Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 17:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 11:57 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-28 14:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 10:52 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 16:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 18:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 17:44 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 03:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-12-01 08:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 12:48 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:50 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:34 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 15:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 16:10 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:32 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:26 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 18:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-29 23:05 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 04:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:28 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 15:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 19:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 21:29 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 23:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 17:48 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 13:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:59 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 10:09 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 11:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-04 12:23 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-04 11:45 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 18:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 10:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 15:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:09 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> - 2018-12-12 21:39 -0800
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 09:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Graham J <graham@invalid.com> - 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 16:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-06 17:18 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 22:45 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> - 2018-12-07 13:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:26 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 20:17 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:33 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 13:11 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:36 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:25 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:17 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:11 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:25 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:45 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 18:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:00 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:58 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 17:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-01 09:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:31 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-02 12:38 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:49 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-02 15:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-30 13:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:46 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-01 11:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 12:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pueoga$dhq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58177 |
On 07/12/2018 03:33, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I have not seen "fibre" rs232 but it should be possible. RS232 is an electrical standard. Good luck getting 12V down a fibre. Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <f48rdf-3k7.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58205 |
On 07/12/2018 22.25, Vir Campestris wrote: > On 07/12/2018 03:33, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I have not seen "fibre" rs232 but it should be possible. > > RS232 is an electrical standard. > > Good luck getting 12V down a fibre. Of course. The client side would need a local power supply. It doesn't need to come from the computer. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pubr3d$dgr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58155 |
On 06/12/2018 16:22, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > As I said, my 3 year old mid-range laptop does *not* have Gigabit > Ethernet. A new comparable laptop - same (major) brand/range and similar > price - *does* have Gigabit Ethernet, so AFAIC nospam's claim "made in > the past decade (actually longer than that)" is way over the top. Not > that that's unusual in any way, but still. (Anyway, it's a bit silly to > talk about the 'neccessity' of very high *hardwired* network speed for a > *mobile* device such as a laptop.) As I've already pointed out, my Dell Latitude 610, purchased *used* in February 2011, has Gigabit Ethernet, and this was one reason why I purchased that particular one as opposed to other used laptops available at the time. I'm actually rather shocked that so much Fast Ethernet (10/100 Mbps) kit is *still* being sold, though thankfully at least these days when you examine the specs of used kit on eBay which claims to be Gigabit Ethernet, thankfully it nearly always is - this didn't used to be the case; about the same time as I bought the above laptop, almost the majority of items such as switches described as Gigabit Ethernet (10/100/1000 Mbps) were actually only Fast Ethernet (10/100 Mbps), and in at least one case was actually only Ethernet (10 Mbps)! I think the reason that there is so much Fast Ethernet kit still around is the predominance of WiFi in at least the home market, perhaps also the small office market. WiFi is not just more convenient, but, under favourable conditions, 802.11n is actually faster than Fast Ethernet as well, so manufacturers for these markets have tended to concentrate on making equipment with the latest WiFi standards rather than the latest cable standards. But it's a pig's dinner whichever way you look at it - if you take off the cover of my network media players that will only go at 10/100, actually they've got 10/100/1000 hardware, and I suspect that's true of a lot of other 10/100 only kit as well, so why not design the whole thing to support the latest cabled standards as well?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 04:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b75pdf-qm2.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58155 |
