Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #32716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-22 19:12 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-06 05:48 +0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 19:12 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2015-12-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? George Schroeder <gschroed@killSpam.pacific.edu> - 2015-12-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:07 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 21:29 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 00:24 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:37 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 05:05 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 23:54 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Clément <lcmello.listas@terra.com.br> - 2015-12-23 03:13 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 05:11 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-23 05:41 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? George Schroeder <gschroed@killSpam.pacific.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:42 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-17 20:57 -0200
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-17 20:01 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-02-01 13:48 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-12-22 20:24 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 20:30 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-12-22 12:57 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-12-22 20:42 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 21:35 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 23:46 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-12-23 01:12 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 22:45 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 22:56 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:27 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 23:58 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-12-22 18:52 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? wimpunk <ybwdlapvxvun@spammotel.com> - 2015-12-28 16:40 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 23:53 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 22:52 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:31 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-12-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? jotagera@gmail.com - 2015-12-29 11:48 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 15:49 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2015-12-30 10:01 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-30 14:05 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2015-12-30 10:05 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-31 10:43 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-31 13:00 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-31 16:58 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-01-01 09:50 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 02:41 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-01 17:57 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 00:59 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 04:22 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2016-01-02 18:07 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 13:05 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-04 14:31 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-04 10:39 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-12 17:52 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-13 04:11 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-13 08:51 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-13 18:10 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 14:53 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-01 19:08 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:28 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 04:09 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 03:25 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-01-02 17:19 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:07 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-02 12:29 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-02 07:12 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:44 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-04 14:38 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Vico T <vicot@blank.nada> - 2016-01-01 16:50 +0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Kolmasaika <gorwell@1984.gov> - 2016-01-03 15:27 +0200
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-03 08:48 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Henry <henry@home.nil> - 2016-01-06 05:48 +0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f_udnSZ1KrtcwxjLnZ2dnUU78RmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33039 |
"J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... > On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: > >> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes > > Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi > and not ethernet. Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n63t5b$pht$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33052 |
NY wrote: > "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message > news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >> >>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >> >> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >> and not ethernet. > > Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged > battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. > > And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides an ethernet cable, *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can beat their chests about how slim their device is. <snort> There are other rules I tend to follow, slavishly. Like "never update your system partition unless you've just backed it up and can restore it onto a new drive and boot it". And "never update your system's firmware until you've tried everything else". -- http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <demsvdFq83aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33066 |
On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: > NY wrote: > >> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>> >>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>> >>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>> and not ethernet. >> >> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged >> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >> >> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) > > I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my > electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator > instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about the > best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides an > ethernet cable, Thought of ethernet over powerline? *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually > *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you > might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can beat > their chests about how slim their device is. <snort> The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop. -- //Aho
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n65hes$bbl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33089 |
