Reason *TO* pick on Windows 10

On 3/14/19 4:12 AM, Mike wrote:
LikeÂ*IÂ*said,Â*it'sÂ*theÂ*latestÂ*versionÂ*onÂ*th eirÂ*downloadÂ*pageÂ*lastÂ*night.
Furthermore, it don't matter.Â* ALL spins should download and install
withoutÂ*incident.

ThisÂ*isÂ*NOTÂ*anÂ*isolatedÂ*incident.Â*Â*It'sÂ*la ckÂ*ofÂ*attentionÂ*toÂ*detail
acrossÂ*theÂ*wholeÂ*desktopÂ*linuxÂ*onionÂ*ofÂ*cha os.

Without details of what you are using, I can't help.

Nothing is perfect in life, especially software.
Linux is no exception.

Stick with u-booboo and Fedora and the mistakes
are kept to a minimum.

The chaos is Linux is far less than Windows 10. Yikes.
Did you read the eight reason from the original post?
For starters, the updates don't hose your system.

On 3/14/19 5:42 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-03-14, T wrote:
Well now. I have had to remove folks trying to network Quickbooks
with wireless and put them on wired. Anything data intensive, wireless
sucks.

Anyone with real experience understands this. It gets even worse when
you get a little distance from the access point or there are walls or other
physical obstructions. (The faster 5GHz frequency range is particularly
bad in those instances, the signal drops off rapidly. Throughput drops
and latency rises.)

The only real upside to wireless is convenience when portability is
needed for accessing applications that are not data intensive. That's
all the typical home user sees when crowing about how "wonderful" wifi
is. (I don't concern myself with home users since I don't work with them.)


Well stated

On 3/14/19 1:11 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| And now that TV no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those
| frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't
| already).
|
| And just like that, there's an article today about
| 600MHz being auctioned off. It doesn't say what channels
| exactly, but it could be UHF 36 through UHF 51.

Are you sure that isn't VHF? I get CH 2-68 UHF
on my rabbit ears. Or maybe it's different in Canada?

I found this page: http://otadtv.com/frequency/

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The act of bellringing is symbolic of all proselytizing religions. It
implies the pointless interference with the quiet of other people."
[Ezra Pound]

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| And now that TV no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those
| frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't
| already).
|
| And just like that, there's an article today about
| 600MHz being auctioned off. It doesn't say what channels
| exactly, but it could be UHF 36 through UHF 51.

Are you sure that isn't VHF? I get CH 2-68 UHF
on my rabbit ears. Or maybe it's different in Canada?



Our analog TV started 2-13 VHF (VHF low and VHF high)
Next added UHF 2-13 VHF, 14-83 UHF
DTV 8VSB transition 2-13 VHF, 14-56? UHF
Auctioning off UHF 2-13 VHF, 14-36? UHF

The most notable stupidity, was something
like a Channel 6 analog that was allowed
to become Channel 6 DTV, keeping the transmitter
but changing the modulation or something. So while
nominally we show a "wealth" of channel space on
VHF, it isn't necessarily being used that well.

Other providers used new transmission equipment (on UHF),
but some selected low power (one station in town
using a 3KW transmitter from the top of an office tower).

We do everything here, as cheesy as possible.

During the DTV transition, no money was provided
for consumer STBs to help in the transition,
and no money ($500 million being needed by industry)
was provided either.

But they are making a nice chunk of change off the
auctions.

I thought at the time, that the Canadian DTV frequency
allocation was "too much". Even in dense markets, the
channel map wasn't really filled to overflowing. And
these auctions now, seem to be squeezing out the fat.
I don't know if this is causing any stations to
actually move frequency *again*. But being the
government, and having control of each station
call sign, they can do it if they want or need to.

It would really suck, if they pushed them all down
to VHF, as that would cause technical issues and
more expense. Expenses they would not compensate
the stations for, either. But as long as there are
cell phone people with fat wallets to make this happen,
there will be pressure to do it.

Paul

Sam E wrote:
On 3/13/19 2:46 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

And now that TV
no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those
frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't
already).

Paul

UHF TV channels used to go to 83. Then it was 69. Then 51. Now it's
about to become 36?


The auction started a couple days ago. The auction
process is unidirectional, and could take a month of
bidding to complete.

This wasn't exactly prominently announced before hand,
so for my government I guess it was a "need-to-know"
basis.

at least they're not "crushing the FM band", like the UK is.

There's a lot of pressure coming from these cell phone nitwits.
To convert every bit of white space from 0Hz up, into
fluffy cat photos on Facebook. Which is just an excellent
and essential usage of spectrum. Why allow the
Fire Department to communicate on 900MHz, when the
Fire Department could all be given SmartPhones and
look at fluffy cat photos while putting out a fire...
If we give everything from 0Hz upwards to cell phones,
that will keep "everyone" happy :-( All the way up
to 60GHz, with transmitters on the landscape every
ten feet. If you hold a bag of microwave popcorn
in front of you, you will be enjoying buttery
kernels in seconds. While viewing fluffy cat photos
on your SmartPhone.

