>> Plus it's gay.
> >>>
> >>> =Heywood=
> >>
> >> Be careful, HM, you might be charged with impersonating a troll. Your
> >> bit is convincing.
> >
> > That's what I get for wasting so much time in this frickin' n/g.
> >
> > =Heywood=
>
> Maybe Heywood is a troll, otherwise he would not have made that gay comment.
> So what if iMacs are more expensive, Heywood, are you a cheap mamzer?
> who would spend money on a cheap assed PeeCee?

Step up and buy expensive assed Macs.
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot

Walter

in article 1fxyobi.1gbigl7dy2om3N%proto[at]panix.com, Walter Bushell at
proto[at]panix.com wrote on 7/12/03 9:36 AM:

>> Jim Lee Jr. <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe Heywood is a troll, otherwise he would not have made that gay comment.
>> So what if iMacs are more expensive, Heywood, are you a cheap mamzer?
>> who would spend money on a cheap assed PeeCee?
>
> Step up and buy expensive assed Macs.

"Expensive assed" Macs that work, that aren't in the shop half the time,
that aren't brought down by viruuses, Trojan horses and worms, that aren't
glorified XBoxes. Need I say more, Walt?

In article <BB35B004.3FFA%peejster01[at]insightbb.com>,
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

> "Expensive assed" Macs that work, that aren't in the shop half the time,
> that aren't brought down by viruuses, Trojan horses and worms, that aren't
> glorified XBoxes. Need I say more, Walt?

Who do you know that has a under 1 year old pc that is "in the shop half
the time"? Are you a troll? Admitting it is the first step....

in article no-74D45E.12041812072003[at]newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com, no at
no[at]no.com wrote on 7/12/03 2:04 PM:

> In article <BB35B004.3FFA%peejster01[at]insightbb.com>,
>> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Expensive assed" Macs that work, that aren't in the shop half the time,
>> that aren't brought down by viruuses, Trojan horses and worms, that aren't
>> glorified XBoxes. Need I say more, Walt?

> Who do you know that has a under 1 year old PC that is "in the shop half
> the time?" Are you a troll? Admitting it is the first step....

I admit I'm a Mac user, thank you very much. Why would a Mac user troll in a
Mac newsgroup? Macs are in the shop less because Apple has quality control
over hardware and software, hence less problems. Micro$oft does not demand
quality control over drivers and hardware, so there are unsigned Windoze
XPee drivers and cheap, shitty hardware. At least Creative Labs and NVidia
put out good hardware and drivers, but what about those $10.00 modems and
such? Not to mention Windoze PeeCees are easier to screw up than Macs.

As a Mac user, I don't have to worry about Palladium, XPee activation,
M$.net, M$ Passport, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, IE5 integrated with the
OS. I can removed IE5 without screwing up the OS. Try removing IE5 from
Windoze and see what happens.

In article <BB35D241.4032%peejster01[at]insightbb.com>,
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

> in article no-74D45E.12041812072003[at]newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com, no at
> no[at]no.com wrote on 7/12/03 2:04 PM:
>
> > In article <BB35B004.3FFA%peejster01[at]insightbb.com>,
> >> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Expensive assed" Macs that work, that aren't in the shop half the time,
> >> that aren't brought down by viruuses, Trojan horses and worms, that aren't
> >> glorified XBoxes. Need I say more, Walt?
>
> > Who do you know that has a under 1 year old PC that is "in the shop half
> > the time?" Are you a troll? Admitting it is the first step....
>
> I admit I'm a Mac user, thank you very much. Why would a Mac user troll in a
> Mac newsgroup?

Because you are insane? Give a url to pc's being in the shop "half the
time". Or I will be forced to give google url's of Edwin bragging about
his 6400 and the macos and being a insane troll.


> Macs are in the shop less

That is a bit more defensible, I will let that stand without proof.

> because Apple has quality control
> over hardware and software, hence less problems. Micro$oft does not demand
> quality control over drivers and hardware,

Please provide a url showing that xp certified drivers are crap (not
that I know because I use a mac)

> so there are unsigned Windoze
> XPee drivers and cheap, shitty hardware. At least Creative Labs and NVidia
> put out good hardware and drivers, but what about those $10.00 modems and
> such?

You mean like the $10 modems made by Intel(
http://www.pcimicro.com/.sc/ms/dd/1050711616103849/085805/nc/Modem--GENER
IC/514/Intel%2520Chipset%2520Internal%252056K%2520V%252E92%2520Internet%2
520PCI%2520Fax%2520%5E2FVoice%2520)

Or Lucent or Motorola or Creative Labs etc?

in article no-0A8795.16161012072003[at]newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com, no at
no[at]no.com wrote on 7/12/03 6:16 PM:

> Because you are insane? Give a URL to PCs being in the shop "half the
> time." Or I will be forced to give google URLs of Edwin bragging about
> his 6400 and the MacOS and being a insane troll.

Sorry, I'm not insane. PCs are in the shop more than Macs, even if not half
the time. Then why are PCs in the shop more than Macs?

> Please provide a URL showing that XP certified drivers are crap. (not
> that I know because I use a Mac)

I never said a word about XP drivers, just about UNSIGNED ones.

> You mean like the $10 modems made by Intel?
> http://www.pcimicro.com/.sc/ms/dd/1050711616103849/085805/nc/Modem--GENER
> IC/514/Intel%2520Chipset%2520Internal%252056K%2520V%252E92%2520Internet%2
> 520PCI%2520Fax%2520%5E2FVoice%2520
>
> Or Lucent, or Motorola, or Creative Labs, etc?