On 06/12/2018 17.22, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On 05/12/2018 20:08, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:051220180951413892%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>>>> how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? >>>>> >>>>> computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than >>>>> that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. >>>>> >>>>> that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports, >>>>> because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster. >>>> >>>> When did Gigabit become standard? Both my Win 7 desktop and my Win 7 laptop >>>> have 100 Mbps Ethernet, and the laptop's wifi is only 2.4 GHz and can't use >>>> 5 GHz, but it is wireless N. I imagine that was a typical spec at the time, >>>> but things have moved on since then. >>>> >>>> I'd estimate that desktop is 2008 and laptop 2009 or 2010, but I could be >>>> wrong. >>> >>> Don't worry. You're just living in the real world. My 2015 mid-range >>> laptop also just has 100 BASE-T (and Wireless N). >>> >>> FWIW, I just checked two of our biggest webshops and even for dektops, >>> out of 20+ selection criteria, hardwired LAN speed isn't even a >>> selection criterium and in the individual specs, it's most of the time >>> not even mentioned, i.e. just 'Ethernet'. Kind of shows how relevant >>> Gigabit Ethernet is in the real (consumer) world. >> >> That's because 10/100/1000 has pretty much become the default now. They >> would only shout about it if they offered anything faster. > > Note that nospam mentioned "computers, servers, etc". > > It's probably true for "servers", i.e. (mostly) professional use, but > that's not the topic of this thread, nor of this group. > > The "computers" part is desktops and laptops and this (sub)thread is > mainly about laptops (nospam telling Carlos what's 'wrong' with his > system(s) and network). LOL > > As I said, my 3 year old mid-range laptop does *not* have Gigabit > Ethernet. A new comparable laptop - same (major) brand/range and similar > price - *does* have Gigabit Ethernet, so AFAIC nospam's claim "made in > the past decade (actually longer than that)" is way over the top. Not > that that's unusual in any way, but still. (Anyway, it's a bit silly to > talk about the 'neccessity' of very high *hardwired* network speed for a > *mobile* device such as a laptop.) Right. > So back in the real world, mere mortals like Carlos, myself, etc. > don't have nor want/need gigabit all over the place, just because nospam > thinks it's a more-than-a-decade-old must-have. Oh, I do want gigabit! But I'm not going to scrape all that slower hardware at a whim, I need all that money! Now, if I get a few kind donations... X-) >> Corporate kit that is being retired at present is gigabit capable eg. > > Exactly *corporate* *desktop* kit and it's probably being retired > after only a few years, *not* "made in the past decade (actually longer > than that)". Actually, on several of my jobs I had to cope with ancient and anti-powerful hardware - forgive my inventing a word right now :-) In fact, only on one of my jobs I had decent hardware. > >> https://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/product_detail/16560/Dell-Optiplex-780-Desktop-C2D-E8400-3GHz-4GB-250GB-DVD-Windows-10-Professional/ >> >> And available refurbished at very reasonable prices. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpkldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58110 |
On 05/12/2018 15.51, nospam wrote: > In article <gqqidf-k54.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >> computer. > > except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's > done copying. Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from computer to computer - if I wish to do so. > >> The network doesn't saturate because there are proper >> switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it. > > how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit? About 2010. A Compaq presario something. > computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than > that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network. Well, not mine. :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181441005537%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58131 |
In article <vpkldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else > >> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another > >> computer. > > > > except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's > > done copying. > > Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another > destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch > that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from > computer to computer - if I wish to do so. not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that doesn't apply to all types of files either. try using a database before all of it has copied. good luck on that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 19:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pfrqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58138 |
On 05/12/2018 20.41, nospam wrote: > In article <vpkldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >>>> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >>>> computer. >>> >>> except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's >>> done copying. >> >> Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another >> destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch >> that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from >> computer to computer - if I wish to do so. > > not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that > doesn't apply to all types of files either. Always. You forget that I would do that on Linux :-p > try using a database before all of it has copied. good luck on that one. Ah, shifting the goalposts :-P If I were to copy a database, I would stop the service on both the source and the destination. Or, I would make a local dump at the source and transfer that instead, then recreate the database on destination. Or, use specific software for live database duplication. And, remembering that this is homes we are talking about, the databases will be small, so transfer is fast anyways. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220181430435105%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58191 |
