RE: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
You wanna know about USB read this and that doesn't take an MSCEhttp://www.usb.org/faq Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Christopher Aldridge wrote:> know", should really investigate this certification.>> >Some of the things you asked were extremely basic.>> What "things" were these?How about the question about whether or not a usb ethernet adapter was anethernet converter?You're the one who thinks Patrick is a nozzle for not searchinggoogle...when your question, the sole purpose of your posting, can beanswered merely by searching google.I'm sure when you look for the proper terms, such as "media converter",you'll have a lot more luck.Basically, in order for something to be an adapter, it _MUST_ be theinterface for a leaf node, such as an individual computer.In order for something to be a converter, there is an implied many-to-manyrelationship, not a one-to-many or one-to-one as with an adapter.> The people who responded helpfully to my post, will receive any help and> assistance in the future from me as a fellow nanog'er; without the> POINTLESS sarcasm and flaming.You mean, the pointless sarcasm and flaming in response to a pointless andclueless post?> > I would take it as a note to people with> >certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue.>> I agree here 100%. However you have also made it very clear that no_cert> != clue.Heh, yeah, check out the tiny clue on Patrick. I mean, you've been readingfor a whole year, surely you know who the people to respect are. How darePatrick be a pretender! ;)> >(Did any of those certs have labs, or just multiple-guess tests?)>> Google is your friend.>> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcsa/requirements.asp> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/le2/le0/le9/learning_certificati> on_type_home.htmlOh, so you DO know about google. Then why are you littering and loiteringon this list?> >P.S. I kinda expected as much from MS, but it's sad that a cisco cert> >doesn't mean much any more. :(>> Notice mostly everyone who provided useful feedback on this agreed with> my opinion on this. Common sense has nothing to do with certs. Having> both isn't a bad trait however.You're right, common sense has nothing to do with certs. Thank you forproviding a concrete example.Andy---Andy DillsXecunet, Inc.www.xecu.net301-682-9972---
RE: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Christopher Aldridge wrote: > know", should really investigate this certification. > > >Some of the things you asked were extremely basic. > > What "things" were these? How about the question about whether or not a usb ethernet adapter was an ethernet converter? You're the one who thinks Patrick is a nozzle for not searching google...when your question, the sole purpose of your posting, can be answered merely by searching google. I'm sure when you look for the proper terms, such as "media converter", you'll have a lot more luck. Basically, in order for something to be an adapter, it _MUST_ be the interface for a leaf node, such as an individual computer. In order for something to be a converter, there is an implied many-to-many relationship, not a one-to-many or one-to-one as with an adapter. > The people who responded helpfully to my post, will receive any help and > assistance in the future from me as a fellow nanog'er; without the > POINTLESS sarcasm and flaming. You mean, the pointless sarcasm and flaming in response to a pointless and clueless post? > > I would take it as a note to people with > >certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue. > > I agree here 100%. However you have also made it very clear that no_cert > != clue. Heh, yeah, check out the tiny clue on Patrick. I mean, you've been reading for a whole year, surely you know who the people to respect are. How dare Patrick be a pretender! ;) > >(Did any of those certs have labs, or just multiple-guess tests?) > > Google is your friend. > > http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcsa/requirements.asp > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/le2/le0/le9/learning_certificati > on_type_home.html Oh, so you DO know about google. Then why are you littering and loitering on this list? > >P.S. I kinda expected as much from MS, but it's sad that a cisco cert > >doesn't mean much any more. :( > > Notice mostly everyone who provided useful feedback on this agreed with > my opinion on this. Common sense has nothing to do with certs. Having > both isn't a bad trait however. You're right, common sense has nothing to do with certs. Thank you for providing a concrete example. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