J.O. Aho wrote: > On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >> NY wrote: >> >>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>> >>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>> >>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>> and not ethernet. >>> >>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged >>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>> >>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >> >> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about >> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides >> an ethernet cable, > > Thought of ethernet over powerline? Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe crossing our property-line. > *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually >> *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you >> might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can >> beat their chests about how slim their device is. <snort> > > The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a > different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop. I guess I'm just lucky, my Dell XPS13 has none, and my ASUS T105 has none. -- http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 17:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <684e8bph7qs8rirtlpkl66m7md192iq3mv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33092 |
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:41:13 -0700, crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >J.O. Aho wrote: > >> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >>> NY wrote: >>> >>>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>>> >>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>>> >>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>>> and not ethernet. >>>> >>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged >>>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>>> >>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >>> >>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about >>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides >>> an ethernet cable, >> >> Thought of ethernet over powerline? > >Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe >crossing our property-line. The property line is irrelevant. All that matters is that you have some kind of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether it be electrical, phone, or coax. Adapters exist for any of those. I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units and later with a pair of *500 units. Both generally sucked. I'm currently using coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and I consistently get 900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The best I ever saw with powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was much more typical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 00:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n67vrc$tv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33152 |
Char Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:41:13 -0700, crankypuss > <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>J.O. Aho wrote: >> >>> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >>>> NY wrote: >>>> >>>>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>>>> >>>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>>>> and not ethernet. >>>>> >>>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a >>>>> fully-charged battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>>>> >>>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >>>> >>>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >>>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >>>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about >>>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that >>>> provides an ethernet cable, >>> >>> Thought of ethernet over powerline? >> >>Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe >>crossing our property-line. > > The property line is irrelevant. That's what the critters think. > All that matters is that you have > some kind of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether > it be electrical, phone, or coax. No, I don't think that matters at all. Consider the source of the signal, it's some cell tower miles away. What's most convenient is just to plug my BlackBerry into the wall and tell it to be a wifi hotspot. > Adapters exist for any of those. > > I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units > and later with a pair of *500 units. Landlord? > Both generally sucked. And so you're recommending it, nice. > I'm > currently using coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and > I consistently get 900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The > best I ever saw with powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was > much more typical. Fast is nice, on metered broadband, not so much. -- http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 04:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <og8f8bl4emdhakf647f23rh3edc97256fs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33180 |
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 00:59:02 -0700, crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Char Jackson wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:41:13 -0700, crankypuss >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>J.O. Aho wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >>>>> NY wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>>>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>>>>> and not ethernet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a >>>>>> fully-charged battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>>>>> >>>>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >>>>> >>>>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >>>>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >>>>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about >>>>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that >>>>> provides an ethernet cable, >>>> >>>> Thought of ethernet over powerline? >>> >>>Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe >>>crossing our property-line. >> >> The property line is irrelevant. > >That's what the critters think. I thought we were talking about distributing Internet access throughout a home. In that case, what crosses the property line is certainly irrelevant. It's unlikely that you get Internet access via 'critters'. >> All that matters is that you have >> some kind of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether >> it be electrical, phone, or coax. > >No, I don't think that matters at all. Of course it does. You can distribute your Internet connection via WiFi, but it won't likely be as fast or as reliable as non-wireless solutions. >Consider the source of the >signal, it's some cell tower miles away. What's most convenient is just >to plug my BlackBerry into the wall and tell it to be a wifi hotspot. Then by all means do that. That certainly wouldn't be acceptable for me, but your needs and expectations are obviously different from mine. >> Adapters exist for any of those. >> >> I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units >> and later with a pair of *500 units. > >Landlord? Huh? Powerline adapters, HPNA phone adapters, and MOCA coax adapters all use the existing wiring, assuming their respective wiring exists in the first place. No changes to that wiring are required. Why would you need to be a landlord to use any of them? >> Both generally sucked. > >And so you're recommending it, nice. I didn't recommend powerline networking. I said that I used it extensively and I thought it sucked. I'm currently using MOCA (media over coax) and it doesn't suck, so that's what I'd recommend if I were to recommend something. >> I'm >> currently using coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and >> I consistently get 900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The >> best I ever saw with powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was >> much more typical. > >Fast is nice, on metered broadband, not so much. Fast isn't the only consideration. It's also nice to have reliable Internet access wherever in the house that you need it, simultaneously and seamlessly. If you can do that by carrying your Blackberry around, then that's great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n693l4$ptf$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33152 |
On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
> I used powerline networking for years
Did you ever read this web page?
<http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl>
Or this one?
