Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 02:29 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:46:19 -0600, in <MReYn.6063$Zi.5373(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >At 04 Jul 2010 07:39:34 -0700 John Navas wrote: > >> >Thankfully, HTC includes a Field Test app with their devices. I'm only a >> >few taps away from knowing what the score is, regardless of what the bars >> >say. >> >> Yep -- HTC makes great phones, which is why Apple has decided it has to >> compete in court instead of just in the market. On my HTC phone: Menu > >> Settings > About phone > Status > Signal strength (currently -89 dBm 12 >> asu). > >In my experience, HTC makes mediocre phones, built-into decent mobile >computers. Sadly my Sony Xperia X1 is even more mediocre than usual. My T-Mobile myTouch 3G 3.5mm Jack (aka HTC Magic) is very good. -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 02:42 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:29:01 -0700, in <qju2365e3us7g3gipena2ngoesuoomeajk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:37:11 -0600, in ><RReYn.6067$Zi.3004(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock ><elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > >>At 04 Jul 2010 18:10:34 -0700 John Navas wrote: > >>> There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was >>> incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology. >> >>It was both. There is no direct user backup with Danger/Sidekick- the >>server is the authoritative store, and only "backup." You're relying on >>the server to store your data. > >The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up. >The fault was entirely Microsoft. <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/15/microsofts-pinkdanger-backup-problem-blamed-on-roz-ho/> ... With Microsoft frantically trying to associate its Danger fiasco with everyone else possible in the industry, and particularly upon its direct competitors Sun and Oracle, it failed to point out that an awful lot of enterprise datacenters are running Sun and Oracle, and yet there aren�t regular outages that last for weeks and announce having lost all their users� data. In fact, the losses Microsoft experienced (and its shoulder shrug response to T-Mobile�s million Sidekick users) are virtually unprecedented in the industry. ... It was Microsoft management. According to the source, the real problem was that a Microsoft manager directed the technicians performing scheduled maintenance to work without a safety net in order to save time and money. The insider reported: �In preparation for this [SAN] upgrade, they were performing a backup, but it was 2 days into a 6 day backup procedure (it�s a lot of data). Someone from Microsoft (Roz Ho) told them to stop the backup procedure and proceed with the upgrade after assurances from Hitachi that a backup wasn�t necessary. This was done against the objections of Danger engineers. �Now, they had a backup from a couple of months ago, but they only had the SAN space for a single backup. Because they started a new backup, they had to remove the old one. If they hadn�t done a backup at all, they�d still have the previous backup to fall back on. �Anyway, after the SAN upgrade, disks started �disappearing.� Logically, Oracle [software] freaked out and started trying to recover, which just made the damage worse.� The problem with this report is that is places the blame, not on a complex Oracle deployment, not on bad SAN hardware or a firmware glitch, not a disgruntled employee with inappropriate levels of access to a mission critical service, but squarely upon Microsoft management. This management decision was (allegedly) made by the same group within Microsoft that authorized spending $500 million to acquire Danger and take on accountability for its SLA with T-Mobile, botched the development of Pink, spent three years and untold sums developing the Zune brand so that users could sit through TV-style ads before launching Chess on a handheld, lost billions on Xbox and set a new �low-water mark� in consumer device reliability, boondoggled Windows Mobile to the point where even Gartner can�t say nice things about it, and which has responded to the criticism of Apple�s App Store by launching its own software store with far more rules, significant new fees, and far fewer desirable offerings. This latest report does not exactly fail to fit in with the general incompetence that emanates from Microsoft�s Entertainment and Devices Division. Rather, it seems entirely credible given the increasingly toxic relationship that has been brewing between Microsoft�s reality-challenged managers and its often frustrated engineers. Perhaps those same folks were more recently working for BP. ;) -- John "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." -Will Rogers
