On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Nate Duehr wrote: > p.s. Before anyone thinks this is a plug or a rant either way for or > against any technology mentioned above, be advised that I've been > working on bugs like this my entire career, and watching engineers > make the same mistakes over and over and over again in the wireline > telco world. I gave up picking favorites long ago... almost every > data protocol out there sucks, in one way or another.
This is not limited to data and RF, it's all over anything attached to a computer. I gave up working in computer security because it was always the same thing -- someone would write software wrong, not test it, ship it, and it would be the way that a customer was broken into. Of course, if that customer had followed the recommendations of the security consultant, the break-in wouldn't have occurred, but the CxO made the decision based on cost vs risk to skip implementation of that system. > I can explain how to break X.25, Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet, Token > Ring, IPX, IP, Q.931 messages... ahh, pretty much anything -- 'cause > I've seen customers do it. Invent a better protocol, someone will > invent a better idiot. I've been that better idiot. I'm continually amazed at the bugs I find in exercise equipment, cars, etc. Failure or unexpected situations are not tested for, because testing is expensive and only performed once someone gets hurt or killed. > I think we're trying to teach people this stuff so fast these days, > they have no idea what you're talking about when you ask them to > measure the voltage on a T1 circuit... or try asking someone to > measure the voltage on Ethernet sometime. Trying to understand digital RF communications is like drinking from a firehose. And most college students are more interested in graduating and/or doing all of those things that college students do. > When it comes to RF digital protocols, the entire classroom full of > hams would fall asleep long before you got past the basic framing of > the "circuit", let alone talking about how a double at the RF/Air > interface would affect it. Well, we do this as a hobby... > Wireline techs have no concept that ELECTRICITY and all the E=IR and > other properties that go with it... are actually traveling down those > wires... they do seem to "get it" that when they replace it with > plastic fiber optics it all works faster/better... but then they bend > the cable beyond the bend radius allowed for the fiber, and wonder why > it all falls apart again. NO CLUE about the physical world, just that > you're supposed to plug it in and type some commands and it'll > magically work for you. Again, this isn't limited to wireline techs. There's an entire generation of Americans who know only that one thing they do, and have no desire to learn anything else unless the boss tells them they need to know it. In an earlier time, these individuals would find themselves out of a job. > Thus, the folks who REALLY know it -- really need to try a little > harder to make the on-air interfaces bulletproof, and ALSO to make > sure the products are also released with TEST GEAR that any moron > could operate. Seriously. We all know from reading here on RB that > just understanding all the "gotchas" of FM analog, and repeaters, is > many years of study. Add the requirement that the repeater operator > also should magically understand routing protocols, IP, on-air framing > formats, and all that jazz? There are many man-centuries of experience on this list. But I agree. I think that Motorola and some of the other companies haven't put thier best talents on writing protocols and designing products. > It'll be a while. Ask any agency who deployed P25 when it first came > out how many years it took their best techs to really UNDERSTAND what > was going on in the system on a day-to-day basis... or if they even > really believe they do, yet. I find that the "best techs" tend to be reverse engineers. Unfortunately for them, they are under-paid and usually unrecognized among thier peers. > The company brought in a trainer a few years back to teach "logical > troubleshooting". Three clues in, I gave the answer. The trainer > said, "How did you DO that?" Before I could reply, my boss (kindly) > said, "We didn't hire him for his personality!" My favorite answer is: "I think with both halves of my brain at once." -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
