Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Web meeting services, which one is good and most of all simple?

J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Folks,

Looking for a good, simple web meeting service for a startup company.
Skype and Webex are out, mostly because of IMHO sub-par SW quality and
unhappiness with support. Requirements:

_Must_ work without requiring people to disable firewalls or other
security features. Meaning _no_ Java or any of this. Should also work on
smart phones if possible (in our case Blackberry and Samsung-Win8".

If there is a hiccup it must send clear error messages. Not such utter
nonsense as "Skype has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are
sorry for the inconvenience ...". I expect a message that says what the
likely problem is, just like the SW on gear that I design does.

Must allow entering of any participant before meetings start and allow
the meeting to actually begin, even if the host is late. Some telecon
services fail miserably here.

Must announce which meeting one is in. To my surprise some don't. "Hey,
let's all welcome Joerg. So tell us, where's your meat packing plant?"
(BT ...)

Reasonably priced. For example, I have very good experience with
Go-To-Meeting but it's about $50/mo. That's ok but AFAIK if the account
holder is on the road and participate at least one of the others must
hold an account. That gets quite expensive.

Audio-only access for people on the road. If a paid service there should
ideally be a 1-800 number so they can use a hotel phone without paying
through the nose.

I've seen offers on the web like this ...

http://www.gomeetnow.com/web_conferencing/web_meeting_why_gomeetnow.html

.... but quite frankly I'd like to get opinions first. Because I am sick
and tired of loading yet another SW package only to find out that the
whole thing is a dud.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Maybe you should buy a new PC ?:)

Although, in reality, I run pretty old equipment and software, and
have had no problems with Skype, Webex, or GoToMeeting, for that
matter.

But you have previously posted that you have problems with almost
every software known to man :)

Nope, only with software of poor quality. Else how come that LTSpice,
Cadsoft Eagle, Gerber View, and tons of others never crash on the same PC?

Classic example: Acrobat Reader crashed hard all the time. Ditched it,
loaded Foxit -> No more crashes, same kind of docs viewed (actually the
very same ones after the switch). Now that tells a rather clear story,
doesn't it?

Have you checked your system out? I'm beginning to suspicion that
your paranoia has multiple anti-virus packages running simultaneously
... which is a no-no.

Then why does it work for other software? For example, when it comes to
web meetings I noticed that Go-To-Meeting works every single time.
Always did, right off the bat. So they must do something right. But
because there seems to be a requirement that there be at least one
dues-paying host logged in for every session that is financially out of
league right.

I don't know very much about the deep regions of PCs but I know this:
Some of the stuff I design has telemetry features into the web. It all
runs with cast-iron performance.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
Nope, only with software of poor quality. Else how come that LTSpice,
Cadsoft Eagle, Gerber View, and tons of others never crash on the same PC?

Classic example: Acrobat Reader crashed hard all the time. Ditched it,

It can take only one opcode sequence to crash a computer if it has a
flaw. Back when I had a computer repair service I once diagnosed a
computer which wouldn't run Eudora.
 
H

hamilton

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm using Dropbox in a sorta-realtime telemetry application and it works great.
It's been up for 694 hours now, since I started it up.

Could you share more about this application.

Thanks
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
On this PC I have Acrobat v4, Acrobat v7, Adobe Reader 10.0.0.5,
Eudora v7.1.0.9, Agent v6, Firefox v 18.0.1, PSpice v15.7 and all
kinds of home-made and purchased utilities.

Crashes... Can't remember when I last had a problem... after I dumped
out the .NET Framework crap ;-)

It all comes down to quality hardware and proper cooling...
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Quality, support, price. Pick any two.


Hmmm... I use Skype and Webex. Skype is a pile of bugs, but Cisco
Webex seems quite reliable. If you need support, you're already lost.

When Webex didn't work and after a lot of prodding they finally said
that pop-up blocking must be unchecked and that I must allow web sites
to install (!) add-ons. I asked them whether they were kidding. They
were not.

