A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FBO's and WiFi



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 21st 03, 12:26 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1061403096.349486@sj-nntpcache-3...
Huh? MS attempted to build a NT-based router several years ago and gave
up. There is no such animal.


Of course there is. Windows comes with Internet Connection Sharing, which
is basically a software NAT router. Works fine.

OTOH a Linksys router will cost $100-200 at your friendly local Fry's
(or whatever) and will do everything required.


Not with the satellite hookups, since they require a specific USB connection
and driver. I think it's silly the satellite data services don't just use
Ethernet, but they don't. You can't use a regular hardware router with
them.

Pete


  #32  
Old August 21st 03, 02:29 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joachim Feise" wrote in message
...
The beauty of capitalism is that other companies offering similar systems

may
see that there is a competitive advantage by offering drivers for other
platforms


And I hope they do. I think it's silly that any Internet connectivity
solution is reliant on a specific software platform, which just building it
as an Ethernet access point gives you universal connectivity.

True, stability of Windows has gone up, but it is still not at par with

*nix.

If and when Unix supports the same feature set and wide variety of hardware
that Windows does, you will see Unix platforms stability having the same
problems people see in Windows. Conservatively, half of all crashes on
Windows are due to third-party software and have nothing to do with anything
Microsoft wrote or published.

People love to say the same thing about Macs. However, first of all, those
people apparently forget the "good old days" when the Mac didn't have a real
memory manager, and rogue applications caused the entire machine to lock up
all the time. Also, those people blame Microsoft and laud Apple, while
forgetting that the main reason Macs are so stable is that Apple has
complete control over all of the hardware and operating system combinations.
They simply have a much smaller test matrix to ensure proper operation.

There's a reason that there's a correlation between the number of possible
software/hardware combinations and the problems with stablility.

[...] There should be no reason for a plain software install to
require a reboot.


You are right. However, that's just not the fact of life with Windows.
Windows itself doesn't require a reboot for basic application installs, but
third-party publishers continue to write application installs that require a
reboot. That's not Microsoft's fault.

Beyond that, some installs DO require a reboot. Anything driver-related
that affects hardware that is initialized on boot is going to want to reboot
the system.

Regardless, it's been years (since I moved our last Win9x machine to Windows
2000) since I've had to reboot a machine just to fix a problem. All reboots
have been for reasons unrelated to system stability.

It is known, btw, that Windows often has problems with laptop hibernation.


And in some versions of Windows, it was actually Windows fault. Win98SE was
a particular abomination in this respect (though it did get patched soon
after release). However, most of the time it's due to inconsistent
implementation of the power control in hardware.

Regardless, neither of the laptops in our household have any problem with
suspend/hibernate/resume.

How well does Linux handle suspend/hibernate/resume? I've never tried it,
myself.

Pete


  #33  
Old August 21st 03, 02:37 AM
Scott Lowrey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

There's no such thing as an ACK packet. A TCP packet can have
data as well as the ack for data received.


I wouldn't say there's "no such thing". The people I work with
generally call a packet with the ACK bit set an "ACK". :-). And
if you examine the packets flying in and out during a web surfing
session, they usually don't contain any data.

The latency in the network is going to affect the retransmission
timer on the sending end. Delay is delay. It's not constant, but
it is cumulative.

I'll concede, though, that as long as the acknowledgement timing is
not highly variable, the window will stabilize and you'll get your
nominal throughput *for that particular HTTP request*. Another click
or a redirect and, presto, another delay. It all adds up.

Sorry to flog the dead horse... I'll shut up.

-Scott
  #34  
Old August 21st 03, 04:18 AM
Kyler Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" writes:

TCP uses sliding windows to allow constant streaming of data to occur as
long as the latency in the connection is "reasonable". That is, it will
send many packets before needing to receive any acknowledgement even for the
first packet. As long as the acknowledgements start coming in time, the
latency of the connection will NOT affect throughput AT ALL. A latency of
500ms is MORE than reasonable in this context.


Everything you're saying makes sense to me, but you might want to hang
around on news:comp.protocols.tcp-ip for awhile. I regularly notice
people trying to debug satellite TCP issues there.

It's quite possible that it's just a matter of getting all of the
settings tweaked everywhere, but it seems to cause a lot of grief.

--kyler
  #35  
Old August 21st 03, 05:16 AM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps writes:

Morgans wrote:


During solstices, or even within a few days, the elevation to the sun and
the satelite is nearly the same. As the sun transits across the sky, for a
period of time, your reciever, the satelite, and the sun are all nearly in
line. The sun; since it appears directly on the other side of the
transmitter, overcomes the transmitter signal with white noise (radiation)


Directv is unaffected. I have had my system for 7 years now. Not so
much as a hiccup excpet when there is a heavy wet snow. The snow
sticks to the feedhorn. Brush it off and the picture is back. I have
turned the TV on in a heavy downpour and checked signal strength, no
change. Always in the high 80's here.