In article <pfrqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else > >>>> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another > >>>> computer. > >>> > >>> except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's > >>> done copying. > >> > >> Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another > >> destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch > >> that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from > >> computer to computer - if I wish to do so. > > > > not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that > > doesn't apply to all types of files either. > > Always. You forget that I would do that on Linux :-p not always, and linux has nothing to do with it. > > try using a database before all of it has copied. good luck on that one. > > Ah, shifting the goalposts :-P not in the least. you are assuming the files will always be movies *and* that they use a codec which can play while the file is incomplete. that's a *very* bad assumption. > If I were to copy a database, I would stop the service on both the > source and the destination. Or, I would make a local dump at the source > and transfer that instead, then recreate the database on destination. > Or, use specific software for live database duplication. that's a lot of work when a simple file copy is sufficient. > And, remembering that this is homes we are talking about, the databases > will be small, so transfer is fast anyways. another bad assumption. also, a database is just one example of something that cannot be used until the copy is complete. there are many others, including some movie files, image files and many other types of files.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 23:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58196 |
On 07/12/2018 20.30, nospam wrote: > In article <pfrqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >>>>>> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another >>>>>> computer. >>>>> >>>>> except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's >>>>> done copying. >>>> >>>> Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another >>>> destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch >>>> that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from >>>> computer to computer - if I wish to do so. >>> >>> not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that >>> doesn't apply to all types of files either. >> >> Always. You forget that I would do that on Linux :-p > > not always, and linux has nothing to do with it. Ah, no it does, a lot. Linux doesn't lock files while they are being copied, and they get the full final name from the start, so that I can access the file soon after the copy starts. I have done this trick often. >>> try using a database before all of it has copied. good luck on that one. >> >> Ah, shifting the goalposts :-P > > not in the least. > > you are assuming the files will always be movies *and* that they use a > codec which can play while the file is incomplete. > > that's a *very* bad assumption. No, because movies are the large enough files that *I* copy. >> If I were to copy a database, I would stop the service on both the >> source and the destination. Or, I would make a local dump at the source >> and transfer that instead, then recreate the database on destination. >> Or, use specific software for live database duplication. > > that's a lot of work when a simple file copy is sufficient. Then, risk it and copy. :-D > >> And, remembering that this is homes we are talking about, the databases >> will be small, so transfer is fast anyways. > > another bad assumption. > > also, a database is just one example of something that cannot be used > until the copy is complete. there are many others, including some movie > files, image files and many other types of files. > Moving the goalposts again :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220181746450817%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58207 |
In article <md8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else > >>>>>> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in > >>>>>> another > >>>>>> computer. > >>>>> > >>>>> except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's > >>>>> done copying. > >>>> > >>>> Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another > >>>> destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch > >>>> that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from > >>>> computer to computer - if I wish to do so. > >>> > >>> not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that > >>> doesn't apply to all types of files either. > >> > >> Always. You forget that I would do that on Linux :-p > > > > not always, and linux has nothing to do with it. > > Ah, no it does, a lot. nope. linux doesn't matter *at* *all*. the os is *irrelevant*. > Linux doesn't lock files while they are being > copied, and they get the full final name from the start, so that I can > access the file soon after the copy starts. I have done this trick often. it's not a question of the file being locked, but rather that the data is incomplete. simple example: if there is critical data at the end of the file that has not yet been copied, then the partially copied will be unusable until it is. *usually* that doesn't matter for movies, but in some cases, it does, depending on the format and encoding. and as i said, movies aren't the only format out there. try using a windows, mac or linux installer that is incomplete. > >>> try using a database before all of it has copied. good luck on that one. > >> > >> Ah, shifting the goalposts :-P > > > > not in the least. > > > > you are assuming the files will always be movies *and* that they use a > > codec which can play while the file is incomplete. > > > > that's a *very* bad assumption. > > No, because movies are the large enough files that *I* copy. for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else does the same. you are also assuming all movies will *always* work that way. i could send you some that do not. usually they do, but definitely not always. > >> If I were to copy a database, I would stop the service on both the > >> source and the destination. Or, I would make a local dump at the source > >> and transfer that instead, then recreate the database on destination. > >> Or, use specific software for live database duplication. > > > > that's a lot of work when a simple file copy is sufficient. > > Then, risk it and copy. :-D no. data integrity matters more. > >> And, remembering that this is homes we are talking about, the databases > >> will be small, so transfer is fast anyways. > > > > another bad assumption. > > > > also, a database is just one example of something that cannot be used > > until the copy is complete. there are many others, including some movie > > files, image files and many other types of files. > > > > Moving the goalposts again :-p nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 02:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2lirdf-d8i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58212 |