That depends on the firewall. The local hospital blocks all UDP
traffic making any kind of screaming video, in or out, impossible. I
had to get special dispensation from the keeper of the router to setup
video conferencing. The server based web conferencing software that
I've had to deal with all use a STUN server to bore holes in your
firewall. Some software (Microsloth 360) try to use UPnP to deal with
the firewalls.


Ahem. Java in the browser is currently a security risk while Oracle
tried to catch up on years of neglecting Java. The danger is from
crafted Java web applets, not from running Java apps on your desktop.
The standard recommendation is to un-check "Enable Java content in the
browser". However, if the server application delivers a Java
application to the client to run in the browser, you're correct,
that's risky.

Yes, that's what I want to keep blocked. Especially in light of the
recent security blooper.

Dunno about Blackberry, but just about all the various web
conferencing systems have iPhone, iPad, and Android apps. I'm down to
supporting zero Blackberrys, which is a shame as it was a reliable
system (punctuated by spectacular failures).

Well, one of the guys uses Blackberry so it would be nice if there is
support, but not a firm requirement.

Most applications dump a debug log somewhere. The catch is that you
often have to start the application in debug mode. For example,
here's how to make Webex belch copious quantities of unintelligible
gibberish:
<http://www.webex.com/webexconnect/orgadmin/help/index.htm?toc.htm?17486.htm>
Scroll down to the debug section.

Well, if there is an error log then it shall show up, not be hidden on
the 7th floor in the 15th broom closet.

I like detailed debugging information. What I hate are the
troubleshooting "wizard" that usually follows the error message. I
have yet to find one that actually works.

What I really can't stand is when there's just always the same old bland
crash announcement with no real information about the reasons in there.
I mean, what would it really take to state "Failed upon calling
uebercombobulator.dll"? The fact that Skype often remains running is a
clear indicator that they could have done so but didn't.

What's really weird is that I can even make and answer Skype calls as
long as I move the error message window to the side. Usually after 3-4
start attempts, like with a recalcitrant engine. If I click anything in
the error message of close its windown Skype blitzes off.

How do they fail? Everything I've ever tried allows adding and
dropping participants on the fly. ...


Some will say that there is no such conference in progress. Others say
"Placing you in the conference" or so and then I get an email or cell
call "Hey, where are you?".

... What I find disgusting is that the
ones that charge by the connected client or by the minute often bill
for time when the client was not online. For example, I help with a
medical office that give online webinars. The live lecture went on
for many hours as users came, asked questions, and left. When
finished, the lecturer was horrified to discover that he was getting
billed for hundreds of users, even though no more than 20 or so were
online at one time. While vendors describe their billing system to
the best of their attorney's abilities, it does help to test your
interpretation.


Oops. Yeah, that's true. The name of the meeting usually appears on
the screen somewhere, but that's no guarantee against accidents. I've
screwed up a few times myself. The easiest fix is to make the webinar
private, which requires a password to enter. If the password is in
the title, it's unlikely that you'll have uninvited dropins.

On the bright side, you might end up with a new barbecue recipe :)

Fat pipes are not cheap. HD video raises the price even more.

We are willing to pay and it won't have to be HD. In fact, mostly it's
about sharing documents, pointing things out in there. But it should let
everyone of a group be the host without charging each one of them. After
all, even in a hotel venue they don't charge extra because I took over
as moderator after the other guy caught the flu.

That's about the typical rate. Some charge as low as $25/month, but
then add charges by the minute or by the user.


I've had zero requests from my customers for either of those features.
Somehow, that seems like the tail wagging the dog, and the lack of
voice only would not be a show stopper. At worst, just turn off the
video and the web browser will continue to pass audio. The iPhone and
Android apps that I've tried all default to no video.

Doesn't work. There are sometimes people who just don't have a web
connection at that particular moment. In some area you can be lucky if
you get a phone line with better than 10dB SNR. Other times, like on
some not so customer-friendly airports, you have to pay lots of bucks to
become member of some network, else no web access.

Here's 13 more web conferencing applications to try:
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388678,00.asp>
I would recommend Webex or Skype.

Those are the two that have behaved the worst here.

