Text 13352, 162 rader
Skriven 2009-10-14 22:05:27 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 13342 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38)
Ärende: crush the flowers
=========================
> would not the bandwidth be pretty much the same?? ;)

 MK> How?  If they're so gosh darn good at creating/editting then they
 MK> should be equally good at storing the results and the network
 MK> doesn't even know and can do what it was designed to do
 MK> efficiently.  I see no good reason to provide file sharing if they
 MK> already can do the work on their desktop. What would be the
 MK> purpose?  If only for backups then let them take care of whatever
 MK> and then transfer that result for future whatever it becomes useful
 MK> for.  No? 

no... you're missing the storage space situation... if you have more than one
workstation needing access to the same file(s), why duplicate them on each
station?? put them in a central place and make real use of the resources you
have at hand... what good is a terrabyte of storage if it is spread out over X
machines and no way to easily share it with all of them??

> may also be hampered by copyright and licensing legalities
> and fees

 MK> No doubt.

 MK> absolutely! :)

 MK> More reason to let them worry about it all.  Not really a file
 MK> sharing activity anymore is it?

actually, yes, it still is ;)

> there were times and ways that mics could be turned on on remote
> machines and the sound data they picked up transmitted raw to
> the listening machine

 MK> You mean like a network phone or possibly digital voice messaging?
 MK> That is doable.

no... i don't think so... what i'm referring to is from way back where someone
figured out a way into other workstations and how to redirect/tee the data from
the workstation's mic thru the network and to their workstation so that they
could evesdrop on the sounds from the remote workstation with no indication
that such evesdropping was being done... IIRC, this did not use the remote
workstation's sound card at all but the data was sent to the local evesdropping
workstation's soundcard which decoded and played it...

> this is why i asked about where you were talking about placing
> such a sound card

 MK> Not really.

hunh?? not really what?? i asked you a question about where you were talking
about placing the sound card :? your answer doesn't make sense...

 MK> I am asking more for others who have asked in the past. I like 
 MK> music but to be honest am not really concerned if my computer(s) 
 MK> can replicate it.  However I have digitized some music in the 
 MK> past, some very recently, just to see if I can.  It worked out.

what i'm trying to point out is that there's more than one way to share sound
data over a network... one is plain file sharing... two is file data
streaming... three is actual sound data streaming... there is quite a
difference between these three methods and what is needed on each end to
facilitate such...

> mine are all sitting in tall tower cases ;)

 MK> I've seen, not yours in particular, but simular.  For myself I'd
 MK> like a pure DC powered one that could act as a distraction for
 MK> myself when the other(s) are out due to a lack of juice for
 MK> whatever reason. Winter is coming. 

ummm... all of these towers have standard computer power supplies in them... so
pull it and replace it with your favorite DC supply and enjoy! :)

> understood but can you implement a relatively zero cost
> perimeter firewall that supports three internal networks
> with limited access between them?? :)

 MK> Yes and no.  If the power is out it won't matter. 

lack of commercial power doesn't hamper my network(s) in the least... not even
internet activities unless that connection line is down for some reason... on
the other hand, when my batteries and generator run out of "go juice" then
everything gets veeeeeerrrrrrry quite around here :?

 MK> However the Atom potentially could act as a distraction when the 
 MK> power is out and then act as a router/switch/bridge/whatever for 
 MK> multiple networks when it does matter. 

one of us seems to have some sort of tunnel vision :? i'm not even referring to
anything similar... we were talking about an inexpensive but power firewall
solution that can be run on older equipment... please keep up and not let your
mind wander about unaided ;)

> yep and for less then $4US per port, they are excellent for a
> minimal footprint firewall/router appliance ;)

 MK> For sure.  I can see that being very attractive especially the low
 MK> cost. However as a Canadian I know better than to buy from anyone
 MK> Stateside using eBay no matter how good the deal sounds.  The
 MK> shipping and phoney customs fees the courier tacks on will kill the
 MK> idea REALLY fast.  ;-)

there is that, at times... but it also depends on how they are shipped and
marked ;)

 MK> I don't even buy from Canadians using eBay to be honest.

hehehe... then you miss out on a lot of GoodStuff<tm>... that's ok, though...
that leaves more for everyone else :)

> not if you want/need 4 networks...

 MK> Two is good.  We've been doing 3 in this neck of the woods but one
 MK> is wireless so a dual port is sufficient.

i think you missed the point again... but that's ok... 

> one for the internet and the other three being internals.

 MK> One internal is the right answer but one for internet is correct. 

so you're saying that you place the wireless on your internal network and open
those machines up for attack and infiltration from those using the wireless??
and what about machines that are brought to you for repair? yo ualso place them
on your internal network and expose them to whatever infestation the machine
may have? i don't! those go on my "purple" LAN which is protected from
accessing my "green" LAN... they cannot infest my main internal LAN...

and my servers are also separated in a similar fashion... if they get infested,
they cannot spread their infestation to my purple or green LANs... it is all
about separation and protection of the important stuffs :)

> there's no time like the present!

 MK> Still haven't found it or at least not close to home.

i don't recall now what it was that this comment of mine was specific to :?

> having lost three family members in the last year

 MK> I hope not in a bad way.

depens on what you mean by "bad way"... "lost" as stated in my above comment
means "gone", "kaput", "no longer existing"...

 MK> Myself I have been on my own for a number of years now.  Only the 
 MK> neighbours drop by on a regular basis for coffee and sometimes to 
 MK> check things out.  I fist had the Atom acting as a internet cafe 
 MK> wort of workstation but that became far too convenient if you get 
 MK> my meaning.  It was okay but not really what I set out to do.

sounds like a perfect candidate for the purple network :)

> when i can get out of my "funk" over the losses

 MK> Understood.  I get that way too.

i really hate it... and especially when i get manic about it...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)