Consumers are not interested in certificates, they want solutions that are packaged. Front end services when people sign up for accounts should include all the tools necessary for survive on any network you provider access to. -Henry"Patrick W.Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 1, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Christopher Aldridge wrote:>> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I thought it was useful>> input. Perhaps not to you, but maybe to those who think that getting>> their MCSA will teach them all they need to know.> One who thinks these exam topics cover (as you say" "all they need to> know", should really investigate this certification.So we are in agreement.>> Some of the things you asked were extremely basic.>> What "things" were these?I guess I just consider things like "ethernet adaptors" and "ethernet converters" basic. Basic can be good. But it's still basic.Also, I probably attributed some of the replies to your original post in my memory. Or maybe I just misremembered your post completely. I hope you can accept my apology and end the flame war.In my defense, I did say that you should not take this personally.>> So I would not take this as an attack on you personally - lots of>> people answered took the time to answer your questions, asking not >> even>>> a favor in return as payment.>> The people who responded helpfully to my post, will receive any help > and> assistance in the future from me as a fellow nanog'er; without the> POINTLESS sarcasm and flaming.Got it. 'Cause the post to which I am responding is very pointFULL.And if you are implying that I will not be getting help and assistance from you (or at least not without sarcasm), well, somehow I'm just not too worried.>> I would take it as a note to people with>> certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue.>> I agree here 100%. However you have also made it very clear that > no_cert> != clue.Really? Glad we cleared that up, 'cause lots of people were probably assuming that if you have no certification you were automatically clued :)Unless, of course, you are implying I have no certifications. Which would be a bad assumption. I have gotten several certifications over the years, some of which I actually think are useful. I just do not have any of the ones you listed.Of course, then you would also be impling I have no clue. Many people might agree with you, but since the first part (no_cert) failed, then the second part is irrelevant.>> (Did any of those certs have>> labs, or just multiple-guess tests?)>> Google is your friend.>> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcsa/requirements.asp> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/le2/le0/le9/ > learning_certificati> on_type_home.htmlThanx, but not worth the effort. I'm never going to get a CCNA (definitely) or an MCSA (probably). Was just curious and didn't want to wade through multiple web pages. A couple people told me off-list and I was happy.Thanx for the tip, though. I'll have to remember that "google" thing :)-- TTFN,patrick
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Mar 1, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Christopher Aldridge wrote: Please do not take this the wrong way, but I thought it was useful input. Perhaps not to you, but maybe to those who think that getting their MCSA will teach them all they need to know. One who thinks these exam topics cover (as you say" "all they need to know", should really investigate this certification. So we are in agreement. Some of the things you asked were extremely basic. What "things" were these? I guess I just consider things like "ethernet adaptors" and "ethernet converters" basic. Basic can be good. But it's still basic. Also, I probably attributed some of the replies to your original post in my memory. Or maybe I just misremembered your post completely. I hope you can accept my apology and end the flame war. In my defense, I did say that you should not take this personally. So I would not take this as an attack on you personally - lots of people answered took the time to answer your questions, asking not even a favor in return as payment. The people who responded helpfully to my post, will receive any help and assistance in the future from me as a fellow nanog'er; without the POINTLESS sarcasm and flaming. Got it. 'Cause the post to which I am responding is very pointFULL. And if you are implying that I will not be getting help and assistance from you (or at least not without sarcasm), well, somehow I'm just not too worried. I would take it as a note to people with certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue. I agree here 100%. However you have also made it very clear that no_cert != clue. Really? Glad we cleared that up, 'cause lots of people were probably assuming that if you have no certification you were automatically clued :) Unless, of course, you are implying I have no certifications. Which would be a bad assumption. I have gotten several certifications over the years, some of which I actually think are useful. I just do not have any of the ones you listed. Of course, then you would also be impling I have no clue. Many people might agree with you, but since the first part (no_cert) failed, then the second part is irrelevant. (Did any of those certs have labs, or just multiple-guess tests?) Google is your friend. http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcsa/requirements.asp http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/le2/le0/le9/ learning_certificati on_type_home.html Thanx, but not worth the effort. I'm never going to get a CCNA (definitely) or an MCSA (probably). Was just curious and didn't want to wade through multiple web pages. A couple people told me off-list and I was happy. Thanx for the tip, though. I'll have to remember that "google" thing :) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