They make better hardware.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:34:00 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>> Because you are insane? Give a URL to PCs being in the shop "half the
>> time." Or I will be forced to give google URLs of Edwin bragging about
>> his 6400 and the MacOS and being a insane troll.
>
>Sorry, I'm not insane. PCs are in the shop more than Macs, even if not half
>the time.

I can vouch for Winboxen having to be fixed more than Macs. Our IT
department has 5-10 Windows machines sitting around getting fixed at
any one time; out of our 10-Mac workgroup I've had a Mac down for more
than an hour exactly once in 2 1/2 years - and that was because the
monitor had to go back to Apple to be repaired under warranty. We
brought in a different monitor and it worked fine with that.

The company replaces Winboxen every four years without fail; they
replace a Mac when I tell them it's time. That's happened once, on a
six-year-old 9600, which is actually still in use as a scanner
station. The 8600 I brought home and installed Yellow Dog Linux on
just for laughs. It runs just fine too.

in article n7i1hvs8aog67ncf12l2f13h9omtlorgr7[at]4ax.com, forge at
bake455[at]spamsucks.bellsouth.net wrote on 7/12/03 10:00 PM:

> I can vouch for Winboxes having to be fixed more than Macs. Our IT
> department has 5 to 10 Windows machines sitting around getting fixed at
> any one time; out of our 10 Mac workgroup I've had a Mac down for more
> than an hour exactly once in 2-1/2 years, and that was because the
> monitor had to go back to Apple to be repaired under warranty. We
> brought in a different monitor and it worked fine with that.
>
> The company replaces Winboxes every four years without fail; they
> replace a Mac when I tell them it's time. That's happened once, on a
> six year-old 9600, which is actually still in use as a scanner
> station. The 8600 I brought home and installed Yellow Dog Linux on
> just for laughs. It runs just fine too.

What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
at home than Windoze machines.

in article no-EDB989.20592612072003[at]newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com, no at
no[at]no.com wrote on 7/12/03 10:59 PM:

> So let's see, you said PCs are "in the shop half the time" and you agree
> that is not factual, you talk about "crappy $10 modems." Intel, Motorola,
> and Creative Labs all sell modems for around $10 and you bitch about
> unsigned drivers, yet if some third party makes crappy drivers for a Mac
> you don't complain.

I am smart enough not to every third party driver on my Mac, so I don't have
a reason to complain. Using compatible drivers is the key to making ANY
computer work right with the least of problems. The cheap hardware/drivers I
speak of are the no-name hardware.drivers. The major manufacturers see to it
they make compatible hardware and drivers. Any PC or Mac user worth his salt
sees to it that compatible hardware and drivers are used. Microsoft is too
lax over quality control and some companies are too cheap to pay Microsoft
to test their drivers for compatibility. I would rather spend the extra
money on a Mac and get a machine that is better quality, lasts longer, and
has lower TCO costs.

> I am not even a Windows fan but can tell you are full of holes.

Dream on, get back to reality.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>at home than Windoze machines.

I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)

In article <fd94hvgv8n47253r2j54g9tv0lqblu7ngt[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
> >at home than Windoze machines.
>
> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)

I think you're eaisly amused.

I have a G3/300 and though slow by today's standards, it's plenty fast
enough for most of the tasks I do with it. My roommate has an iMac
DV/350 and he has the same experience. Now he also has one of those
bargain-basement custom-built no-name ugly PC boxes running W98 thathe
uses mostly for games. The damn thing causes him all sorts of grief.
I've got a few more such custom boxes running various operating systems.
One was runnign W98 for a while, too, but its video card was flaky and
would make it crash. I replaced the card with something cheaper, which
caused W98 all sorts of problems until I reinstalled it ... I eventually
just put Linux on it. What a a pain.

Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
been witn some PC runngin Windows or Linux.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:55:52 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <fd94hvgv8n47253r2j54g9tv0lqblu7ngt[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>> >at home than Windoze machines.
>>
>> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)
>
>I think you're eaisly amused.
>
>I have a G3/300 and though slow by today's standards, it's plenty fast
>enough for most of the tasks I do with it. My roommate has an iMac

And relatives have Celeron 466s that are "slow by today's standard but
plenty fast enough for ALL of the tasks they do with it".

>DV/350 and he has the same experience. Now he also has one of those
>bargain-basement custom-built no-name ugly PC boxes running W98 thathe
>uses mostly for games. The damn thing causes him all sorts of grief.

Put XP or 2K on it.

>I've got a few more such custom boxes running various operating systems.
>One was runnign W98 for a while, too, but its video card was flaky and
>would make it crash. I replaced the card with something cheaper, which
>caused W98 all sorts of problems until I reinstalled it ... I eventually
>just put Linux on it. What a a pain.

Suggestion: Ditch 98 and put an NT-based OS on them.

>Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
>been witn some PC runngin Windows or Linux.

Good for you. :)

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:07:50 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <v4d4hv85qsdc4ldhsclibcb5pttrhmi75g[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:55:52 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <fd94hvgv8n47253r2j54g9tv0lqblu7ngt[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> >> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>> >> >at home than Windoze machines.
>> >>
>> >> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)
>> >
>> >I think you're eaisly amused.
>> >
>> >I have a G3/300 and though slow by today's standards, it's plenty fast
>> >enough for most of the tasks I do with it. My roommate has an iMac
>>
>> And relatives have Celeron 466s that are "slow by today's standard but
>> plenty fast enough for ALL of the tasks they do with it".
>
>Yeah, like video editing, DVD burning, and the all-time most important
>task for any desktop computer, finite element analysis.