DirecTV and Dishnetwork are indeed affected. The affection lasts just
a few minutes twice a year. Check it at the next equinox, you will
see. The exact time varies with your location, I'm sure there's a web
page somewhere that will calculate the service-out time for your
lat/lon.

-jav
  #36  
Old August 21st 03, 04:39 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" wrote...
"Pete Zaitcev" wrote...
This depends on how big the data piece is relative to the
starting handshake. Consider that TCP start-up involves
so-called 3-way handshake, and that many protocols have
a setup phase when client and server exchange messages
strictly in simplex, before bulk data transmission can commence.


Regardless, that still only affects the initial delay in response. Even

if
the delay were 10 seconds (which it's almost never going to be), that's in
the same ballpark as the delay some servers have just getting around to
servicing a client. It's just not a big deal.


Ever tried VOIP over satellite? Painful, is a good one word discription,
same for remote access applications, network gaming as mentioned is
impossible...

[...] So, your downlink
is virtually rain proof. The bad news is that the same cannot
be said about your uplink.


Hmmm...okay, I see. I wasn't aware that they didn't provide a high enough
power transmitter to deal with weather.


Someone who lives in the desert might not experience as much rainfall that
occurs in other parts of the USofA or other countries in the beam... Hmmm
Las Vegas just got flooded, so better wording might be, "on a regular
basis"...

Solstices only knock communication off for several minutes a day,
when the Sun is directly behind the satellite. It is a well known
effect. I used to depend on an old Soviet satellite Raduga-7
for connectivity, and it was true back then.


Several minutes? I guess I'd call that insignificant. That's what, 10
minutes of downtime per year? Big deal. I have to deal with that kind of
downtime with my wired DSL access.


Nearly 10 minutes per day spread over several days, twice a year...
Guaranteed to screw up something important that needed to be done,
everytime...

Satellite data delivery has faults, just making you aware of it... I've been
there done that (our lawyers got the money from the class action lawsuit
against Hughes) and won't geaux back (2 cards still sits in the deactivated
computers since '98, dishes are still pointed at the satellites) to anything
with a ping time over 90 ms to the world... I actually endured the loss of
the satellite itself once, and the repointing a few times due to bird
migration (moving from one satellite to another, as the provider sees
fit)...




  #37  
Old August 21st 03, 05:56 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joachim Feise" wrote in message
...
How well does Linux handle suspend/hibernate/resume? I've never tried

it,
myself.


A couple years back, the first time I put Linux on my laptop, the network
driver wouldn't work after a resume. At that time, reinitializing the

network
driver was required.
Nowadays, I don't experience any problems. Both wired and wireless network
come back to life just fine.


A couple years back, Windows was handling that just fine on my laptop.

Nice to hear Linux has caught up...


  #38  
Old August 21st 03, 09:18 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
Newps wrote in message

.net...
Javier Henderson wrote:

I overnighted at CRQ on Friday, and used Western Flight for FBO

services.

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they offer complimentary

WiFi
Internet access to their customers. Details are posted right on the
counter.

Is the range sufficient that, say, the guy in the tower might be able to
access the net?



You know how to use a Pringle's can, don't you??


http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...260724,00.html

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


Like I'm going to pay $2.50 to see a story on the net! NOT!


What??? I found the link on Google and it didn't ask me to pay
anything. It just showed the article. Go figure.

Sorry 'bout that.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)
  #39  
Old August 22nd 03, 02:09 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
If you meant "Unless you are playing online computer games, you would

never
notice the lag while doing things a typical FBO is likely to do" you

should
have said so.


Of course you're right. This is, after all, the Usenet, and there's always
someone around willing to broaden your discussion in an attempt to discredit
you. Heaven forbib someone make a try at a little brevity, and leave out
critical clauses like "(or something like that)", or "(for example)", or
another parenthetical elaboration that would prevent the Usenet pundits from
distracting from the underlying point once again.

Thank you for the reminder.

(Then we'd ask why you thought you had to specifically count
out online computer games as something FBOs typically use.)


Actually, I mentioned online computer games specifically because there are a
handful that I could actually see being used in an FBO. Multiplayer flight
sims, for example. The other examples of things that latency would cause
problems with are farther afield, and in fact are things many people reading
my post would not have even heard of.

Pete


  #40  
Old August 22nd 03, 10:19 PM
Kyler Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
If you meant "Unless you are playing online computer games, you would

never
notice the lag while doing things a typical FBO is likely to do" you

should
have said so.


Of course you're right. This is, after all, the Usenet, and there's always
someone around willing to broaden your discussion in an attempt to discredit
you.


Well, you *were* wrong.

Heaven forbib someone make a try at a little brevity, and leave out
critical clauses like "(or something like that)", or "(for example)", or
another parenthetical elaboration that would prevent the Usenet pundits from
distracting from the underlying point once again.


If you're going to say things that are wrong, you should know that someone
is likely to nail you. I depend on people doing that for me.

If you still think you'll never notice the lag, do as I suggested and set
up a voice call to me over a consumer satellite IP service. Do it from an
FBO if it makes you happy. I'll be *thrilled* if we don't "notice the lag."

--kyler
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.