Wireless networking - any experts out there ?

You don't work for some "we only support Windows" IT Dept, do you?

I don't work for an ISP, no. But I've got an idea about commercial reality.

As it happens, I do work in the IT dept of a company with a policy of windows-only on the desktop, and don't really have a problem with that policy. Servers is a different matter, and I've had quite a lot to do with encouragement towards non-windows there.

And mine and friends laptops seem to work fine with wireless and linux.

Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.

MM

But it IS slower, is more hassle and more open to hackers.

MM

My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be easy?

MM

You're really struggling with the idea of bottlenecks, aren't you. For most people's use, the limiting factor will be the link to the exchange, not the wireless speed. Thus it isn't slower in practice.

In many cases it's not more hassle - remember, fixed desktops are becoming less mainstream. Plenty of people have the router in the hall next to the incoming phone point, and just use their computer in the living room or whatever. Running Cat5 for that is tedious.

Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.

Um, I'm not the one trying to make things difficult. Wireless isn't difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely happily.

In message , MM writes

It's not so easy if you want to connect your laptop where ever you want to be around the house with a wired network.

No one said that you had to use wireless - it obviously not appropriate for your situation. but for other situations it is entirely appropriate

- and increasingly so as people use laptops, netbooks and other mobile wifi enabled devices etc. horsed for course and all that - we use both wired and wireless networking in this house as suits the situation.

But Clive's main point (with which I'd concur) really seemed to be that wireless works fine most of the time for most people (not to say it doesn't have flaws, and can't be a bit more flakey at times) and is plenty fast enough for the use most people put it too - connecting to the internet.

We have O2 broadband here and get about 15 Mb/s ( but most on ADSL will be lucky to be getting anywhere near the fabled 8 Mb/s) when connecting via the laptops most of the time the wireless connection provides plenty more than that unless I stretch the connection to the limits of it's range - so connecting faster by a wired connection doesn't really matter for speed - it's not the limiting factor. Even pretty demanding stuff like streaming HD streams using iPlayer works fine

Even for general use connecting to the home file server it's plenty fast enough really. Though I do connect up a cable if I have a a big file to transfer.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable and... well, that's it! Done!

MM

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

So what? I only have desktops. I shall, in the spring, be building a mini-ITX based "desktop" for my piano. Cost of parts: around £100, less hard drive, keyboard and mouse, which I have in spades. It will be connected via Cat5e.

No, it's fun! Shows one's ingenuity!

i.e. it is...

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's the way it's gonna stay.

MM

MM :

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently it does, so here goes... You're neglecting the obvious, which is that

Nothing wrong with only supporting the majority of users.. Its cheaper and windows users don't want to subsidise others any more than we already do. ;-)

Its all fine when it works. Its finding solutions when it doesn't that's hard. Why make it harder by having to, potentially, find more solutions? Same machine, same os, same applications makes things easier.

PS, I'm biased as ubuntu is absolutely cr@p on a HP tx2. Win7 is far better on it.

Not if you have to pay for installation it isn't. nor is it cheaper if you have to redecorate after putting it in.

Wireless routers cost the same or less than wired ones and are usually free. laptops come with wireless these days so it is free. desktops cost about £8 to make wireless. wireless isn't a trip hazard. wireless doesn't export potentials outside the building if you have your server in the shed. most people don't do anything where the speed difference between wired and wireless matters.

Don't imagine that if you have something worth stealing that the "extra" security of wired will stop someone stealing it.

Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves the browser. Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

Exactly.

Wireless is a cheap shoddy insecure method that suits most clueless users perfectly.

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking their credit card details.

Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

"dennis@home" :

Don't forget that for some of us, a lot of important stuff doesn't go anywhere near a browser.

It's only easy for networks outside the premises. We're talking about a network inside the premises.

The Natural Philosopher wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 09:51

Do you trust everyone in your ISP. And the next ISP and the next until the other end?