You do that too, eh? Tough field!

>> >DV/350 and he has the same experience. Now he also has one of those
>> >bargain-basement custom-built no-name ugly PC boxes running W98 thathe
>> >uses mostly for games. The damn thing causes him all sorts of grief.
>>
>> Put XP or 2K on it.
>
>XP: Blech! 2K: $$$ but may be worth it.
>
>> >I've got a few more such custom boxes running various operating systems.
>> >One was runnign W98 for a while, too, but its video card was flaky and
>> >would make it crash. I replaced the card with something cheaper, which
>> >caused W98 all sorts of problems until I reinstalled it ... I eventually
>> >just put Linux on it. What a a pain.
>>
>> Suggestion: Ditch 98 and put an NT-based OS on them.
>
>Maybe one or two, but all of them. Some of them are servers on my DSL
>connection. No way I'll put NT on them.

Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
routers are $9 these days?

>> >Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
>> >been witn some PC runngin Windows or Linux.
>>
>> Good for you. :)

in article fd94hvgv8n47253r2j54g9tv0lqblu7ngt[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
wrote on 7/13/03 10:38 PM:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>> at home than Windoze machines.
>
> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)

You think it is funny Windoze machines wear out sooner than Macs? Better
pick out your new Mac, foo..

in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:

> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
> routers are $9 these days?

Cheap mamzer.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:38:57 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>in article fd94hvgv8n47253r2j54g9tv0lqblu7ngt[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>wrote on 7/13/03 10:38 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:01:16 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>>> at home than Windoze machines.
>>
>> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)
>
>You think it is funny Windoze machines wear out sooner than Macs?

No, but then, I also don't think it's factual. I think it's funny
that you think it's funny, though.

>Better
>pick out your new Mac, foo..

Jim, I don't know if you can't read English, or what the overall issue
is with your learning environment. I've repeatedly said here I own
several Macs. Why does that never seem to penetrate that thick skull?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:48:56 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>in article v4d4hv85qsdc4ldhsclibcb5pttrhmi75g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>wrote on 7/13/03 11:44 PM:
>
>> And relatives have Celeron 466s that are "slow by today's standard but
>> plenty fast enough for ALL of the tasks they do with it".
>
>And your point?

Older PCs work great too.

>>> DV/350 and he has the same experience. Now he also has one of those
>>> bargain-basement custom-built no-name ugly PC boxes running W98 thathe
>>> uses mostly for games. The damn thing causes him all sorts of grief.
>>
>> Put XP or 2K on it.
>
>Why should he when he can use a Mac?

For some reason he bought the hardware, so I assume he wants to run
Win32 for *something* or other....

>I use OS 9.1 on my G3 upgraded 7600/132
>with little or no problems.

What problems do you have, Jim?

>>> I've got a few more such custom boxes running various operating systems.
>>> One was runnign W98 for a while, too, but its video card was flaky and
>>> would make it crash. I replaced the card with something cheaper, which
>>> caused W98 all sorts of problems until I reinstalled it ... I eventually
>>> just put Linux on it. What a a pain.
>>
>> Suggestion: Ditch 98 and put an NT-based OS on them.
>
>Again, why should he use Windoze when he can use a Mac?

Ask him.

>>> Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
>>> been with some PC running Windows or Linux.
>>
>> Good for you. :)
>
>Damn right, good for him. Jealous?

No, but you're clueless.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
>
>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>> routers are $9 these days?
>
>Cheap mamzer.

I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
job of routing?

Dear Lord - I didn't think my opinion of you could sink any lower.
You've exceeded my wildest expectations.

in article 4dh4hvgn79n2kbu2mk8g9v6krrteelpb28[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
wrote on 7/14/03 12:53 AM:

> Older PCs work great too.

So they do. Big whup.

> For some reason he bought the hardware, so I assume he wants to run
> Win32 for *something* or other....

Because of the cheap hardware.

>> I use OS 9.1 on my G3 upgraded 7600/132
>> with little or no problems.
>
> What problems do you have, Jim?

The rare application crash, usually because of a Type 1, 2, or 3 error. At
least they don't bring the entire OS down like Windoze errors do.

> Why should he use Windoze when he can use a Mac?
>
> Ask him.

I'll let you ask him.

>>>> Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
>>>> been with some PC running Windows or Linux.
>>>
>>> Good for you. :)
>>
>> Damn right, good for him. Jealous?
>
> No, but you're clueless.

But not clueless enought to still be using Windoze.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:13:57 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>> routers are $9 these days?
>
>Because when it was set up there was a reason to do it the way we did.
>Routers that did NAT, DNS, and VPN were not cheaper than a PC running
>OpenBSD.
>
>So why do I go on doing it that way? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix
>it.

Nowadays it is cheaper than OpenBSD (since you could sell the hardware
- not to mention the electricity savings in both cost to run the unit
and lower cooling), so why not jump to a simple router? And it sounds
like you have multiple routers/DSL servers (I don't have the original
article in front of me, but that was how I remembered it) - seems
you'd save quite a bit of space and energy if you just replaced
everything with a simple, single router - no?

in article 1vh4hv4nvtro9l7h72pkss2qa9ncrka3m2[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
wrote on 7/14/03 1:03 AM:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>> wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
>>
>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>>> routers are $9 these days?
>>
>> Cheap mamzer.
>
> I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
> a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
> job of routing?