I can sorta guess that you've never actually used web conferencing
software. I'm involved in a virtual company with 6 other people
scattered across the globe. In the past, it was more companies and
more people. We use various methods of communications. It's rare
that we have a web video conference as email and Dropbox are good
enough. However, when a video conference is required (i.e. annual
meeting), it's almost always a fiasco. Of the 7-20 participants, one
or more are chronically late, usually due to miscalculated time zones
and daylight savings time anomalies. Think UTC/GMT.

I actually have used web conferencing quite a bit. Except for Webex and
Skype they've all worked well. To my utter surprise even Adobe Connect
worked flawlessly, which I hadn't expected because their Acrobat Reader
is behaving so poorly. But ... same thing, if the guys aren't always
available and sp everyone has to be able to host it's arond $50/month
per host. Too much right now.

In our group punctuality is a given. If someone can't make it the rest
of the gruoup knows before the meeting. So the meetings always start
exactly on the hour.

There's always someone with a nice new computah, tablet, or HD camera,
that hasn't bothered to test their video. This year, that was me with
a new HD camera that had trouble cramming 3.5Mbits/sec through a
1.5/0.384 Mbit/sec pipe. The first 15 to 30 minutes of the conference
is always (and I do mean always) wasted getting each users hardware
working. I've had to insist that participants install Teamviewer on
their machines so that I can diagnose and fix their setup.

Once the meeting gets going, there's always someone with a performance
issue. All the software I've tried allows adjust the video
resolution, which invariably ends up on the lowest resolution in order
to make the talking heads look reasonable. However, that changes if
we have to markup a drawing. After multiple failures to play
whiteboard during a large conference, we have elected to take a step
backwards and use Dropbox to store annotated drawings. The result is
dozens of divergent drawings, but as long as they are properly time
stamped, it's not a problem.

Anyway, me never humble advice is to pick the first thing that sorta
works. Don't commit to a long term relationship with the vendor. Beat
it up until the limitations and bugs are obvious. Once you know if
it's going to be useful, go shopping again, this time with some
experience. My prediction is that you'll revert to email and voice.

Doubtful that's going to happen. I've gone through many lengthy layout
sessions using web conferencing. Nothing is faster when optimizing a
layout with a group that is scattered across thousands of miles. "That
inductor 20% north-east, turn that 90 degrees and re-route the blue
trace, that'll fix the coupling".
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
If there is a hiccup it must send clear error messages. Not such utter
nonsense as "Skype has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are
sorry for the inconvenience ...". I expect a message that says what the
likely problem is, just like the SW on gear that I design does.

Such messages usually mean that the program has performed an invalid
operation (access violation, non-existent memory, etc.), or has violated
some internal constraint. It could give you details, but you'd be none
the wiser.

Sylvia.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
[...]


As for error messages, I was partly responsible for what I considered
humorous, and some others considered insulting, error messages in an
undisclosed software product. What I learned from the experience was
that many users don't want to see any error messages. For them, it
work, or it doesn't, and they just call someone to fix it if it
doesn't. On the other end of the scale are the geeks that want
connection progress logging, continuous performance monitoring, with
debugging down to the lowest level possible. I'm in between, where I
want applications sanity checking, library version verification, and
human readable (and editable) config files. Moral: There's no way
you're going to make everyone happy.

Nowadays users do want meaningful error messages because for most there
is no support team. Instead of throwing the usual "Re-install everything
and see if it helps" sort of advice at the user and then see what
sticks, it would be much more helpful if the Skype guys would say "Send
us the error35682.txt file from the ... folder".

Modular code. One thread had crashed while the others continue to
operate. I've run my Unix and Linux boxes for weeks with hung
processes that can't be killed and SNMP error traps that won't shut
up.

Ok, but isn't that a sorry state of affairs for software?

Weird. That's not what I see with Webex and Skype. It usually asks
permission of the conference owner or originator for a new user to be
added. If configured as a webinar (event) instead of a conference, it
will admit anyone without interrupting. I think you can create a
numerical limit to the number of participants, but I don't recall if
that's available in all version. Try it:
<http://www.webex.com/webinars/>
Hmmm... won't play without Java enabled. Sigh.

