Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
It's funny.  Laugh. Operating Systems Software The Internet Windows

Vista Bug Costs Users In Swedish Town Their Internet 644

Lund, Sweden refuses to work around a Vista bug, so people who live there must choose between Vista and internet access. It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Bug Costs Users In Swedish Town Their Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by Nero Nimbus ( 1104415 ) on Saturday September 01, 2007 @09:28AM (#20433153)
    Is if the city offered free Ubuntu CDs as "Windows Upgrades."
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, 2007 @11:46AM (#20433965)

      Ubuntu is an upgrade from XP and Vista.

      Keep that shoe on the other foot for just a little longer. Imagine them having "support scripts" that travel through a KDE interface instead of Outlook Express or IE. Imagine them requiring Ubunto to install your access. In short, imagine all of the "standardization" Windoze enjoys being flipped on you.

      In the free software world, users can edit a few well annotated text files to get the job done if they are given the proper information. That task is harder in Windoze because you must dig through several GUIs that don't tell you what to ask for in advance or ever.

      It's a shame that ACs can post with more points and more frequently than Twitter.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by phillips321 ( 955784 )
        Why can't they just download the CD?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by operagost ( 62405 )

        In the free software world, users can edit a few well annotated text files to get the job done if they are given the proper information. That task is harder in Windoze because you must dig through several GUIs that don't tell you what to ask for in advance or ever.

        Those text files are byzantine and subject to total failure, should one character be out of place. Have you ever tried to walk someone through typing in commands over the phone? Listing every letter using the international alphabet... excep

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:21AM (#20440931) Homepage
    Their internet is b0rked?
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:29AM (#20441029) Journal

      Their internet is b0rked?
      No, it's b0rk-b0rk-b0rked!
    • Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)

      by geobeck ( 924637 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @01:21PM (#20443057) Homepage

      Their internet is b0rked?

      It was bitten by a m00se.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jemtallon ( 1125407 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @02:01PM (#20443495) Journal
      My company ran into this as well. We have 4000 wireless customers spread out on 20+ antennas (each with its own Cisco switch). We're a Microsoft partner so we contacted them about the problem right away.

      As I understood it, the bug was this: Vista will only accept broadcast replies to DHCP requests. Any multicast response is discarded for security reasons (!?). So their solution was to put a DHCP server on every level of our network (for us, one for every 200 users) or switch to a network that relayed the broadcasted replies (ie: hubs). They also told us it wasn't a bug so they wouldn't issue a patch to correct it. There was a KB article on the issue but when we had users call MS support and ask them to walk them through applying it, we got a bunch of angry calls back to us saying MS refused to help them with it. We also talked to Cisco a bit to see if they had any idea what we could do to relay the broadcast but they never got us a solution.

      So in the end, we told MS that we'd either need a better way to fix this or we'd just tell our users not to use Vista. They seemed okay with us telling users not to use it so we have. A few of our users still use Vista with a home router and that seems to work alright. Luckily, there aren't too many Vista users yet and when faced with the option of buying and configuring a router or buying and configuring Windows XP, they've decided on XP. So all in all, it wasn't that big of a deal.

      Jem Tallon
  • router (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:26AM (#20440977) Homepage
    Wouldn't using a router to connect to the internet bypass the bug?
  • by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:27AM (#20440997) Journal

    "..between Vista and internet access."

    Fucking tricky one, eh?

    Like choosing between an anal probe and a cream bun.

  • by Wilson_6500 ( 896824 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:29AM (#20441031)
    If this happened in my town--and if I were using Vista--I'd be pretty damn unhappy. Usually a story is funny because someone got what they deserved in a particularly humorous way, or because someone subjectively considered evil takes it in the pants. Here I see a bunch of people getting shafted by two corporations that don't want to play nice, and this perhaps for the crime of simply owning a new computer.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:45AM (#20441233)
      It's funny because normally it's Linux users who are unable to connect to the internet because only Windows is supported (even when Linux behaves and Windows does not) - for example look at most wireless broadband services.

      Now it's happening to someone else it's a big deal that should have been fixed? Well they can start by fixing all the stuff that has been broken longer that no one gave a shit about.
    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      In the same way that for years one could not get cheap DSL, or DSL at all in some places, unless on was running ms windows. If one were smart enough, as in this case, one could hack hack around it.