People seem to think that cheap equals quality. I spent the extra money on a
Mac and my 4 port Linksys router because I knew I would have less problems
You get what you pay for, let us know if and when you have glitches in you
$9.00 router.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:23:52 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>in article 4dh4hvgn79n2kbu2mk8g9v6krrteelpb28[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>wrote on 7/14/03 12:53 AM:
>
>> Older PCs work great too.
>
>So they do. Big whup.

That was the entire crux of the matter under discussion, Jim.

>> For some reason he bought the hardware, so I assume he wants to run
>> Win32 for *something* or other....
>
>Because of the cheap hardware.

Actually, as we later found out, because of OpenBSD and DSL servers.

>>> I use OS 9.1 on my G3 upgraded 7600/132
>>> with little or no problems.
>>
>> What problems do you have, Jim?
>
>The rare application crash, usually because of a Type 1, 2, or 3 error. At
>least they don't bring the entire OS down like Windoze errors do.

Why must you constantly prove you have little or no knowledge of
Windows?

>> Why should he use Windoze when he can use a Mac?
>>
>> Ask him.
>
>I'll let you ask him.

You're the one asking the question, Jim, not I.

>>>>> Value for the money? I'm vastly happier with my G3 than I would have
>>>>> been with some PC running Windows or Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Good for you. :)
>>>
>>> Damn right, good for him. Jealous?
>>
>> No, but you're clueless.
>
>But not clueless enought to still be using Windoze.

My response had to do with the fact that you don't know what hardware
I use, and you've demonstrated that yet again.

In article <t0j4hv4tcmdk0g9sbhb2c78l2jsp2s0gm4[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:13:57 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
> >> routers are $9 these days?
> >
> >Because when it was set up there was a reason to do it the way we did.
> >Routers that did NAT, DNS, and VPN were not cheaper than a PC running
> >OpenBSD.
> >
> >So why do I go on doing it that way? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix
> >it.
>
> Nowadays it is cheaper than OpenBSD (since you could sell the hardware
> - not to mention the electricity savings in both cost to run the unit
> and lower cooling), so why not jump to a simple router? And it sounds
> like you have multiple routers/DSL servers (I don't have the original
> article in front of me, but that was how I remembered it) - seems
> you'd save quite a bit of space and energy if you just replaced
> everything with a simple, single router - no?

Two of the machines are primarily routers. The other two are servers. If
I replaced the one that's mainly a router with a dedicated box, then I'd
have a PC with an antiquated CPU, a hard drive, a CD-rom drive, and a
cheapass video card. It would work best as a server...

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:28:23 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
<peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:

>in article 1vh4hv4nvtro9l7h72pkss2qa9ncrka3m2[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>wrote on 7/14/03 1:03 AM:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>>> wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
>>>
>>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>>>> routers are $9 these days?

Note: Not a wireless for $9. That's $29. $9 gets you a normal wired
router.

>>> Cheap mamzer.
>>
>> I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
>> a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
>> job of routing?
>
>People seem to think that cheap equals quality.

Actually, no, people seem to mistakenly think expensive equals
quality. That's stupid-wrong.

>I spent the extra money on a
>Mac

I'm sorry to hear that.

>and my 4 port Linksys router because I knew I would have less problems

Somehow I suspect there are plenty of people with Windows who have
very few problems too. So what?

>You get what you pay for, let us know if and when you have glitches in you
>$9.00 router.

So Belkin routers suck, huh?
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0151876

Clueless people like you remind me of the USR Dual Standard zealots
when the Supra 9600 and 14.4k modems came out. Technology marches on.
Those that don't learn the new standards and take advantage of the new
methods (and prices) become dinosaurs.

In article <4dh4hvgn79n2kbu2mk8g9v6krrteelpb28[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:48:56 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >in article v4d4hv85qsdc4ldhsclibcb5pttrhmi75g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
> >wrote on 7/13/03 11:44 PM:
> >
> >> And relatives have Celeron 466s that are "slow by today's standard but
> >> plenty fast enough for ALL of the tasks they do with it".
> >
> >And your point?
>
> Older PCs work great too.
>

Actually, no they don't.

My kids have a Celeron 900 system - and they're constantly complaining
about how slow it is and how it needs to be replaced.

While I haven't seen any studies lately, all the ones that were done in
the past showed that the average useful life of Macs was much greater
than the average useful life of PCs.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:03:32 +0000, foo wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>>wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
>>
>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>>> routers are $9 these days?
>>
>>Cheap mamzer.
>
> I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
> a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
> job of routing?

I use a similar scheme as woofbert. I have two old 40MHz Sun SparcStation
LX boxes, both of them configured as routers. They are very quiet and both
use very little power. I got them for free! Both have a flavor of Linux
for Sparc architecture. Either one can substitute for the other. One is
also a fax server (sends and receives) the other is also an email server.
They are too slow to be useful for anything else. Almost hard to believe
that these boxes were, at one time, ~$10,000 a pop and used as graphical
workstations. They also have no monitor or keyboard attached. They have
become appliances. At the time I got them setup a dedicate router
appliance was over $200 and far less flexible. The newer router boxes are
still far less flexible. Some of them have security issues that are only
fixable with a firmware update... if and when one is available... and that
usually requires a Windows box be connected to them directly. Some routers
even run an embedded form of Linux. Other nice thing about my old Sun
"shoeboxes" is that ALL the features work. On all the cheap dedicated
routers I have tried many features are not yet implemented (like remote
logging) or are broken.

YMMV

-DU-...etc...