Then it's out for us anyhow, we will not use it in our group.

Yes, that makes sense. As I mumbled, there are various billing
systems, each with their merits and potential complications. I
suspect Webex likes the flat rate model, where each monthly billing is
identical, making it easier for the customer to estimate their
expenses and not deliver any surprise overcharges. Others prefer a
more adjustable billing system to allow the customer to deal with
uneven usage schedules.

Ok, but nobody can tell me that $50/mo/moderator reflects the real
underlying cost. It can't be because Skype offers same for $4.99/mo,
except theirs is hit or miss in terms of reliability here. But the
bandwidth can't be much different from the others.

I have to deal with the ever changing shared documents, schematics,
layouts, test plans, schedules, photos, and sketches. We gave up
trying to do it in real time. I would get an email with a bunch of
links included pointing to our Dropbox account. I would pickup the
documents, apply the markups using various programs, and upload the
changes to an "inbox" under the same account. While this does not
allow for the alleged productivity found in brainstorming sessions, it
works best for me, as I do my best original thinking in some rather
odd places.

Do you really need the real time sharing of documents, as in a
whiteboard, or can you live with a delay that actually allow the
participants to think instead of blurting out their initial thoughts
with little time for careful analysis?

Right now delays are ok. Once we get into the design phase it has to be
realtime. Same in other situations. For example, there is not much to
analyze when optimizing a layout. I pretty much work like a seasoned
surgeon while on those, after doing this for decades there usually isn't
much to think when you see a sub-optimal loop in a switcher. Just like a
cardiologist doesn't ponder the angio display forever, he takes one
quick look and says "Bring me a number so-and-so stent".

All those are also death to web conferencing, which requires a
substantial upload bandwidth. My 1500/384 Kbits/sec DSL line is
marginal for interactive video. Anything less would be fatal. ...


Not at all. I have 1.2Mbit/128kbits/sec. Go-To-Meeting and Adobe
NetConnect work great. So does Skype, after kicking it 3-4 times and
moving the error boxes partially off-screen so they don't get in the way
(can't close them or Skype will immediately crash).
... I
suggest you consider a method that accommodates these internet
challenged participants, such as a rented a hotel meeting room with
good bandwidth. If none of these are available, an RPV dropping a
package might be the most efficient.

The folks on trips are usually happy just dialing into the audio. That's
why there absolutely must be a POTS path as well. In some areas you
simply won't find a hotel room with Internet.

They work for me, but I'm now a very light weight user. Some of the
others look like they might be worth trying. Unfortunately, I can't
be much help with alternatives as I've only tried a few, and
uninstalled them after the initial testing.


Like I said. Bandwidth costs money. ...


Then why can Skype offer $4.99/mo/host and AFAIK that's without ads and
it even includes some sort of flat rate phone deal for one country?

... You could save some money by
hosting your own web conference server on a server farm using either a
rented server or a virtual server. Install someones conference
reflector software and watch your bandwidth usage. Some service
providers offer unlimited monthly bandwidth, so this might actually
work until they throttle you (to protect their services):


Amazing.

Well, at least three of us have served, maybe that's why :)

Just had two back-to-back conferences. One started exactly on the hour,
the other about three minutes late because there was a last minute
change in venue and an impending fire drill at one location.

EMC compliance tweaking? I can see where a live conference would be
useful for that. I do much the same thing over the (VoIP) telephone
with a copy of the layout and schematic (delivered via Dropbox) on the
screen. No need to see talking heads in order to get that done. ...


I never need to see heads. But I do need to see the CAD screen of the
other guy live. "No, not there, take the route south of the inductor ...
yeah, right there".

... The
only problem is someone says "Move R17 over to the right slightly" and
I spend 5 minutes trying to just find R17 on the PCB. Yeah, real time
might be worthwhile, but I still contend that it can be done
effectively without the expense and bandwidth requirements of real
time video conferencing.

It really can't in some of my cases. Online you find R17 in one second
because the other guy's cursor hovers above it. And formulating an
alternative routing strategy that you can execute in 15 seconds online
can easily take 15 minutes of back-and-forth emails or doc exchanges.

