4 ms·

I genuinely don't understand what the author is trying to say. It seems like their thesis is this: > Wifi (and bluetooth, etc.) sucker you in by making it seem

I genuinely don't understand what the author is trying to say. It seems like their thesis is this: > Wifi (and bluetooth, etc.) sucker you in by making it seem like they “just work.” But if you investigate, you’ll often find that the wireless link is operating in a degraded state that performs much worse than a wired equivalent. Wireless technologies are founded on exchanging the convenience of wirelessness for reduced performance and reliability. There's no "gotcha." That's the whole idea. Maybe that trade isn't for you, but it's not a secret. If you take any course on physical networks, they go over the advantages of not sharing the medium. As for the hellishly complicated tech stack that is bluetooth...sure. I don't think it's because bluetooth is wireless. We've had regular articles here on the total mess that is UBC-C[1]. Wired standards are not free from complex protocols and error-filled implementations. All things being equal I imagine that wireless protocols will tend to be worse - but all things are frequently not equal. There are no free lunches and wireless technology trades performance for convenience. I myself have some wired devices and some wireless devices and am quite happy with the result. Edit: This feels like saying "Phones sucker into making you think they're a computer. But if you investigate, you'll often find that they have less processing power than many other computers!" [1] From 15 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23435805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23435805

cbsmith 6y ago
There's also the reality that USB isn't really that much less of a mess than Bluetooth. With Bluetooth you have interoperability problems between the controller and the target device. With USB, you have that + the interoperability of the cable.. and it's a mess. USB does overall work better than Bluetooth, but the problems he's highlighting in the article very much exist in the wired space (including the device polling screwing up latency).
0x8BADF00D 6y ago
His beef is with broken network and BT stacks, I suspect. Not with the actual underlying standards.
sbierwagen 6y ago
>There's no "gotcha." That's the whole idea. Strange. I have closely inspected the box my wifi router came in, and I so far have failed to find "This is worse than wired ethernet" printed anywhere on it. Perhaps you could show me a single wifi AP, anywhere, where the ad copy says anything even remotely close to that.
- aeturnum 6y ago
  I think most routers promote how their wireless technology is different than older models (since that's what might cause users to buy a new router). But, for example, the Netgear Nighthawk[1] page spends a lot of ink advertising that it offers 1300+600 mb networking (whatever that means) and also notes that it offers 5 1000mb ethernet ports. Even without an understanding of the details of a common medium, 5000mb wired capacity is greater than 1900mb wireless. [1]https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-routers/R7000.aspx https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-router...
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    It advertises that it's faster, not that it's more reliable. A reasonable customer might extend their experience with other objects and conclude the faster mode is less reliable. A F1 car destroys its tires in hours, while wheels on a commuter car last for years, an overclocked processor is less stable than one at stock frequency, supersonic jet fighters kill their passengers at a rate thousands of times higher than subsonic commercial airflight, etc. Understanding that ethernet is entirely different from wifi requires... domain expertise! The exact thing a Best Buy customer won't have. >5000mb wired capacity A suspicious man might note that switching capacity isn't stated on that page, is not mentioned at all in the manual, and is the exact thing a manufacturer would be tempted to cut corners on, since vanishingly few customers will attempt multiple simultaneous network transfers in a home LAN. A normal consumer would never notice a switch capacity higher than 1 gigabit.
intopieces 6y ago
>Wired standards are not free from complex protocols and error-filled implementations. Sure, but once you figure it out for the set of devices you are using, that's it! It just works until it breaks for good. Wireless stuff... not so much. One day it works, the next it doesn't.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > It just works until it breaks for good. ...or until you move furniture around and then need a connection over here instead of over there.
- InfiniteRand 6y ago
  For certain devices like headsets, even the wired ones I find randomly stop working, I am sure it is not purely random but typically due to opening up X, Y, and Z programs In a certain order. Issue resolved with restarting but that can be pretty disruptive in the middle of a work day.
edanm 6y ago
> Wireless technologies are founded on exchanging the convenience of wirelessness for reduced performance and reliability. There's no "gotcha." That's the whole idea. Maybe that trade isn't for you, but it's not a secret. If you take any course on physical networks, they go over the advantages of not sharing the medium. [Emphasis added] I mean, yes, if you think the OP is addressing the article to people who have taken courses on networking, then maybe the article isn't saying anything interesting. If you read it as trying to make people who don't know this more aware of the tradeoff they're making, it makes a lot of sense. My guess is that very few people understand how much better wired is over wireless, or in which situations (I know that I don't always think of it, and I have lots of experience in networking).

