>> >For two hosts, you can use 10Base-T or 100Base-TX cards without a hub
>> >using a crossover cable, as well. It's a lot less messy than coax,
>> >and support for coax is going the way of the dodo. Of course, coax
>> >won't do 100 Mbit/s at all.
>
>> Problem with the crossover cable is that it only works for two machines.
>> While coax may not be the latest and greatest it definately works
>> perfectly well for many if not most people, providing you do not have a
>> large number of machines on the network.
>
>But it's a mess.
I only agree in one respect. That it's like finding the bad
light bulb on a Christmas tree. Other than that, I disagree.
> You have to be very careful with conectors, terminators,
But you can be careless with UTP connectors and hubs?
>Ts; and make sure nobody trips over the network.
So, what you're saying is that, with CAT-5 you don't need to make
sure anyone trips over the network cables? Hmm. I've accidently
tripped over a CAT-5 cable and snapped it right in half.
Contrarily, I've bumped my coax cable pretty hard, and I almost
pulled my computer system off the desk. The coax works fine.
Even if it got damaged, it would take me 5 minutes with a
standard wire stripper and pair of wire cutters to fix - with no
crimp tool.
> It's cheap, but a 8-way hub isn't _that_ expensive...
Relative to what? With coax, the cost of a hub is $0, so
relative to coax, an 8way hub is INFINITELY expensive. Even $30
is $30 that I wouldn't have to spend. And I don't know where you
people get your prices, but the cheapest 10Mbit card around here
is $25 ISA, or $30 PCI for NE2000 clones. The cheapest 4 port
hub (low end crap) I could find is an Acer for $50 + tax of 15%.
An 8 port is $80.
So, an 8 port hub would run $80 + 15%, and I don't consider that
to be "cheap".
Minus the cost of network cards, for the cost of your 3 computer
network and a hub, I can put together a 10 computer or more coax
network. That includes all cables and terminators. Network
bandwidth is the same on coax as utp anyways unless you get an
expensive switch, and then you're not talking $80 hub either,
more like $200+. So the UTP is faster/better argument for a
cheap network doesn't cut it. UTP is more scalable granted, but
that is meaningless if it is unlikely anyone will need to scale
over 10 machines anyways. Even then, one could plop 2 NIC's in
an old stripped out 4Mb 386 box acting as a router in a closet,
and have subnets. There is your scalability. Not as modern or
nice, nor fault tolerant, but it isn't needed in a *cheap* home
network either.
>and you'll save that much on <insert favorite
>headache pill here> in short time.
I'd agree with you in a work environment where people tend to
fuck things up pretty bad, but in a home environment it isn't
necessarily the case. If you install coax, the cable itself is
no more vulnerable to being tripped over, drilled into or
otherwise damaged than CAT-5 is. Also a home network is unlikely
to have a machine bring down the network, and if it did, it is
only a home network anyways. If reliability and whatnot were a
factor in a home network, then cost would be second to begin
with, and coax wouldn't enter the equation.
We must realize that cheap-network means just that. $30 extra
cost, is $30 that could be saved. And here, your $30 hub is $90+
with tax... That is real money to me. If we all had $200k
incomes the scenario might be different.
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/