If I find anything useful or interesting, I'll send it your way.

Please do. I really have to find a service that works and won't break
the bank.
 
Folks,



Looking for a good, simple web meeting service for a startup company.

Skype and Webex are out, mostly because of IMHO sub-par SW quality and

unhappiness with support. Requirements:


You should check out FuzeBox. http://www.fuzebox.com they work great on mobile and don't require Java. They tweet under @fuzebox and have great customer service!
Hope this helps
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not really when you consider the alternative of having the entire
machine roll over and die at the first sign of a minor error. I would
prefer it would limp along as best it can, even with a big chunk of
RAm permanently allocated to a dead process, than a panic and reboot.
A good analogy would be having a blow out in one tire on a vehicle. I
would much prefer to have the car continue to roll on 3 wheels than to
have the car quit just because one tire is gone.

what if it's the oil filter that blows out?
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Have you actually asked users what they want? ...


Yes. That used to be part of my job especially in the med biz. It is
still my job in self-employment. One of the questions on my list for the
first architecture meeting is about error indicators.

... I was thinking very
much along your line of thinking, until I decided to actually ask.
What I got was what I described. Most users don't want to see
anything if the program barfs. They just want it to work and consider
an error message a sign of failure. ...


Because they usually are :)

... Incidentally, the more detailed
the error message and remedial instructions, the bigger the failure.
While this is admittedly overly simplified thinking, it's one of the
major reasons that both MS and Apple have dumbed down their error
messages. Elaborate error messages scare the hell out of the GUM
(great unwashed masses).

The effect of such dumbing down is often a backfiring. Grandson tries to
fix aunt Brunhilde's computer, sees numerous meaningless error messages,
says to her that the software (or the whole computer) is junk and she
should return it for a refund, then get one that works. No joke, this
has happened in our neighborhood. The whole computer was returned and
they bought a new one, which successfully connected them to the Internet
(that's all they wanted).

Some programs actually do that. It doesn't seem to work, as nobody
seems to be interested in helping the software authors fix what is
perceived to be *THEIR* problems. Even "click here to send debugging
mumbo-jumbo to the developers" tends to get minimal responses. What
seems to work is checking a box during installation that indicates
that you approve of sending debugging junk to the developers in order
to improve the quality of their product. Expecting users to do
anything helpful is wishful thinking.

I think we may live in different worlds. I (and pretty much everyone I
know) tend to call if some important or expensive piece of software
doesn't work. The service guys at the other end of the phone line often
become rather desperate when error messages are bland and
non-informative. Because then they can't diagnose. I've had them say
things like "Wow, we've never seen that one before" or exclaiming "I
can't believe this is happening!".

Not really when you consider the alternative of having the entire
machine roll over and die at the first sign of a minor error. I would
prefer it would limp along as best it can, even with a big chunk of
RAm permanently allocated to a dead process, than a panic and reboot.
A good analogy would be having a blow out in one tire on a vehicle. I
would much prefer to have the car continue to roll on 3 wheels than to
have the car quit just because one tire is gone.

Except you may get into a major crash if that blown 4th tire shreds up
and locks up some stuff that was supposed to remain moving.

Even when (and if) Oracle eventually fixes Java? It's not like Java
is going to disappear overnight.

Fixing ... trusting a fix, two very different things :)

If a web site wants Java I just move on.

What I usually do in such debates is to calculate the cost of
providing a similar service using rented bandwidth and rack space. My
guess(tm) is that depending on usage, $50 will be rather cheap for the
necessary bandwidth. Based on the numbers from:
<http://www.webex.com/pdf/wp_bandwidth.pdf>
The required bandwidth can be as high a 500Kbits/sec per session,
times two if you run full duplex video. So, what does 1Mbits/sec cost
these days? I dunno and I'm not going to dig out the cost of an
OC-192 right now (because I'm late for dinner). Maybe later.

Again, then how does Skype do it for $4.99? AFAIK that is the
non-ad-supported plan where this payment becomes the only revenue source
for them. After a year it pop to maybe arlund $10 or so, still not $50.