On 07/12/2018 23.46, nospam wrote: > In article <md8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else >>>>>>>> (assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in >>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>> computer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's >>>>>>> done copying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. I can on another computer copy the same file to another >>>>>> destination. And on any of those destinations I can start vlc to watch >>>>>> that file, which happens to be a movie that is being copied from >>>>>> computer to computer - if I wish to do so. >>>>> >>>>> not always, but if it does, not in its entirety and read-only, and that >>>>> doesn't apply to all types of files either. >>>> >>>> Always. You forget that I would do that on Linux :-p >>> >>> not always, and linux has nothing to do with it. >> >> Ah, no it does, a lot. > > nope. linux doesn't matter *at* *all*. the os is *irrelevant*. > >> Linux doesn't lock files while they are being >> copied, and they get the full final name from the start, so that I can >> access the file soon after the copy starts. I have done this trick often. > > it's not a question of the file being locked, but rather that the data > is incomplete. > > simple example: if there is critical data at the end of the file that > has not yet been copied, then the partially copied will be unusable > until it is. Ah, changing the goal again. I never said that you could access the file randomly, like trying to access a point not yet copied. >>> you are assuming the files will always be movies *and* that they use a >>> codec which can play while the file is incomplete. >>> >>> that's a *very* bad assumption. >> >> No, because movies are the large enough files that *I* copy. > > for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else does the same. Changing the goal posts again? :-p You were trying to convince me that my slow wifi is to slow and that I must upgrade it. Now, it is not about me. :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220182113214596%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58217 |
In article <2lirdf-d8i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Linux doesn't lock files while they are being > >> copied, and they get the full final name from the start, so that I can > >> access the file soon after the copy starts. I have done this trick often. > > > > it's not a question of the file being locked, but rather that the data > > is incomplete. > > > > simple example: if there is critical data at the end of the file that > > has not yet been copied, then the partially copied will be unusable > > until it is. > > Ah, changing the goal again. nope. nothing has changed. > I never said that you could access the file randomly, like trying to > access a point not yet copied. it's not about random access, but rather that the file is *incomplete*. your example of a zip file is a good one, where you said you can't extract the contents until it's done copying. > >>> you are assuming the files will always be movies *and* that they use a > >>> codec which can play while the file is incomplete. > >>> > >>> that's a *very* bad assumption. > >> > >> No, because movies are the large enough files that *I* copy. > > > > for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else does the same. > > Changing the goal posts again? :-p nope. > You were trying to convince me that my slow wifi is to slow and that I > must upgrade it. Now, it is not about me. :-p nope. i'm not trying to convince you to do anything. what i said was that gigabit is a bottleneck with modern (or even not so modern) hardware, therefore using 100bt is insane, especially with the amount of data people work with every day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951474270%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58100 |
In article <pu675s.eco.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > >>> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're > > >>> copying files, they just do something else. > > >> > > >> they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait > > >> until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb > > >> stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to > > >> access the files on the server. > > > > > > No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating > > > system. > > > > A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and > > don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus > > Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to > > access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you > > will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to > > disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. > > The copying to an USB stick or external disk drive scenario was just > another of nospam's dodge-and-divert evasions, when he was unable to > give a specific answer to John's question > > "What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more > than the 56M of g?" false. there is no evasion whatsoever. i originally said, 'just about everything', which means exactly that, just about everything will benefit from gigabit versus 100bt. there is no need for an itemized list because it really is just about everything, although i did end up listing anyway. as usual, you are trying to turn things personal rather than sticking to the topic. > But more to the point is my question (see above) *why* 'wait'? I don't > know about you, but if some operation takes some time - even minutes - > and I have/want something else to do, I just do it and hence don't > 'wait'. except you *do* have to wait. that doesn't mean watching a progress bar the entire time, however, the copy must complete until you (or more likely, someone else) can use those files. it's much better if something finishes in a couple of seconds or minutes versus hours or days. > [BTW, Linux, MacOs and Windows all fall in the category "proper > multitasking and multiuser operating system", with Windows probably the > worst of the lot.] that part is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220180951423939%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58095 |
In article <iPOdndgvpoJF9ZvBnZ2dnUU78efNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're > >>> copying files, they just do something else. > >> > >> they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait > >> until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb > >> stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to > >> access the files on the server. > > > > No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating > > system. > > A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and > don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus > Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to > access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you > will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to > disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has completed copying. > Also, if you do a big file copy over a slow network connection (Ethernet or > wifi) you may restrict the throughput available to other network users - > unless the source and destination computers are on the same LAN segment, > separated from the rest of