I'm going to start wearing a Faraday cage when I go outside.

Paul

"Mark Lloyd" wrote

| Are you sure that isn't VHF? I get CH 2-68 UHF
| on my rabbit ears. Or maybe it's different in Canada?
|
| I found this page: http://otadtv.com/frequency/
|

Their homepage seems to have the explanation:

https://www.otadtv.com/

2-2 or 68-1 are virtual station numbers transmitted
on "RF" channel numbers. I still don't really get it, but
as long as I still get the broadcast I'm not worried.
Oddly, my DVD player, when turned on, blocks the
reception of all 66-* stations, but doesn't affect any
others.

On 3/14/2019 2:52 PM, Paul wrote:
Sam E wrote:
On 3/13/19 2:46 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

Â*And now that TV
no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those
frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't
already).

Â*Â*Â* Paul

UHF TV channels used to go to 83. Then it was 69. Then 51. Now it's
about to become 36?


The auction started a couple days ago. The auction
process is unidirectional, and could take a month of
bidding to complete.

This wasn't exactly prominently announced before hand,
so for my government I guess it was a "need-to-know"
basis.

at least they're not "crushing the FM band", like the UK is.

There's a lot of pressure coming from these cell phone nitwits.
To convert every bit of white space from 0Hz up, into
fluffy cat photos on Facebook. Which is just an excellent
and essential usage of spectrum. Why allow the
Fire Department to communicate on 900MHz, when the
Fire Department could all be given SmartPhones and
look at fluffy cat photos while putting out a fire...

The first thing that happens in a disaster is that
everybody picks up the phone.
The system can't handle it and becomes unresponsive.
Having the primary communication for emergency services
on a public cell phone system is a disaster.
For longer term outages, the backup generators run out
of fuel and even the crippled cell infrastructure goes down.


If we give everything from 0Hz upwards to cell phones,
that will keep "everyone" happy :-( All the way up
to 60GHz, with transmitters on the landscape every
ten feet. If you hold a bag of microwave popcorn
in front of you, you will be enjoying buttery
kernels in seconds. While viewing fluffy cat photos
on your SmartPhone.

I'm going to start wearing a Faraday cage when I go outside.

Â*Â* Paul

On 2019-03-13 7:26 a.m., Mike wrote:
On 3/12/2019 6:21 PM, T wrote:
On 3/12/19 2:53 AM, Mike wrote:
It'sÂ*notÂ*atÂ*allÂ*whetherÂ*linuxÂ*isÂ*technicall yÂ*superior.
It'sÂ*aboutÂ*whatÂ*theÂ*userÂ*canÂ*getÂ*doneÂ*soÂ* heÂ*canÂ*getÂ*on
withÂ*otherÂ*stuffÂ*inÂ*hisÂ*life.

I can't disagree.Â* It does not matter how technically
superior Linux is if you can't get your work done
on it.

Â*From what I see, my customer never know what OS they are
running as they don't care.Â* I have to remote in and
look for myself.

The customer could care lees if they were running the
Flaming Zucchini OS, as long as they got their work done.
We IT folks are a little bit more "picky".

I only run one app that requires a Windows virtual
machine: Go TO Assist.Â* I bitch a lot about it
to them.

As far as your test goes, if you are use to Linux, then your
would find it hard to do things on Windows.Â* Often times it
is what you know.

Look at all the Apples users out there.Â* They HATE Windows
and can't get Windows to do anything they want.Â* It is
because they have learned to do it the Apple way and
CAN'T LEARN ANYTHING NEW.Â* Just like those use to Windows.

It's not all about 'can't'.
I'm sure I CAN learn to drive a car with the steering wheel
on the right side.
I'm confident that it will get me where I need to go with almost
as much safety...up until I have an emergency that relies on
experience and muscle memory.
I can always get out of the car and walk around to the payment robot
at the car park.
BUT WHY would I go out of my way to do so for no perceived benefit?

The world runs on local standards.
People resist change.
Desktop linux violates both by intent.

Linux actually tries to respect standards. Microsoft is the one that
usually breaks those standards and relies on its operating system's
popularity to rewrite the standard to its benefit.


--
20xx is the year of the Linux desktop!

On 03/14/2019 4:52 PM, Paul wrote:
Sam E wrote:
On 3/13/19 2:46 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

Â*And now that TV
no longer uses the top part of UHF, I expect those
frequencies to be auctioned some day (if they aren't
already).

Â*Â*Â* Paul

UHF TV channels used to go to 83. Then it was 69. Then 51. Now it's
about to become 36?


The auction started a couple days ago. The auction
process is unidirectional, and could take a month of
bidding to complete.