-Original Message- From: Patrick W.Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work. >Please do not take this the wrong way, but I thought it was useful >input. Perhaps not to you, but maybe to those who think that getting >their MCSA will teach them all they need to know. It seems as though you MAY not be up to date on the MCSA. It stands for "Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator", FYI. To obtain the MCSA certification, I took the following exams: Exam 70-218: Managing a Microsoft Windows 2000 Network Environment Exam 70-215: Installing, Configuring, and Administering Microsoft Windows 2000 Server Exam 70-210: Installing, Configuring, and Administering Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Exam 70-216: Implementing and Administering a Microsoft Windows 2000 Network Infrastructure One who thinks these exam topics cover (as you say" "all they need to know", should really investigate this certification. >Some of the things you asked were extremely basic. What "things" were these? I can only find one question in my entire email that requests a response which was: "What's your take and why?", which was obviously referencing the previous statement: - The argument non-persuasively put is as follows: Is a USB Ethernet Adapter a "converter"? Personally, I say "no". My coworkers seem to say "yes". - What this means my friend, is I wouldn't ever refer to a USB Ethernet Adapter as a "converter". A few co-workers seem to disagree, hence my request for the opinion of the nanog community. >I've never taken >any of the certifications you list, but I thought they would cover the >basics - especially after 3 of them (from 3 different vendors, I >think?) Unfortunately, MS and Cisco certifications do not generally cover the opinions of those who would and wouldn't classify an Ethernet Adapter as falling under the broad "converter" definition. If you feel that an Ethernet Adapter is a "converter", I suggest taking a different approach. >All that said, if you don't at least start asking, you will never find >out. Asking what? I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but I have received great responses from many people here who actually contributed to this discussion. >So I would not take this as an attack on you personally - lots of >people answered took the time to answer your questions, asking not even >a favor in return as payment. The people who responded helpfully to my post, will receive any help and assistance in the future from me as a fellow nanog'er; without the POINTLESS sarcasm and flaming. > I would take it as a note to people with >certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue. I agree here 100%. However you have also made it very clear that no_cert != clue. >(Did any of those certs have >labs, or just multiple-guess tests?) Google is your friend. http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcsa/requirements.asp http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/le2/le0/le9/learning_certificati on_type_home.html >P.S. I kinda expected as much from MS, but it's sad that a cisco cert >doesn't mean much any more. :( Notice mostly everyone who provided useful feedback on this agreed with my opinion on this. Common sense has nothing to do with certs. Having both isn't a bad trait however. FYI, thanks for everyone who contributed to this.
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Mar 1, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Christopher Aldridge wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work. Thanks for your EXCELLENT example of how technical certification programs are no guarantee of fundamental technical understanding. P.S. If you don't ask the right questions you will never get the right answers. Thanks for the useful input! Please do not take this the wrong way, but I thought it was useful input. Perhaps not to you, but maybe to those who think that getting their MCSA will teach them all they need to know. Some of the things you asked were extremely basic. I've never taken any of the certifications you list, but I thought they would cover the basics - especially after 3 of them (from 3 different vendors, I think?) All that said, if you don't at least start asking, you will never find out. So I would not take this as an attack on you personally - lots of people answered took the time to answer your questions, asking not even a favor in return as payment. I would take it as a note to people with certifications or going for certifications that a cert != clue. It's probably a good place to start if you have no where else to turn, but just passing the test is not enough. (Did any of those certs have labs, or just multiple-guess tests?) -- TTFN, patrick P.S. I kinda expected as much from MS, but it's sad that a cisco cert doesn't mean much any more. :(
RE: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work. >Thanks for your EXCELLENT example of how technical certification >programs are no guarantee of fundamental technical understanding. >P.S. If you don't ask the right questions you will never get the right >answers. Thanks for the useful input!
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
>Network Analyst >CCNA/MCP/MCSA Thanks for your EXCELLENT example of how technical certification programs are no guarantee of fundamental technical understanding. P.S. If you don't ask the right questions you will never get the right answers.
