On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:49:53PM +0100, S. Joel Bernstein wrote: > At 18/10/2002 17:41 [], David Cantrell wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Ben wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: > > > > The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL > > > > modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off > > > > charge and then 8 quid a month? > > > Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list > > would be > > > better off with a managed router. > >I am happy with a managed router. It means that when it breaks, I phone > >and they fix. Or they supply a new one. > Right, but I bet you don't have one of the evil USB jobbies.
Yes of course. USB is bad and wrong for networking. > The ethernet > router is merely sucky, and runs very hot. Yep, it runs hot - so hot that I've burnt two of them to death. Both times BT replaced it the next working day. I haven't noticed any sucktitude apart from that. > However, to get the ethernet > router you need to sign up for a business service, costing ~3x as much. Yep. When I got DSL, there was no wires-only option, a router was ALWAYS supplied. I have no Windows box to plug the USB one in to and had no Macs at the time. I refuse to waste time configuring the badly broken USB interfaces in Linux, and anyway, see above about USB being wrong. It was also impossible (at the time, IIRC, YMMV, DMAF, GCHQ) to get a range of static, routeable IPs on anything other than the business service. I might be wrong but I don't care. > For anybody considering a home (read: USB/wires only) > service, the wires-only with a half-decent ethernet router is their best bet. You mean "for anybody considering a home service and whose requirements are the same as mine" :-) -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david For every vengeance, there is an equal and opposite revengeance. -- Cartoon Law X