This wasn't exactly prominently announced before hand,
so for my government I guess it was a "need-to-know"
basis.

at least they're not "crushing the FM band", like the UK is.

There's a lot of pressure coming from these cell phone nitwits.
To convert every bit of white space from 0Hz up, into
fluffy cat photos on Facebook. Which is just an excellent
and essential usage of spectrum. Why allow the
Fire Department to communicate on 900MHz, when the
Fire Department could all be given SmartPhones and
look at fluffy cat photos while putting out a fire...
If we give everything from 0Hz upwards to cell phones,
that will keep "everyone" happy :-( All the way up
to 60GHz, with transmitters on the landscape every
ten feet. If you hold a bag of microwave popcorn
in front of you, you will be enjoying buttery
kernels in seconds. While viewing fluffy cat photos
on your SmartPhone.

I'm going to start wearing a Faraday cage when I go outside.

Â*Â* Paul

Where do you buy copper mesh? :-)

Rene

T wrote:
On 3/14/19 4:12 AM, Mike wrote:
LikeÂ*IÂ*said,Â*it'sÂ*theÂ*latestÂ*versionÂ*onÂ*th eirÂ*downloadÂ*pageÂ*lastÂ*night.
Furthermore, it don't matter.Â* ALL spins should download and install
withoutÂ*incident.

ThisÂ*isÂ*NOTÂ*anÂ*isolatedÂ*incident.Â*Â*It'sÂ*la ckÂ*ofÂ*attentionÂ*toÂ*detail
acrossÂ*theÂ*wholeÂ*desktopÂ*linuxÂ*onionÂ*ofÂ*cha os.

Without details of what you are using, I can't help.

Nothing is perfect in life, especially software.
Linux is no exception.

Stick with u-booboo and Fedora and the mistakes
are kept to a minimum.

The chaos is Linux is far less than Windows 10.Â* Yikes.
Did you read the eight reason from the original post?
For starters, the updates don't hose your system.


Chaos is Mike's middle name. He is always railing on about "Linux
Chaos", meanwhile anyone having to use Windows dreads the 6 month chaos
with fingers crossed in hopes that the update does break something
essential.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 04:08:58 -0700, Mike wrote:

On 3/13/2019 4:29 PM, Roger Blake wrote:


I typically see connection speed of 300-700 megabits on wireless-AC.
Pretty good but still not as fast as a wired gigabit connection.
Doesn't make much difference for most internet use. It does make a
difference when transferring large files between your PC and a local
server or if your use case requires the least possible latency.

Is this the number on the connection setup page?
Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters
40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours?
Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel?

I hope nospam reads this. This is similar to the situation my wifi
suffers from but he would not accept that this can be a problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:20:42 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2019-03-14, Mike wrote:
Is this the number on the connection setup page?
Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters
40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours?
Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel?

It varies greatly depending on the environment and circumstances,
which is the point. Those figures are the maximum under favorable
clear-channel, single-user conditions. It goes downhill from there.

Unless you live at nospam's house. Over there, wireless apparently works
better than wired.

Yep. That's what he says.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:18:52 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It's silly to use wireless
if you don't have to.

As a Radio Design engineer before doing this stuff, I can
only say "well stated"

I wish you guys were around when I was arging this general topic with
nospam in re.photo.digital.

what you were arguing about was based on your very outdated 10 year old
802.11n 1x1 router, which can do about 70mb/s on a good day.

THat wasn't the point at all, but I know better than to try and tell
you what I was actually saying.

your mistake is assuming that because your setup is slow, all wifi is
slow. that is simply not true.

modern wifi equipment is substantially faster than what you have.

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/imag...sus_rtac86u/as
us_rtac86u_5ghz_peak_dn.jpg

and then there's the convenience of wireless.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I typically see connection speed of 300-700 megabits on wireless-AC.
Pretty good but still not as fast as a wired gigabit connection.
Doesn't make much difference for most internet use. It does make a
difference when transferring large files between your PC and a local
server or if your use case requires the least possible latency.

Is this the number on the connection setup page?
Or is it the actual USABLE data transfer rate where it actually matters
40 feet away from the router and your neighbor's wifi is closer than yours?
Or in the apartment building with 10 other people trying to use the channel?

I hope nospam reads this. This is similar to the situation my wifi
suffers from but he would not accept that this can be a problem.

your wifi suffers because you're using a 10 year old misconfigured
router, as i explained before and which you continue to ignore.

neighbor interference is *not* why you're having problems.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I wish you guys were around when I was arging this general topic with
nospam in re.photo.digital.

what you were arguing about was based on your very outdated 10 year old
802.11n 1x1 router, which can do about 70mb/s on a good day.

THat wasn't the point at all, but I know better than to try and tell
you what I was actually saying.

you linked the user manual, which is where i got the information, not
from anything you said.

are you now claiming you have a *different* router?