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:05:24 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <hsk4hvc6444dkr8si43vfj0255kbl9kb4s[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:37:00 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >So why do I go on doing it that way? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> Nowadays it is cheaper than OpenBSD (since you could sell the hardware
>> >> - not to mention the electricity savings in both cost to run the unit
>> >> and lower cooling), so why not jump to a simple router? And it sounds
>> >> like you have multiple routers/DSL servers (I don't have the original
>> >> article in front of me, but that was how I remembered it) - seems
>> >> you'd save quite a bit of space and energy if you just replaced
>> >> everything with a simple, single router - no?
>> >
>> >Two of the machines are primarily routers.
>>
>> *TWO* routers? Why two? How many different subnets can one home
>> have?!
>
>As many as are needed. I have mine; my roommate has his. He works at
>home and can prove to his clients that his stuff is secure, for no one
>else here has computers on that subnet. Then, of course, Beowoof has its
>own subnet. You got a problem with that?

I don't see a point to it, but it's your money.

>> >The other two are servers. If
>>
>> OK...
>>
>> >I replaced the one that's mainly a router with a dedicated box, then I'd
>> >have a PC with an antiquated CPU, a hard drive, a CD-rom drive, and a
>> >cheapass video card. It would work best as a server...
>>
>> Well, why not just have one computer do all of the serving *and* all
>> of the routing? A PentiumPro 200 could handle that with mountains of
>> CPU time to spare.
>
>Yes, but it's a single point of failure. If someone hacks into that
>server, that's it. You're hosed.

We weigh risk and likelihood all the time. What's likelihood?
Approaching zero, I suspect. Seems like a lot of bother for nothing
to me.

>Computer security purists would insist that that's a bad idea. If you
>want a really secure architecture,

(for your home as a hobbyist...)

> then you build a firewall that passes
>only certain types of packets from the outside, and routes them to your
>servers according to type and destination. Your outside web and file
>servers live in this "DMZ." Then another firewall passes packets to an
>inside subnet. Any file servers for the subnet would live in that
>subnet, separate from the router, and would not be visible in the DMZ
>and certaonly not outside. None of the routers would use Telnet, only
>SSHD and accept connections only from specific other machines. So even
>if someone hacked the outside router, they would not be able to SSH into
>any of the other routers. And no machine inside a subnet accepts SSH
>connections from the router. You carefully set up DNS servers so that no
>outside entity can discover the names or even the exsistence of machines
>inside the subnets.

Not in your home you don't do this. That's what we're talking about.

I'm fully aware of the issues, Woofbert. Put your server behind a
router/FW with SPI and you'll be fine. They're dirt cheap these days.

>Hah. Maybe even set up a Windows 2000 server in the DMZ. It would be
>carefully locked down, but chock-full of tasty crap that looks important
>but is really random shit put together out of clever searches on Google.
>Now that could be fun.

In article <m9c5hvolo0f2r4fr8b89vte24q0qabjeiq[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:25:38 GMT, Flip <flip[at]flippo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >And your point?
> >>
> >> Older PCs work great too.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, no they don't.
> >
> >My kids have a Celeron 900 system - and they're constantly complaining
> >about how slow it is and how it needs to be replaced.
>
> Give them a G3/4 Mac of the same era and watch as they bitch about it,
> too. If it's graphics they need, put in an $80 PCI card, like a
> Radeon 9000.
>

It's not graphics.

As for a Mac of the same era, I've been using a G3/500 for quite a while
and, while its performance isn't stellar, it's quite usable.

> >While I haven't seen any studies lately, all the ones that were done in
> >the past showed that the average useful life of Macs was much greater
> >than the average useful life of PCs.
>
> Wonder why? Couldn't be because of no substantial updates to MacOS
> and to the overall hardware until fairlyrecently, could it?

No, that doesn't seem to be it.

Care to throw a few more fantasies around?

In article <cij4hv8qotmd6jklqrsimdkdvegieafphl[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> >>>
> >>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
> >>>> routers are $9 these days?
>
> Note: Not a wireless for $9. That's $29. $9 gets you a normal wired
> router.

I got a netgear wireless router for $12. Why do you think your router
is so much better? (of course it listed for $100, but it was on special
and had rebates.

In article <no-B36766.08095514072003[at]newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

> In article <cij4hv8qotmd6jklqrsimdkdvegieafphl[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
> > >>>> routers are $9 these days?
> >
> > Note: Not a wireless for $9. That's $29. $9 gets you a normal wired
> > router.
>
> I got a netgear wireless router for $12. Why do you think your router
> is so much better? (of course it listed for $100, but it was on special
> and had rebates.

Shucks. I paid almost $15 for mine.

In article <q1c5hv49cf8q63fbb15vc36sm4odjeimgc[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:05:24 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <hsk4hvc6444dkr8si43vfj0255kbl9kb4s[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:37:00 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >So why do I go on doing it that way? Well, if it ain't broke, don't
> >> >> >fix
> >> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nowadays it is cheaper than OpenBSD (since you could sell the hardware
> >> >> - not to mention the electricity savings in both cost to run the unit
> >> >> and lower cooling), so why not jump to a simple router? And it sounds
> >> >> like you have multiple routers/DSL servers (I don't have the original
> >> >> article in front of me, but that was how I remembered it) - seems
> >> >> you'd save quite a bit of space and energy if you just replaced
> >> >> everything with a simple, single router - no?
> >> >
> >> >Two of the machines are primarily routers.
> >>
> >> *TWO* routers? Why two? How many different subnets can one home
> >> have?!
> >
> >As many as are needed. I have mine; my roommate has his. He works at
> >home and can prove to his clients that his stuff is secure, for no one
> >else here has computers on that subnet. Then, of course, Beowoof has its
> >own subnet. You got a problem with that?
>
> I don't see a point to it, but it's your money.

