SEO

On 2008-05-02, Richard James <rjames@invalid.com> wrote:

> I have an account like that with Optus. I get 2000MBytes a month, up and
> download. When I go over that limit then I get capped back to 64Kb/s. I
> can't unfortunately afford a $60 or better plan.

I have an older scheme with aapt 512 / 128 12 gig download and then
64k for $40 (bundled with phone etc). Mind you the 'new' schemes are
less generous.

Andrew

--
http://www.andrews-corner.org

Replying to Kurt and Richard (I didn't see Richards, perhap he uses
googlegroups? as they are UDP'd here, or Spam Assassin ate him up .. )

On Fri, 2 May 2008, ~kurt wrote:

>
> Richard James <rjames@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:
>>
>>> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
>>> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
>>> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
>>> email alone.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
>> access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.

The internet prices, especially broadband here dropped to buggery when
Cable and Wireless Optus came into the market, but then C&W sold Optus,
and things starting going backwards as the new owners do what most new
owners do and cut costs, but it still did not go back to as bad
before. Optus gave hel$tra a wake up, afterall they were no longer the
full monopoly, they had competition and had to change.

>> They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
>> not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
>> the 90's.

Yes I recall hel$tras push for everyone to go to ISDN, but that flopped
because it was just a money grab exercise.
If you think bigpond retail customers get treated like idiots, you should
try dealing with wholesale dept, I have lost count of how many times I
have had to go over some idiots head just to get stuff actioned.

You know with telstra it can take 14 days to provision more bandwith if
you still have the pipe capacity, the delay with Optus is zero, its
INSTANT, 24/7! the optus network is far far far superior then telstras.


> This is actually a great example of how studies can so easily misrepresent
> reality. The " 2008 International Broadband Rankings", which was just posted
> to /. today, would claim Australia is doing a lot better than the US, and
> claims broadband costs almost 1/3 of what it costs here in the US:
>

hahahahahaha, that'll be the day, I understand we have to have slightly
higher costs, afterall someones gota maintain all those submarine cables
from here to the several countries they go to, the biggest and costly is
the one to the U.S as its 20 times further away than the others, but I do
not accept what they want to charge for it


--
Cheers
Res

I read usenet and lists in pine. But m$ outlook, thunderbird and gmail
often use html span/whatever for quotes, makes it hard to tell who said
what, so I dont try. If I ignore you, thats why! Use a compliant mailer.

>
>> The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is IO
>> efficiency- it is really sloooow.
>
> Really? From what outhouse wall did you read that?

From www.openbsd.org? Or maybe from the wallpainting which says:
synchronous filesystems are ALWAYS slower though recommended by OBSD team?
Cant remember.
>
>> And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.
>
> How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
> 10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.

I mentioned facts and limits. So whats your point?

>
>> PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
>> mean
>
> Really, with the install sets on a server the entire OS goes onto HDD in
> less than 5 minutes. Makes me fall to sleep waiting.
>
Good for you. Not all install goes from a cutting edge disk and server- in
OBSD usually it's oposite, which you should know as an experienced OBSD
admin/user/expert pretty aware of hardware compatibility issues.

--
luk

On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:54:38 +0200, lukaswu wrote:


>>> The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is
>>> IO efficiency- it is really sloooow.
>>
>> Really? From what outhouse wall did you read that?
>
> From www.openbsd.org? Or maybe from the wallpainting which says:
> synchronous filesystems are ALWAYS slower though recommended by OBSD
> team? Cant remember.

So in your mind a little bit slower is sloooow? And you really prefer
asynchronous disk IO because you just love running fsck?

>>> And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.
>>
>> How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
>> 10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.
>
> I mentioned facts and limits. So whats your point?

Just what do you really think that scalability means?

>>> PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
>>> mean
>>
>> Really, with the install sets on a server the entire OS goes onto HDD
>> in less than 5 minutes. Makes me fall to sleep waiting.
>>
> Good for you. Not all install goes from a cutting edge disk and server-
> in OBSD usually it's oposite, which you should know as an experienced
> OBSD admin/user/expert pretty aware of hardware compatibility issues.

My last install was yesterday on an 8 year old machine with a P233MMX
CPU, 32MB memory and a HDD which does file IO at about 3.5MB/sec. It
still took less than 5 minutes.

In over 8 years of use of OpenBSD I have never encountered a single
hardware compatibility issue. But then I don't use winmodems or
winprinters either.

>
> So in your mind a little bit slower is sloooow? And you really prefer
> asynchronous disk IO because you just love running fsck?

I prefer icream. What does have journaling with sync async mode in
common?? They on completely two different levels- one say driver operation
the other filesystem. And yes, sync mode is slow; running OBSD you
perfectly know how much time you need to use security implemeted on
inodes. It's slooow.

>
>>>> And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.
>>>
>>> How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
>>> 10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.
>>
>> I mentioned facts and limits. So whats your point?
>
> Just what do you really think that scalability means?

What I wrote before.
>
>
> My last install was yesterday on an 8 year old machine with a P233MMX
> CPU, 32MB memory and a HDD which does file IO at about 3.5MB/sec. It
> still took less than 5 minutes.

Base installation? Could be.
>
> In over 8 years of use of OpenBSD I have never encountered a single
> hardware compatibility issue. But then I don't use winmodems or
> winprinters either.
>

Neither did I though when I wanted to buy a notebook which would be able
to run 3.3-3.9 I had to check very close even NICs to be sure they would
run. True, every half a year it gets better.

The funny thing is that you attacked me while I am the last person who
should be attacked on OBSD basis. Saying nothing of wrong news group to do
so .

--
luk