I'm jealous. My first guess on things that I'm intimately familiar
with is usually right. My first guess on things I know little about
is usually wrong. I can compensate for my lack of experience by
extensive reading, Googling, and simulations, all of which take time.

The challenge is to bring whatever your first guess is over to the folks
at the other location. Without live desktop sharing that can be quite
cumbersome when dealing with complicated matter (like a switcher layout).

Incoming video probably works just fine. So does audio both ways.
However, I have my doubts about the outgoing video at 128Kbits/sec.
That seems awful low outgoing bandwidth. Is that all your ISP offers
or are you being throttled due to a crappy phone line?

I'll have to call them again on this but the line to the next box is
rather long. But I do not need to broadcast a ballgame in HD, the
display of my desktop (but mostly that of others who need my advice) is
what's needed. For example, I have recently coached a team of mechanical
engineers to use an oscilloscope for the first time in their life,
diagnosing a fairly tricky timing issue across roughly 1000 miles. It
worked, and fast.

On the Skype problems, I previously posted instructions on how to rip
the monster out of the system and registry. Then reinstall from
scratch and it should (hopefully) be better.

I've done that. It no work :-(

Well, if you're desperate, you could just patch the audio from a
conference line into your computers audio system, mix well, and serve
to the rest of the participants. There are better ways to do this,
but for those that can only get a POTS or cellular voice connection,
it should be adequate.

Sure, if necessary I will do that.

I think you might find the politics interesting. Microsoft bought
Skype for $8.5 bazillion dollars without a clue as to how to sell the
service or generate a profit. I don't want to get into detail, but
VoIP profits are generated in the tiny fraction of a penny difference
between wholesale bandwidth costs and per minute charges. There are
an awfully large number of minutes involved, so the numbers can
potentially become huge. However, small mistakes can also expand into
huge dollar losses. MicroSloth hasn't learned this yet, and may be
trying to use it's traditional method of (almost) giving away the
product in the hope that the competitors will roll go broke competing
with a nearly free service. We may soon see how well that works after
MS decides to stop diluting the numbers by mixing the Skype financials
in as part of their Entertainment and Devices division numbers.

Hmm, that would explain it. But not quite, because there are other
services that MS doesn't own that offer a simlar price range. For
example, Fuzebox was pointed out by one participant in this thread and
their basci service starts at $15/mo (if you don't need mobile hosting).

I forgot about that. That's another time burner for those without
autofocus cameras. About half the time, the product is out of focus.
We do MUCH better using video from a digital camera or DSLR both of
which have autofocus.

Actually. CAD software doesn't need a DSLR camera :)

I got an Olympus PEN camera plus adapter so I can use my classic Rokkor
lenses. Works great but no auto-focus. Doing it by hand is often better
anyhow because the autofocus can't possibly know when what I want in
focus. What irks me is that such modern cameras don't have a high-pass
focus helper. It would be so easy but ...

Yep. That's one of the benefits of doing meetings in real time. I'm
just questioning whether it's worth the hassle as compared to using
email and Dropbox.

Dropbox is nice but too slow for that. Went through this very exercise
yesterday around 10:30am. The file was 12MB so we had to discuss the
next topic and then go back once it had made it into the PDF reader of
all the others.

Good, supported, cheap. Pick any two.

Doesn't have to be cheap. $50/mo is ok, but should allow switching
saddles with the host account holder because of frequent travel. We
can't buy four accounts at a grand total of $200/mo just because of
that. At least not in this start-up phase.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
what if it's the oil filter that blows out?

Overpressure bypass valve activation due to a clogged filter or total
oil pressure failure? You can go quite a while on dirty oil. You
won't get very far with no oil.[1]

It's also a single point of failure. They should have designed in
some redundancy or a backup system as in aircraft. Rolling to a stop
due to lack of oil pressure is not a tragedy. ...