Apparently you ignored the point when I just now stated it in that
paragraph, right above your last istatement of ignorance and apathy.


> >> >The other two are servers. If
> >>
> >> OK...
> >>
> >> >I replaced the one that's mainly a router with a dedicated box, then I'd
> >> >have a PC with an antiquated CPU, a hard drive, a CD-rom drive, and a
> >> >cheapass video card. It would work best as a server...
> >>
> >> Well, why not just have one computer do all of the serving *and* all
> >> of the routing? A PentiumPro 200 could handle that with mountains of
> >> CPU time to spare.
> >
> >Yes, but it's a single point of failure. If someone hacks into that
> >server, that's it. You're hosed.
>
> We weigh risk and likelihood all the time. What's likelihood?
> Approaching zero, I suspect. Seems like a lot of bother for nothing
> to me.

At the time when we set it up there was more going on than that.

> >Computer security purists would insist that that's a bad idea. If you
> >want a really secure architecture,
>
> (for your home as a hobbyist...)
>
> > then you build a firewall that passes
> >only certain types of packets from the outside, and routes them to your
> >servers according to type and destination. Your outside web and file
> >servers live in this "DMZ." Then another firewall passes packets to an
> >inside subnet. Any file servers for the subnet would live in that
> >subnet, separate from the router, and would not be visible in the DMZ
> >and certaonly not outside. None of the routers would use Telnet, only
> >SSHD and accept connections only from specific other machines. So even
> >if someone hacked the outside router, they would not be able to SSH into
> >any of the other routers. And no machine inside a subnet accepts SSH
> >connections from the router. You carefully set up DNS servers so that no
> >outside entity can discover the names or even the exsistence of machines
> >inside the subnets.
>
> Not in your home you don't do this. That's what we're talking about.

Why are you declaring what *I* do or don't do in *my* home? Wait, I
apologize for my transgression. I think I'm beginning to understand your
role in all this, and why you're grilling me.

> I'm fully aware of the issues, Woofbert.

Apparently you were FOOling when you asked why I did it this way.

> Put your server behind a
> router/FW with SPI and you'll be fine. They're dirt cheap these days.

Yes. I get it, now. Apparently you are the authority around here on what
sorts of networks people may set up in their homes. May I have
permission to leave my paid-for and working system the way it is without
spending any more money?

> >Hah. Maybe even set up a Windows 2000 server in the DMZ. It would be
> >carefully locked down, but chock-full of tasty crap that looks important
> >but is really random shit put together out of clever searches on Google.
> >Now that could be fun.

May I please do this, too?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <pan.2003.07.14.13.11.36.312916[at]nospamremarque.org>,
"David Utidjian" <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:03:32 +0000, foo wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> > <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >>in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
> >>wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
> >>
> >>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
> >>> routers are $9 these days?
> >>
> >>Cheap mamzer.
> >
> > I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
> > a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
> > job of routing?
>
> I use a similar scheme as woofbert. I have two old 40MHz Sun SparcStation
> LX boxes, both of them configured as routers. They are very quiet and both
> use very little power. I got them for free! Both have a flavor of Linux
> for Sparc architecture. Either one can substitute for the other. One is
> also a fax server (sends and receives) the other is also an email server.
> They are too slow to be useful for anything else. Almost hard to believe
> that these boxes were, at one time, ~$10,000 a pop and used as graphical
> workstations. They also have no monitor or keyboard attached. They have
> become appliances. At the time I got them setup a dedicate router
> appliance was over $200 and far less flexible. The newer router boxes are
> still far less flexible. Some of them have security issues that are only
> fixable with a firmware update... if and when one is available... and that
> usually requires a Windows box be connected to them directly. Some routers
> even run an embedded form of Linux. Other nice thing about my old Sun
> "shoeboxes" is that ALL the features work. On all the cheap dedicated
> routers I have tried many features are not yet implemented (like remote
> logging) or are broken.

=:o

David, you're gonna be in trouble with Foo the Home Network Atuhority!
You will soon be required to get rid of that completely unjustifiable
system and buy some dedicated routers and a PC running Windows so you
can keep their firmware updated.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:25:38 GMT, Flip <flip[at]flippo.com> wrote:

>> Older PCs work great too.
>>
>
>Actually, no they don't.
>
>My kids have a Celeron 900 system - and they're constantly complaining
>about how slow it is and how it needs to be replaced.

Good point. My dad's got a two-year-old 500MHz Dell; he's buying new
games right now and can't play 'em because his machine is inadequate.
That SUCKS!!! None of my Macs have ever had that problem - of course,
nobody writes games for Macs, but uh, nevermindthatrightnow... heh

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:52:03 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>>>> What do you Windroids think of that? Macs last longer in the workplace and
>>>> at home than Windoze machines.
>>>
>>> I think it's funny. What do you think about it? :)
>>
>>You think it is funny Windoze machines wear out sooner than Macs?
>
>No, but then, I also don't think it's factual. I think it's funny
>that you think it's funny, though.

What, you think I made it up? What reason would I have to lie about
something so trivial?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:26:44 GMT, Flip <flip[at]flippo.com> wrote:

>In article <m9c5hvolo0f2r4fr8b89vte24q0qabjeiq[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:25:38 GMT, Flip <flip[at]flippo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >And your point?
>> >>
>> >> Older PCs work great too.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, no they don't.
>> >
>> >My kids have a Celeron 900 system - and they're constantly complaining
>> >about how slow it is and how it needs to be replaced.
>>
>> Give them a G3/4 Mac of the same era and watch as they bitch about it,
>> too. If it's graphics they need, put in an $80 PCI card, like a
>> Radeon 9000.
>>
>
>It's not graphics.