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 01:54:36PM -0500, Ron da Silva wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:47:21PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Randy Bush [2/29/2004 7:53 PM] : > > >just say no to html > > > > and to top posting and fullquoting all the ugly, malformed microsoft > > html [1] as well, I hope? :) > > urlview and lynx are your firends... and so is ispell i suppose.. -ron
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:47:21PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Randy Bush [2/29/2004 7:53 PM] : > >just say no to html > > and to top posting and fullquoting all the ugly, malformed microsoft > html [1] as well, I hope? :) urlview and lynx are your firends... -ron
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
I suspect what the convertor does is take the frame, and send it out the USB in whatever format it needs to be data intact. It sends highly processed(/extracted) data to a device driver running on the PC. Just like an ethernet adapter on a PC-card would. If it were in any sense still "ethernet" data, there would have to be an "ethernet card" inside the PC on the 'inside end' of the USB. And there isn't. (Apart from anything else, the ethernet cable might running at up to 100MBps, and the USB at perhaps a tenth of that on a good day). -- Roland Perry
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Christopher Aldridge wrote: > Is a USB Ethernet Adapter a "converter"? > Personally, I say "no". > My coworkers seem to say "yes". I suspect the truth is that it is and it isnt... the complication being what you mean by terms like 'Ethernet' which comprises a number of standards across various layers of the OSI model.. also, does 'convertor' have a technical definition, I mean you plug ethernet in one side and USB in the other so there is obviously some sort of converting going on :) I'm not motivated enough to go thro all this email but just to expand on my point about ethernet, when you say ethernet you are talking about the cable, the rj45 plugs, the manchester encoding (it is manchester 4B5B isnt it?), the 802.x, 802.y (I forget), the llc, mac, framing, blah... I suspect what the convertor does is take the frame, and send it out the USB in whatever format it needs to be data intact. Call this process what you like :) Steve > My argument: > > 1) Ethernet isnt "converted" to USB. The adapted information from > the ethernet segment may traverse the USB segment if the NIC adapts it > to the CPU, but is never "converted" to USB. > > > > You can use USB for many things, thus making it an underlying > "serial bus" in which other technologies can traverse. > > > > Whatis.com definition: USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a > plug-and-play interface between a computer and add-on devices (such as > audio players, joysticks, keyboards, telephones, scanners, and > printers). With USB, a new device can be added to your computer > without having to add an adapter card or even having to turn the > computer off. > > > > USB in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards > to the type of technology that interfaces with the cpu. > > > > > > 2) I cant seem to place "converter" above layer 1. Yet a Network > adapter ( both PCI or USB ) have layer 2 mac addresses that are stored > into the PROM from the manufactor. From my understanding, if an ethernet > frame comes in via cat5, and is destined for the wrong MAC address, the > traffic will not move up the OSI model and to the PC; It will be dropped > right there and then. Only frames destined for the correct MAC or > broadcast will traverse the USB portion. If this is true, then aparantly > our "converter" is doing a lot more than "converting" ethernet to "USB"! > - Filtering, forwarding, encapsulating, de-encapsulating, etc. > > > > > > 3) Just because a device has two physical mediums of connectivity, > dosent make it a "converter". My coworkers argue that a USB Ethernet > adapter is an "Ethernet to USB Converter". If this is true, then the > following could be said: > > > > a. A PCI Ethernet Adapter is a "converter" because it > "converts" Ethernet to PCI. > > b. An Alcatel switch w/ a T1 and a DS3 controller card > would be a "converter" because it "converts" cat5 from the T1 card to > coax on the DS3 card. > > c. Lastly ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet > adapter on a motherboard is a "converter" because it "converts" ethernet > to uhh ?? processor? Right" > > > > > > My co-workers arguments are basically that because Ethernet is plugged > into one side, and usb is plugged into the other, it's a converter. > > > > I strongly that's an understament if not an incorrect statement. Whats > your take and why? > > > Input from ANY of you would be GREATLY appreciated. Otherwise, a simple > "I aggree with you" will be fine also! > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Christopher Aldridge > > Network Analyst > > CCNA/MCP/MCSA > > > >
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
Randy Bush [2/29/2004 7:53 PM] : just say no to html and to top posting and fullquoting all the ugly, malformed microsoft html [1] as well, I hope? :) srs [1] I kind of repeated myself there, I fear -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