That depends. Had that happen in front of me except it was your example
of a blown tire. Happily motoring eastbound on the San Francisco Bay
Bridge ... *KAPOW* ... now where the heck did that come from ... saw the
little Chevy Aveo in front of me swerving a bit, then stopping. There
are _no_ emergency lanes and San Franciscans always seem to be in a
hurry. Woman stepped out, me too, tire had begun to shred dangerously.
There was no way she could get to safety across the bridge with that.
She looked scared. We had to cross five lanes of traffic (with very
impatient city drivers) to get off the left-turn exit onto Treasure Island.

That was one of the most scary moments I ever had on an Interstate.

[...]
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jeff said:
Not really when you consider the alternative of having the entire
machine roll over and die at the first sign of a minor error. I would
prefer it would limp along as best it can, even with a big chunk of
RAm permanently allocated to a dead process, than a panic and reboot.
A good analogy would be having a blow out in one tire on a vehicle. I
would much prefer to have the car continue to roll on 3 wheels than to
have the car quit just because one tire is gone.
what if it's the oil filter that blows out?
Overpressure bypass valve activation due to a clogged filter or total
oil pressure failure? You can go quite a while on dirty oil. You
won't get very far with no oil.[1]

It's also a single point of failure. They should have designed in
some redundancy or a backup system as in aircraft. Rolling to a stop
due to lack of oil pressure is not a tragedy. ...

That depends. Had that happen in front of me except it was your example
of a blown tire. Happily motoring eastbound on the San Francisco Bay
Bridge ... *KAPOW* ... now where the heck did that come from ... saw the
little Chevy Aveo in front of me swerving a bit, then stopping. There
are _no_ emergency lanes and San Franciscans always seem to be in a
hurry. Woman stepped out, me too, tire had begun to shred dangerously.
There was no way she could get to safety across the bridge with that.
She looked scared. We had to cross five lanes of traffic (with very
impatient city drivers) to get off the left-turn exit onto Treasure Island.

That was one of the most scary moments I ever had on an Interstate.

[...]

Don't fret, Jake, it's Californica ;-)

No breakdown lanes???

Not on the Bay Bridge. The new span has some AFAIR but this was on the
old part that hasn't been replaced yet.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jim said:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Not really when you consider the alternative of having the entire
machine roll over and die at the first sign of a minor error. I would
prefer it would limp along as best it can, even with a big chunk of
RAm permanently allocated to a dead process, than a panic and reboot.
A good analogy would be having a blow out in one tire on a vehicle. I
would much prefer to have the car continue to roll on 3 wheels than to
have the car quit just because one tire is gone.
what if it's the oil filter that blows out?
Overpressure bypass valve activation due to a clogged filter or total
oil pressure failure? You can go quite a while on dirty oil. You
won't get very far with no oil.[1]

It's also a single point of failure. They should have designed in
some redundancy or a backup system as in aircraft. Rolling to a stop
due to lack of oil pressure is not a tragedy. ...
That depends. Had that happen in front of me except it was your example
of a blown tire. Happily motoring eastbound on the San Francisco Bay
Bridge ... *KAPOW* ... now where the heck did that come from ... saw the
little Chevy Aveo in front of me swerving a bit, then stopping. There
are _no_ emergency lanes and San Franciscans always seem to be in a
hurry. Woman stepped out, me too, tire had begun to shred dangerously.
There was no way she could get to safety across the bridge with that.
She looked scared. We had to cross five lanes of traffic (with very
impatient city drivers) to get off the left-turn exit onto Treasure Island.

That was one of the most scary moments I ever had on an Interstate.

[...]
Don't fret, Jake, it's Californica ;-)

No breakdown lanes???
Not on the Bay Bridge. The new span has some AFAIR but this was on the
old part that hasn't been replaced yet.

I thought breakdown lanes were a requirement to get Federal Interstate
funds?

On bridges, too? AFAIR the old span of the (long) Carquinez Bridge
doesn't have them either.

Aha! Californica prefers to tax their own >:-}

You have to pay between $4-$6 at each bridge depending on time of day,
but usually only in one direction. Incomes in the Bay Area must be
pretty high because commuting is so expensive. Anyhow, no ten horses
will get me to live there.
 
Top