What is "it", then?

>As for a Mac of the same era, I've been using a G3/500 for quite a while
>and, while its performance isn't stellar, it's quite usable.

You aren't your kids - what do they have a problem with? Why are
they using a PC in the first place, anyway?

>> >While I haven't seen any studies lately, all the ones that were done in
>> >the past showed that the average useful life of Macs was much greater
>> >than the average useful life of PCs.
>>
>> Wonder why? Couldn't be because of no substantial updates to MacOS
>> and to the overall hardware until fairlyrecently, could it?
>
>No, that doesn't seem to be it.

Most likely that's it.

>Care to throw a few more fantasies around?

It's no fantasy, flip.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:09:55 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

>In article <cij4hv8qotmd6jklqrsimdkdvegieafphl[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>> >>>> routers are $9 these days?
>>
>> Note: Not a wireless for $9. That's $29. $9 gets you a normal wired
>> router.
>
>I got a netgear wireless router for $12. Why do you think your router
>is so much better? (of course it listed for $100, but it was on special
>and had rebates.

Good for you! I don't suggest they're significantly different at all
- see Jim Lee Jr for that.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:27:06 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <pan.2003.07.14.13.11.36.312916[at]nospamremarque.org>,
> "David Utidjian" <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:03:32 +0000, foo wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:50:29 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> > <peejster01[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>in article b4f4hvour284g65ubvpu1fe5lgkulob88g[at]4ax.com, foo at foo[at]bar.com
>> >>wrote on 7/14/03 12:17 AM:
>> >>
>> >>> Why does your DSL connection need a 'server' when wireless 802.11b
>> >>> routers are $9 these days?
>> >>
>> >>Cheap mamzer.
>> >
>> > I'm a cheap bastard because I'd rather save money and energy by using
>> > a tiny, cheap router rather than a full computer to do the dead-simple
>> > job of routing?
>>
>> I use a similar scheme as woofbert. I have two old 40MHz Sun SparcStation
>> LX boxes, both of them configured as routers. They are very quiet and both
>> use very little power. I got them for free! Both have a flavor of Linux
>> for Sparc architecture. Either one can substitute for the other. One is
>> also a fax server (sends and receives) the other is also an email server.
>> They are too slow to be useful for anything else. Almost hard to believe
>> that these boxes were, at one time, ~$10,000 a pop and used as graphical
>> workstations. They also have no monitor or keyboard attached. They have
>> become appliances. At the time I got them setup a dedicate router
>> appliance was over $200 and far less flexible. The newer router boxes are
>> still far less flexible. Some of them have security issues that are only
>> fixable with a firmware update... if and when one is available... and that
>> usually requires a Windows box be connected to them directly. Some routers
>> even run an embedded form of Linux. Other nice thing about my old Sun
>> "shoeboxes" is that ALL the features work. On all the cheap dedicated
>> routers I have tried many features are not yet implemented (like remote
>> logging) or are broken.
>
>=:o
>
>David, you're gonna be in trouble with Foo the Home Network Atuhority!
>You will soon be required to get rid of that completely unjustifiable
>system and buy some dedicated routers and a PC running Windows so you
>can keep their firmware updated.

Can anyone name vendors that require Windows to update routers? The
ones I see these days are managed via the Web interface - as long as
you've got something that can HTTP and something that can unzip,
you're good to go.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:29 +0000, foo wrote:

[big snip]

> Can anyone name vendors that require Windows to update routers? The
> ones I see these days are managed via the Web interface - as long as
> you've got something that can HTTP and something that can unzip,
> you're good to go.

Linksys (a VERY popular brand) has a feature that you can use their
browser controlled configuration tool... which would be nice because then
you could use _any_ browser from any _computer_ on the LAN to do the
updates. The problem is... it doesn't work! Linksys realizes this and
provides a downloadable zip file which can be applied via Windows only.
See:
http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=180
which is exactly what I am talking about. I wouldn't make this claim if I
didn't actually try the web based method in the manual... which failed...
so I had to remove the WAP bring it over to a Windows box and hook it in
directly.

Other than a few aggravations I really like the Linksys wireless products
and raouters and whatnot. D-Link is also a good reliable brand for me so
far. Their prices are also very good.

None of them makes a router/firewall that is configureable to my liking.
My little Sun boxes ain't broke so I am not going to fix them. I might
even deploy more of them in other locations!

-DU-...etc...

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:41:52 GMT, "David Utidjian"
<utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:29 +0000, foo wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>> Can anyone name vendors that require Windows to update routers? The
>> ones I see these days are managed via the Web interface - as long as
>> you've got something that can HTTP and something that can unzip,
>> you're good to go.
>
>Linksys (a VERY popular brand) has a feature that you can use their
>browser controlled configuration tool... which would be nice because then
>you could use _any_ browser from any _computer_ on the LAN to do the
>updates. The problem is... it doesn't work! Linksys realizes this and
>provides a downloadable zip file which can be applied via Windows only.

??? It uses TFTP.

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12146 for a Mac-friendly solution
that explicitly supports Linksys routers.

>See:
>http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=180
>which is exactly what I am talking about. I wouldn't make this claim if I
>didn't actually try the web based method in the manual... which failed...
>so I had to remove the WAP bring it over to a Windows box and hook it in
>directly.

Yes - I read it. Then I noticed the tool it was using - TFTP.
Available for just about any platform under the sun. That isn't
proprietary.