From: Jeff Liebermann on 5 Jul 2010 02:48 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in >news:ujb236pbt0umnad7rmcqav60qp55k20nd9(a)4ax.com: > >> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it >> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell. > >Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since >WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as >the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around.... > >I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to >anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone >National Park?! > >It's not theirs to sell, dammit. It's OURS. Welcome to the Peoples Republic of USA. All your bases belong to us. In 1996, Nextwave won a digital cellular spectrum auction. They paid a down payment, and immediately defaulted on the remaining $4.7 billion. Nextwave never used the frequencies for anything. The FCC decided that non-payment was sufficient grounds for revoking their license. The issue went to the Supreme Court, which inexplicably ruled that Nextwave has some kind of right to the frequency and that the FCC could not revoke the license or re-auction the frequencies while Nextwave was in bankruptcy. Essentially, the Supremes gave Nextwave the right to resell the licenses for which they hadn't paid. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextWave_Wireless> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZO.html> Roll forward to 2004, and Nextwave sells most of the spectrum to various cellular providers for a substantial profit. Some of the proceeds went to the FCC to pay off the 1996 spectrum auction. <http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3343541/FCCNextWave-Deal-to-Free-Up-Spectrum.htm> Now, tell me again how the FCC can do anything they want with the peoples frequencies? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 02:51 In article <icv23614q77sgo9ggot1sc33g91iaqmbd3(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:29:01 -0700, in > <qju2365e3us7g3gipena2ngoesuoomeajk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up. really? your reference says exactly the opposite. > >The fault was entirely Microsoft. that is very clear. > <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/15/microsofts-pinkdanger-backup-problem- > blamed-on-roz-ho/> > According to the source, the real problem was that a Microsoft > manager directed the technicians performing scheduled maintenance to > work without a safety net in order to save time and money. The > insider reported: > > �In preparation for this [SAN] upgrade, they were performing a > backup, but it was 2 days into a 6 day backup procedure (it�s a lot > of data). Someone from Microsoft (Roz Ho) told them to stop the > backup procedure and proceed with the upgrade after assurances from > Hitachi that a backup wasn�t necessary. This was done against the > objections of Danger engineers. first you say it was (b) backed up, then you cite a source that says that they halted the backup procedure before it completed because hitachi said a backup was not necessary. that means it was *not* backed up. > �Now, they had a backup from a couple of months ago, but they only > had the SAN space for a single backup. Because they started a new > backup, they had to remove the old one. If they hadn�t done a backup > at all, they�d still have the previous backup to fall back on. a backup from a couple of months ago is not a backup, even if they hadn't removed it.
From: Todd Allcock on 5 Jul 2010 08:34
At 04 Jul 2010 23:42:20 -0700 John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:29:01 -0700, in > <qju2365e3us7g3gipena2ngoesuoomeajk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:37:11 -0600, in > ><RReYn.6067$Zi.3004(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock > ><elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > > > >>At 04 Jul 2010 18:10:34 -0700 John Navas wrote: > > > >>> There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was > >>> incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology. > >> > >>It was both. There is no direct user backup with Danger/Sidekick- the > >>server is the authoritative store, and only "backup." You're relying on > >>the server to store your data. > > > >The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up. > >The fault was entirely Microsoft. > > <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/15/microsofts-pinkdanger-backup- problem-blamed-on-roz-ho/> > > ... > > With Microsoft frantically trying to associate its Danger fiasco with > everyone else possible in the industry, and particularly upon its > direct competitors Sun and Oracle, it failed to point out that an > awful lot of enterprise datacenters are running Sun and Oracle, and > yet there arent regular outages that last for weeks and announce > having lost all their users data. In fact, the losses Microsoft > experienced (and its shoulder shrug response to T-Mobiles million > Sidekick users) are virtually unprecedented in the industry. > <snip> > This latest report does not exactly fail to fit in with the general > incompetence that emanates from Microsofts Entertainment and Devices > Division. Rather, it seems entirely credible given the increasingly > toxic relationship that has been brewing between Microsofts > reality-challenged managers and its often frustrated engineers. > > > Perhaps those same folks were more recently working for BP. ;) I'm not arguing with any of that- I'm just saying any server-based system that doesn't let me also backup my data locally if I choose, is fundamentally flawed. Danger's accident-waiting-to-happen met Microsoft's best accident facilitators and disaster ensued. On any other platform, (except maybe Android, and Microsoft's Kin, the latest version of Sidekick) I could disconnect from the server completely, use locally stored data only, and ride out the outage. |