the LAN by a switch which keeps that traffic off > the rest of the LAN. I remember saturating the LAN in our office when I was > testing restoring PCs to a factory state using a Ghost image stored on a > server: Ghost originally ran flat-out, using as much bandwidth as the LAN > and LAN cards could manage. I was instrumental in getting Norton to add a > "throttle" switch to Ghost so the server could set a maximum bandwidth for > serving PC disk images - obviously it then takes longer to transfer the > image, but you maintain some LAN bandwidth for other users. yep. > After unwittingly "killing" the LAN, I very quickly got a switch and > connected the server and test PC to a "private" segment that could still > access the rest of the company LAN but which could talk between themselves > without slowing down the rest of the LAN. > > In the same way, a big PC to PC file copy of a recorded TV programme has the > potential to affect other PCs which are streaming from one of those > computers or even from an unrelated computer on the LAN. yep. someone gets it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dukldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58111 |
On 05/12/2018 15.51, nospam wrote: > In article <iPOdndgvpoJF9ZvBnZ2dnUU78efNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY > <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>>>> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're >>>>> copying files, they just do something else. >>>> >>>> they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait >>>> until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb >>>> stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to >>>> access the files on the server. >>> >>> No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating >>> system. >> >> A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and >> don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus >> Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to >> access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you >> will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to >> disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. > > even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has > completed copying. Nope :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051220181441035721%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58132 |
In article <dukldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're > >>>>> copying files, they just do something else. > >>>> > >>>> they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait > >>>> until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb > >>>> stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to > >>>> access the files on the server. > >>> > >>> No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating > >>> system. > >> > >> A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and > >> don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus > >> Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to > >> access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you > >> will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to > >> disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. > > > > even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has > > completed copying. > > Nope :-p wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <girqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58140 |
On 05/12/2018 20.41, nospam wrote: > In article <dukldf-f4p.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>> In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're >>>>>>> copying files, they just do something else. >>>>>> >>>>>> they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait >>>>>> until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb >>>>>> stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to >>>>>> access the files on the server. >>>>> >>>>> No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating >>>>> system. >>>> >>>> A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and >>>> don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus >>>> Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to >>>> access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you >>>> will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to >>>> disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive. >>> >>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has >>> completed copying. >> >> Nope :-p > > wrong. I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. (Hint: Linux) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220181430425055%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58192 |
In article <girqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has > >>> completed copying. > >> > >> Nope :-p > > > > wrong. > > I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. it can be done for *some* types of files, but definitely not all. in fact, very few types will allow it. it's the exception, not the rule. > (Hint: Linux) linux has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ah8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58195 |
On 07/12/2018 20.30, nospam wrote: > In article <girqdf-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has >>>>> completed copying. >>>> >>>> Nope :-p >>> >>> wrong. >> >> I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. > > it can be done for *some* types of files, but definitely not all. in > fact, very few types will allow it. it's the exception, not the rule. > >> (Hint: Linux) > > linux has absolutely nothing to do with it. > Wait: are you now also a Linux expert? Wow, I didn't know that. LOL. because you are showing your ignorance in this... -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <071220181746440755%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58208 |
In article <ah8rdf-6i8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has > >>>>> completed copying. > >>>> > >>>> Nope :-p > >>> > >>> wrong. > >> > >> I have done it often, so I know that it can easily be done. > > > > it can be done for *some* types of files, but definitely not all. in > > fact, very few types will allow it. it's the exception, not the rule. > > > >> (Hint: Linux) > > > > linux has absolutely nothing to do with it. > > Wait: are you now also a Linux expert? Wow, I didn't know that. LOL. the operating system is *irrelevant*. if there's critical data at the end of the file, then a partial file *is* *not* *usable* until that critical data has been written. linux isn't going to help that. no operating system can. and even if linux could do magic, almost nobody uses linux on the desktop so users are still stuck. > because you are showing your ignorance in this... nope. you are assuming that since you can play a partial movie, every other partially transferred file will work that way. that is a very bad assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web