just say no to html > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" > xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> > > > > > name="PersonName"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTE: I have been a nanog observer for nearly a year. The > following may be slightly off topic, but it seems as though nanog is my last > hope. > > > > Recently at work, I’ve been battling fellow > coworkers on a very simple debate. The fact that I will not “give > in” on my argument really makes me look arrogant, but I absolutely refuse > to let this one go without logical reason! > > > > The argument non-persuasively put is as > follows: > > > > Is a USB Ethernet Adapter a > “converter”? > > > > Personally, I say “no”. > > > > My coworkers seem to say > “yes”. > > > > My argument: > > 1) Ethernet isnt > “converted” to USB. The adapted information from the ethernet > segment may traverse the USB segment if the NIC adapts it to the CPU, but is > never “converted” to USB. > > > > > You > can use USB for many things, thus making it an underlying “serial > bus” in which other technologies can traverse. > > > > > > Whatis.com > definition: USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a plug-and-play interface between a > computer and add-on devices (such as audio players, joysticks, keyboards, > telephones, scanners, and printers). With USB, a new device can be added to > your computer without having to add an adapter card or > even having to turn the computer off. > > > > > USB > in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards to the type of > technology that interfaces with the cpu. > > > > > > 2) I cant seem to > place “converter” above layer 1. Yet a Network adapter ( both PCI > or USB ) have layer 2 mac addresses that are stored into the PROM from the > manufactor. From my understanding, if an ethernet frame comes in via cat5, and > is destined for the wrong MAC address, the traffic will not move up the OSI > model and to the PC; It will be dropped right there and then. Only frames > destined for the correct MAC or broadcast will traverse the USB portion. If this > is true, then aparantly our “converter” is doing a lot more than > “converting” ethernet to “USB”! - > Filtering, forwarding, encapsulating, de-encapsulating, > etc. > > > > > > 3) Just because a > device has two physical mediums of connectivity, dosent make it a > “converter”. My coworkers argue that a USB Ethernet adapter is an > “Ethernet to USB Converter”. If this is true, then the following > could be said: > > > > > a. A > PCI Ethernet Adapter is a “converter” because it “converts” > Ethernet to PCI. > > > b. An > Alcatel switch w/ a T1 and a DS3 controller card would be a > “converter” because it “converts” cat5 from the T1 card > to coax on the DS3 card. > > > c. Lastly > ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet adapter on a motherboard is a > “converter” because it “converts” ethernet to uhh > ?? processor? Right” > > > > > > My co-workers arguments are basically that because > Ethernet is plugged into one side, and usb is plugged into the other, > it’s a converter. > > > > I strongly that’s an understament if not an > incorrect statement. Whats your take and why? > > > Input from ANY of you would be GREATLY appreciated. Otherwise, a simple “I > aggree with you” will be fine also! > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Christopher > Aldridge size=2 face=Verdana> style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> > > Network Analyst > > CCNA/MCP/MCSA > > > > > > > >
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
USB in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards to the type of technology that interfaces with the cpu. Yes. 3) Just because a device has two physical mediums of connectivity, dosent make it a ?converter?. My coworkers argue that a USB Ethernet adapter is an ?Ethernet to USB Converter?. Perhaps they are being confused by the existence of things like USB/Serial and USB/Parallel "converters" (I have one of the former here, for when I need to plug my GPS receiver into my laptop), but in fact these are "adapters", just like the PCI/Serial and PCI/Parallel cards you might buy to fit in a PCI slot [although most PCs have this functionality on the motherboard, so extra cards are unnecessary]. Another way of telling that they are adapters (even the USB/Serial one) rather than converters, is that that they need Windows Drivers, which are added by the standard plug-n-pray system when you first attach that device to the PC. A genuine converter (like 9-25 pin serial) doesn't need a driver. If this is true, then the following could be said: a. A PCI Ethernet Adapter is a ?converter? because it ?converts? Ethernet to PCI. You are on the right track here - both the PCI and USB items are "adapters". Neither are "converters". c. Lastly ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet adapter on a motherboard is a ?converter? because it ?converts? ethernet to uhh ?? processor? Right? It's a few years since I designed a PC, but I think you'll find that motherboard adapters like are actually connected to the PCI bus, but internally across the PCB, rather than via a separable connector (and at early stages in their evolution using the exact same chip soldered to the motherboard as would have been on the plug-in card). -- Roland Perry
