VanLUG Email Archive
Brian Edmonds (brian@gweep.bc.ca)
Sat, 11 Sep 1999 10:49:01 -0700
David Raufeisen <davidr@linux.com> writes:
>> 1) ADSL is faster (very noticeable)
> Really? I get 300+k/sec down from good lines (not all the time of
> course, but regularly) and 50k/sec up. What does adsl get?
Roughly the same in my experience. Some people seem to have more
trouble with congestion on their local networks with @Home, but in
general I'd say the speeds are pretty equivalent.
>> 3) ADSL allows you to run servers.
> Without paying extra? I haven't been bothered before, you wouldn't
> really want to use adsl or cable for a serious server anyway.
Without paying extra. They even mention as a feature of their static
hostname that you could run a small webserver and give out the address.
(Or at least they used to; I haven't seen recent docs.)
If you're looking for business webhosting I wouldn't recommend ADSL or
@Home either, since they're not business services. (The @Work variants
of both are pretty new or still in development, so I can't comment on
either.)
>> 7) ADSL has real technicians that are used to hooking up T1 and T3
>> lines installing your connection.
> Roger's doesn't?
I don't think Rogers offers such data services, given that they are
telephony standards. :) That said, I have no idea just how qualified
ADSL installers are; I was pleased with the rep who installed my jack
and modem, but YMMV.
>> 8) Linux is far easer setting up using ADSL than Cable.
> really? ifconfig and route for cable, what is easier with adsl?
For both, one should be able to just run a DHCP client and be done with
it. Back when Linux distros didn't come with (stable) DHCP this was
somewhat problematic, but it hasn't been like that for a while. The
only gotcha with @Home is needing to provide the host identifier or it
won't give you an address.
Brian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat 11 Sep 1999 - 18:01:29