<http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 13:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2s7g8b9puqm7kr81qrdjr021sa6f2djtn5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33245 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:07:32 -0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: >On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote: > >> I used powerline networking for years > >Did you ever read this web page? > > <http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl> > >Or this one? > > <http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/> No, neither of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q8qlc-29m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33257 |
On 2016-01-02 20:05, Char Jackson wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:07:32 -0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: > >> On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote: >> >>> I used powerline networking for years >> >> Did you ever read this web page? >> >> <http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl> >> >> Or this one? >> >> <http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/> > > No, neither of them. I will never use powerline telecomunications, nor recommend it to to others, and that's the main reason. -- Cheers, Carlos. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rr7l8bdvg8dk7ss905i8ku39g9u2i0knsf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33382 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:31:13 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> wrote: >On 2016-01-02 20:05, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:07:32 -0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote: >>> >>>> I used powerline networking for years >>> >>> Did you ever read this web page? >>> >>> <http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl> >>> >>> Or this one? >>> >>> <http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/> >> >> No, neither of them. > >I will never use powerline telecomunications, nor recommend it to to >others, and that's the main reason. For me, it's one tool in the toolbox. When I used it, it was the best of the available options, meaning it was a poor choice in a sea of worse choices. My situation has changed and now I have a much better option available, MoCA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ysCdnXyYefPWoAjLnZ2dnUU78KednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33384 |
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message news:rr7l8bdvg8dk7ss905i8ku39g9u2i0knsf@4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:31:13 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> wrote: > >>On 2016-01-02 20:05, Char Jackson wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:07:32 -0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I used powerline networking for years >>>> >>>> Did you ever read this web page? >>>> >>>> <http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl> >>>> >>>> Or this one? >>>> >>>> <http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/> >>> >>> No, neither of them. >> >>I will never use powerline telecomunications, nor recommend it to to >>others, and that's the main reason. > > For me, it's one tool in the toolbox. When I used it, it was the best of > the > available options, meaning it was a poor choice in a sea of worse choices. > My situation has changed and now I have a much better option available, > MoCA. Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if you ever need unattended operation. It avoid the need to run Ethernet cable round skirting boards, down the edge of carpets, under doorways and through holes drilled in masonry walls. Most modern houses can use a single router, positioned somewhere centrally such as near a convenient phone socket in the hall or the living room, and you can get wifi reception throughout the house. I've chosen to site out router in my study (with a ribbon-cable phone extension to feed it) so my main PC can be connected by Ethernet: I need that PC to be accessible remotely by Teamviewer and I've found that wireless isn't quite reliable, and if you are away from home you can't just reboot the PC or the router to restore the wifi connection. The problem comes with old houses. I've set up routers in old stone farmhouses with walls (even internal!) that are a foot or more thick. One of the worst had a satellite internet feed (because ADSL was so poor at that farm) and it was situated in an outbuilding which they used as an office (and it was not moveable except at great installation cost), and now they wanted internet in the main body of the house. I tried a wifi range extender but I'd have needed on in the middle of the yard as well as one in the kitchen and one in the lounge to get the coverage that was needed. An Ethernet cable would have had to either be buried under concrete or else flown from poles that were high enough for farm vehicles to get underneath. That was one of the cases where powerline networking was the least worst solution - fortunately both buildings were on the same mains phase and the guy was an electrician so he confirmed that there was a bonded earth between the two buildings. Two powerline devices, one plugged into the router, with wifi turned off and the other in the house with wifi turned on, were sufficient to provide coverage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 04:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsrgmc-mrl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33660 |
On 2016-01-12 18:52, NY wrote: > Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would > reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need > slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if Well, it can cause interference on other systems, possibly belonging to other people. That's an absolute no for me. I'd only consider on isolated houses with no neighbours. -- Cheers, Carlos. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fNydndG0R-KHjQvLnZ2dnUU78dednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33679 |
"Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> wrote in message news:lsrgmc-mrl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... > On 2016-01-12 18:52, NY wrote: > >> Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would >> reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need >> slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if > > Well, it can cause interference on other systems, possibly belonging to > other people. That's an absolute no for me. I'd only consider on > isolated houses with no neighbours. Sorry, I forgot to mention that the farmhouse I described with three-foot-thick walls had no neighbours. If you don't use powerline, what do you use instead? Do you daisy-chain wifi repeaters or do you run Ethernet cable along/through walls, either to each PC or to wifi repeaters that are not in range of the router? Are there wifi-to-Ethernet converters which can supply a network connection to a device that only has Ethernet and no wifi (eg our Sky box) and which are out of easy reach of an Ethernet cable (without drilling holes through walls)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n75cvj$q2v$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #33681 |
On 2016-01-13, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > Are there wifi-to-Ethernet converters which can supply a network connection > to a device that only has Ethernet and no wifi (eg our Sky box) and which > are out of easy reach of an Ethernet cable (without drilling holes through > walls)? usually called called a "wifi bridge", but some "wifi range extenders" can do that too. -- \_(ツ)_
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n763ut$s8q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33681 |
On 2016-01-13, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> wrote in message > news:lsrgmc-mrl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor... >> On 2016-01-12 18:52, NY wrote: >> >>> Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would >>> reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need >>> slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if >> >> Well, it can cause interference on other systems, possibly belonging to >> other people. That's an absolute no for me. I'd only consider on >> isolated houses with no neighbours. > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that the farmhouse I described with > three-foot-thick walls had no neighbours. > > If you don't use powerline, what do you use instead? Do you daisy-chain wifi > repeaters or do you run Ethernet cable along/through walls, either to each > PC or to wifi repeaters that are not in range of the router? > > Are there wifi-to-Ethernet converters which can supply a network connection > to a device that only has Ethernet and no wifi (eg our Sky box) and which > are out of easy reach of an Ethernet cable (without drilling holes through > walls)? Sure. Any wifi router will work. You run an ethernet cable from the one router to the wifi router (The WAN link) and then you have wifi.(You do this right beside the Sky box so no holes needed. Power is however needed, but then the sky box probably needs power as well, that that shuld be available) Now 3 ft think walls might be a problem for wifi to get through, so that would be my main worry, assuming that the sky box is on the other side of the wall than the computer. If you can run ethernet (up the attic and down the other side of the wall for example) you could put the wifi in an area where there are not walls between the wifi and the computer. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n66a9h$sgr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33089 |
