An ISP of their own (was RE: [rescue] Being jobless)

[Curtis H. Wilbar Jr.]

>From: "N.Miller" <vraptor at promessage.com>
>
>On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 08:31 AM, Curtis H. Wilbar Jr. wrote:
>
>>> From: "Jonathan C. Patschke" <jp at celestrion.net>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Devin L. Ganger wrote:
>>>
>>> After using shit like that and 3com's various interfaces, IOS is a
>>> -joy-.
>>
>> I like IOS, but it is inconsistent... especially some of the IOS 
>> versions
>> for switches, which seem like they were something else, and had an IOS
>> like interface grafted on to them after the fact.... so concessions had
>> to be made about how to do various things to match up to whatever way
>> the software was originally doing things (sorry, no specific examples).
>
>Having worked at said networking giant, you are correct in your
>assumption.  Cisco bought good switch technology by buying Kalpana
>and Crescendo.  Catalyst OS is still available on the switches (or,
>it was last I knew), but IOS was hacked to work on the switches
>for "continuity" purposes.

Didn't they also buy Grand Junction ?

>
>I'm no network expert, but my network admin buddies @ Cisco tend
>to prefer Catalyst OS, if they were around to use it in house before
>the company converted all the internal networks to IOS for the
>switches.

something to look into for giggles...

>
>The whole thing is complicated by the fact that Cisco later bought
>Granite systems to get good gigabit switching technology, and
>integrated them into the Enterprise group (i.e. Kalpana/Crescendo).
>
>You would probably see similar kinds of interface compromises on other
>hardware products that Cisco has acquired and put IOS on.  Cisco
>is a "buy your R&D" company--it allows others to take the risks.
>Of course, this strategy sometimes backfires, as well Cisco bought
>Stratacom (number 2 in voice switching behind Lucent) and their
>product was not nearly what it was made out to be.  Cisco did not
>want to pay the big bucks for Lucent at the time.

They could probably buy it for a song now :-)

>
>> Well, not any CCNAs that got their cert more than a couple of years ago
>> or so... (as there were really hardly any questions that had anything 
>> to
>> do with Cisco commands.... it was all OSI model and network knowledge).
>>
>> I've heard they have redone it and there is more Cisco router stuff in
>> there now than general network stuff.... don't know if that is true
>> or not though.
>
>I dunno about that, but I kind of wonder how tough it is if a 17-yo
>can get a CCNA.  I had a 3-digit CCNA from So San Fran High School
>working for me in the lab at Cisco--he was one of the first ones
>out of the HS training programs, back before they were using CBT.
>CBT is what would kick my butt, I think.

Well, most certs are passable if you have half a brain, some understanding,
and a good memory.  They don't really test your ability to think.  They
test your ability to know.  So most certs mean your a walking dictionary...
doesn't mean you know how to apply all that knowledge (yes, this is an
extreme view).

Not to mention all those people out there making sample tests, study guides,
etc.... the ones loaned to me for the CCNA had some of the CCNA test questions
I had during testing in there verbatim.

I don't have high regards for certification.  CCIE is one of the exceptions
due to it's practical test.  This specifically tests your ability to apply
the knowledge and demonstrates skill rather than just a proficient memory.

</off_soap_box>

>
>=Nadine=
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

-- Curt

Curtis Wilbar
Hawk Mountain Networks
rescue at hawkmountain.net

My e-mail is protected against viruses and spam by MailGuardian
                  http://www.mailguardian.net
          Top notch protection at unbelievable prices