BTW, Linksys disagrees with you WRT the web-based firmware upgrade.
Check the release notes for 1.45z, for example. It may have an issue
with some browsers (Netscape 7, in that example).

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:12:54 +0000, foo wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:41:52 GMT, "David Utidjian"
> <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:29 +0000, foo wrote:
>>
>>[big snip]
>>
>>> Can anyone name vendors that require Windows to update routers? The
>>> ones I see these days are managed via the Web interface - as long as
>>> you've got something that can HTTP and something that can unzip,
>>> you're good to go.
>>
>>Linksys (a VERY popular brand) has a feature that you can use their
>>browser controlled configuration tool... which would be nice because then
>>you could use _any_ browser from any _computer_ on the LAN to do the
>>updates. The problem is... it doesn't work! Linksys realizes this and
>>provides a downloadable zip file which can be applied via Windows only.
>
> ??? It uses TFTP.
>
> http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12146 for a Mac-friendly solution
> that explicitly supports Linksys routers.

Oooh thanks. Too bad I didn't know about that at the time.

>>See:
>>http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=180
>>which is exactly what I am talking about. I wouldn't make this claim if I
>>didn't actually try the web based method in the manual... which failed...
>>so I had to remove the WAP bring it over to a Windows box and hook it in
>>directly.
>
> Yes - I read it. Then I noticed the tool it was using - TFTP.
> Available for just about any platform under the sun. That isn't
> proprietary.

Yes, and the instructions were for Windows. Quite specific about that.

> BTW, Linksys disagrees with you WRT the web-based firmware upgrade.
> Check the release notes for 1.45z, for example. It may have an issue
> with some browsers (Netscape 7, in that example).

Linksys can disagree all they want. All I know is it that it DID NOT work.
So... I hooked it up to a W98 box, followed their instructions, then I was
done. Fortunately I had a W98 box kicking around. Hmmm... I htink I will
keep my old Toshiba Satellite Pro 440 CDT (P133) around for Windows based
firmware updates. Not much good for anything else.

-DU-...etc...

In article <pan.2003.07.16.14.10.31.531815[at]nospamremarque.org>, David
Utidjian <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:

> > Yes - I read it. Then I noticed the tool it was using - TFTP.
> > Available for just about any platform under the sun. That isn't
> > proprietary.
>
> Yes, and the instructions were for Windows. Quite specific about that.
>

TFTP is TFTP.

Wade

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:43:45 -0500, Wade Williams wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.07.16.14.10.31.531815[at]nospamremarque.org>, David
> Utidjian <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:
>
>> > Yes - I read it. Then I noticed the tool it was using - TFTP.
>> > Available for just about any platform under the sun. That isn't
>> > proprietary.
>>
>> Yes, and the instructions were for Windows. Quite specific about that.
>>
>
> TFTP is TFTP.

Oh thanks for the insight Wade. Now... perhaps you can tell me where in
the instructions on the linksys website (see link(s) in previous posts)
where it says how to do this with an iMac running Mac OS 9. That is the
machine that I had at the time connected to the router. There was nothing
there for any Mac. One of the files in the download was TFTP.EXE which
doesn't do my Mac much good. How, from those instructions, am I supposed
to translate it to instructions for some unknown tftp shareware app for
the Mac. I grant that it is probably doable but it took less time to just
hook the thing up to a PC running Windows. If I had made a mistake while
uploading the new firmware I would have had to send the unit back to
Linksys for repair.

-DU-...etc...

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:12:20 GMT, "David Utidjian"
<utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:12:54 +0000, foo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:41:52 GMT, "David Utidjian"
>> <utidjian[at]nospamremarque.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:29 +0000, foo wrote:
>>>
>>>[big snip]
>>>
>>>> Can anyone name vendors that require Windows to update routers? The
>>>> ones I see these days are managed via the Web interface - as long as
>>>> you've got something that can HTTP and something that can unzip,
>>>> you're good to go.
>>>
>>>Linksys (a VERY popular brand) has a feature that you can use their
>>>browser controlled configuration tool... which would be nice because then
>>>you could use _any_ browser from any _computer_ on the LAN to do the
>>>updates. The problem is... it doesn't work! Linksys realizes this and
>>>provides a downloadable zip file which can be applied via Windows only.
>>
>> ??? It uses TFTP.
>>
>> http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12146 for a Mac-friendly solution
>> that explicitly supports Linksys routers.
>
>Oooh thanks. Too bad I didn't know about that at the time.
>
>>>See:
>>>http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=180
>>>which is exactly what I am talking about. I wouldn't make this claim if I
>>>didn't actually try the web based method in the manual... which failed...
>>>so I had to remove the WAP bring it over to a Windows box and hook it in
>>>directly.
>>
>> Yes - I read it. Then I noticed the tool it was using - TFTP.
>> Available for just about any platform under the sun. That isn't
>> proprietary.
>
>Yes, and the instructions were for Windows. Quite specific about that.

Err - how would another TFTP implementation be materially different?

>> BTW, Linksys disagrees with you WRT the web-based firmware upgrade.
>> Check the release notes for 1.45z, for example. It may have an issue
>> with some browsers (Netscape 7, in that example).
>
>Linksys can disagree all they want. All I know is it that it DID NOT work.

What browser did you use?

>So... I hooked it up to a W98 box, followed their instructions, then I was
>done. Fortunately I had a W98 box kicking around. Hmmm... I htink I will
>keep my old Toshiba Satellite Pro 440 CDT (P133) around for Windows based
>firmware updates. Not much good for anything else.