On 2016-01-01, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote: > On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >> NY wrote: >> >>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>> >>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>> >>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>> and not ethernet. >>> >>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged >>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>> >>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >> >> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about the >> best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides an >> ethernet cable, > > Thought of ethernet over powerline? > > *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually >> *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you >> might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can beat >> their chests about how slim their device is. <snort> > > The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a > different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop. Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop was less than the height of an ethernet port.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n66sba$1qk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33104 |
William Unruh wrote: > On 2016-01-01, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote: >> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote: >>> NY wrote: >>> >>>> "J G Miller" <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message >>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: >>>>> >>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes >>>>> >>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi >>>>> and not ethernet. >>>> >>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a >>>> fully-charged battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains. >>>> >>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-) >>> >>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my >>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator >>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about >>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that >>> provides an ethernet cable, >> >> Thought of ethernet over powerline? >> >> *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually >>> *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as >>> you might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they >>> can beat their chests about how slim their device is. <snort> >> >> The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a >> different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop. > > Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell > XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could > plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop > was less than the height of an ethernet port.) What is an "ethernet 3 port"? Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug in a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user, seems pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to press Ctl + F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control function. If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to recognize it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection configuration. For all I know an "ethernet 3 port" needs only some simple adapter to hook up an ethernet cable. -- http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n674c8$rkv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33138 |
crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > William Unruh wrote: > >> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell >> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could >> plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop >> was less than the height of an ethernet port.) > > What is an "ethernet 3 port"? William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3". > Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid > to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a > cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug in > a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user, seems > pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to press Ctl + > F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control function. I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for those kinds of keyboards. Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can slide to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your preference. > If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to recognize > it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional > ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection > configuration. As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector by having a hinged bottom lip. -- Just to have it is enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n681j3$2j6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33155 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> William Unruh wrote: >> >>> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell >>> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could >>> plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop >>> was less than the height of an ethernet port.) >> >> What is an "ethernet 3 port"? > > William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3". Hey, us old guys do that from time to time (ie, constantly), just wait until it's *your* turn to start running into address collisions. <g> But it's interesting to consider "ethernet to USB3 adapter", seems like something I might be able to use on occasion, this is what you're talking about right? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166088 I need to snag a couple of better USB3 hubs, the ones I have are kind of a PITA. What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must be so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat USB sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports. >> Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid >> to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a >> cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug >> in a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user, >> seems pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to >> press Ctl + F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control >> function. > > I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for > those kinds of keyboards. If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger PgUp/PgDn and others require Ctl, etc etc. > Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can > slide to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your > preference. I have a nice Logitech bluetooth keyboard, but haven't yet set up the bluetooth drivers on the new systems (the Acer is old enough that it has no bluetooth hardware). >> If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to >> recognize >> it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional >> ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection >> configuration. > > As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is > as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector > by having a hinged bottom lip. What model? Hard to visualize from "hinged bottom lip". If I was better at installing linux on linux-unfriendly laptops, I'd probably have a NextBook 10" (nicely made imo), but when BIOS does not support booting from USB it's kinda tough. On Android systems though, there's a development mode which I think is defined into Android, so you can transfer files from your PC. If you have the time and aren't concerned about bricking it. Wife thinks I have too many laptops already, she's probably right LOL, now I'm thinking that I've seen clues that linux will run on a Mac so who knows what's next. <g> -- http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web