cbsmith 6y ago

There's also the reality that USB isn't really that much less of a mess than Bluetooth. With Bluetooth you have interoperability problems between the controller and the target device. With USB, you have that + the interoperability of the cable.. and it's a mess. USB does overall work better than Bluetooth, but the problems he's highlighting in the article very much exist in the wired space (including the device polling screwing up latency).

0x8BADF00D 6y ago

His beef is with broken network and BT stacks, I suspect. Not with the actual underlying standards.

sbierwagen 6y ago

>There's no "gotcha." That's the whole idea. Strange. I have closely inspected the box my wifi router came in, and I so far have failed to find "This is worse than wired ethernet" printed anywhere on it. Perhaps you could show me a single wifi AP, anywhere, where the ad copy says anything even remotely close to that.

aeturnum 6y ago
I think most routers promote how their wireless technology is different than older models (since that's what might cause users to buy a new router). But, for example, the Netgear Nighthawk[1] page spends a lot of ink advertising that it offers 1300+600 mb networking (whatever that means) and also notes that it offers 5 1000mb ethernet ports. Even without an understanding of the details of a common medium, 5000mb wired capacity is greater than 1900mb wireless. [1]https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-routers/R7000.aspx https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-router...
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  It advertises that it's faster, not that it's more reliable. A reasonable customer might extend their experience with other objects and conclude the faster mode is less reliable. A F1 car destroys its tires in hours, while wheels on a commuter car last for years, an overclocked processor is less stable than one at stock frequency, supersonic jet fighters kill their passengers at a rate thousands of times higher than subsonic commercial airflight, etc. Understanding that ethernet is entirely different from wifi requires... domain expertise! The exact thing a Best Buy customer won't have. >5000mb wired capacity A suspicious man might note that switching capacity isn't stated on that page, is not mentioned at all in the manual, and is the exact thing a manufacturer would be tempted to cut corners on, since vanishingly few customers will attempt multiple simultaneous network transfers in a home LAN. A normal consumer would never notice a switch capacity higher than 1 gigabit.

intopieces 6y ago

>Wired standards are not free from complex protocols and error-filled implementations. Sure, but once you figure it out for the set of devices you are using, that's it! It just works until it breaks for good. Wireless stuff... not so much. One day it works, the next it doesn't.

crooked-v 6y ago
> It just works until it breaks for good. ...or until you move furniture around and then need a connection over here instead of over there.
InfiniteRand 6y ago
For certain devices like headsets, even the wired ones I find randomly stop working, I am sure it is not purely random but typically due to opening up X, Y, and Z programs In a certain order. Issue resolved with restarting but that can be pretty disruptive in the middle of a work day.

edanm 6y ago

> Wireless technologies are founded on exchanging the convenience of wirelessness for reduced performance and reliability. There's no "gotcha." That's the whole idea. Maybe that trade isn't for you, but it's not a secret. If you take any course on physical networks, they go over the advantages of not sharing the medium. [Emphasis added] I mean, yes, if you think the OP is addressing the article to people who have taken courses on networking, then maybe the article isn't saying anything interesting. If you read it as trying to make people who don't know this more aware of the tradeoff they're making, it makes a lot of sense. My guess is that very few people understand how much better wired is over wireless, or in which situations (I know that I don't always think of it, and I have lots of experience in networking).