      The truly sad part is that many of these services were limited to MS windows platforms as other platforms would not allow the installation of the spyware. If such a thing happened in my town I would likely to what the service providers, and some web sites, still say to do. Buy a machine that works.

  • Tests? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El Lobo ( 994537 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:30AM (#20441049)
    The university I work for in Sweden began testing with Vista when it was the called Longhorn. We discovered some bugs with the communication between Vista and some of our servers (running Solaris) back in 2004. The bug repports were submited to MS back then and the thing was fixed on the next Longhorn beta "release". It seems it's easier for some not to test and cry out like a baby when it's too late.
    • Um...flamebait? Wha?
  • by yuna49 ( 905461 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:31AM (#20441063)
    The problem as reported is that the Vista DHCP client fails to obtain an address from Linux servers running (I'd presume) ISC dhcpd.

    When I bought a laptop recently it came with Vista. When I connected it to my network it failed to obtain an address. I assumed there was some misconfiguration problem I was missing, Turns out it's a fundamental difference between the DHCP client in Vista and the one in prior versions of Windows. See this item from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us [microsoft.com].

    The version of dhcpd I'm using is an old one (2.0). I thought about upgrading it to see if that would solve the problem, but since I wasn't planning on keeping Vista on the laptop, I didn't bother upgrading. All our other machines run Linux and don't have this problem.

    I wonder what decision will be made in enterprises running Linux DHCP servers that introduce Vista into the workplace. Will they follow the Microsoft KB item above and "fix" the problem on every new Vista box they buy? Or will the replace the Linux DHCP box with Windows Server?

    • by click2005 ( 921437 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:03AM (#20441443)
      RFC2131 states:
            A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
            software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
            BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
            DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
            provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
            any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can
            receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been
            configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.

      RFC1542 States

      3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag

            Normally, BOOTP servers and relay agents attempt to deliver BOOTREPLY
            messages directly to a client using unicast delivery. The IP
            destination address (in the IP header) is set to the BOOTP 'yiaddr'
            address and the link-layer destination address is set to the BOOTP
            'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some client implementations are
            unable to receive such unicast IP datagrams until they know their own
            IP address (thus we have a "chicken and egg" issue). Often, however,
            they can receive broadcast IP datagrams (those with a valid IP
            broadcast address as the IP destination and the link-layer broadcast
            address as the link-layer destination).

            If a client falls into this category, it SHOULD set (to 1) the
            newly-defined BROADCAST flag in the 'flags' field of BOOTREPLY
            messages it generates. This will provide a hint to BOOTP servers and
            relay agents that they should attempt to broadcast their BOOTREPLY
            messages to the client.

            If a client does not have this limitation (i.e., it is perfectly able
            to receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages), it SHOULD NOT set the
            BROADCAST flag (i.e., it SHOULD clear the BROADCAST flag to 0).


                        This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
                        implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
                        that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
                        use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
                        this mechanism is discouraged.

      If XP can receive unicast IP datagrams. why cant Vista? Either MS broke Vista or the TCP/IP stack is less functional than before. Either way, use of the broadcast flag is discouraged.
    • by golodh ( 893453 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:10AM (#20441519)
      The Microsoft article you reference notes that the whole problem is caused by a single flag (the DHCP BROADCAST) that Vista sets and previous Windows versions didn't. The article also contains the following quick and easy solution:


      Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.

      To resolve this issue, disable the DHCP BROADCAST flag in Windows Vista. To do this, follow these steps:

      1. Click StartStart button, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit in the Programs list.

      User Account Control permission If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.

      2. Locate and then click the following registry subkey:
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{GUID}
      In this registry path, click the (GUID) subkey that corresponds to the network adapter that is connected to the network.

      3. On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD (32-bit) Value.

      4. In the New Value #1 box, type DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then press ENTER.

      5. Right-click DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then click Modify.

      6. In the Value data box, type 1, and then click OK.

      7. Close Registry Editor.

      So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom. Nonetheless, Vista *can* cooperate, it just needs to be told not to raise the DHCP BROADCAST flag. And yes, that route goes via a registry modification.

      In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.

      • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:20AM (#20441639)

        So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom.

        And counter to Microsoft's last 4 operating systems.

        They got it right back in 1995 (12 years ago) ... and they're changing it now.

        In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.

        Nope. Just another example of how Microsoft does not care about published standards. Their DHCP services can handle it so why should they spend any time understanding the standard that the rest of the world follows?

        After all, everyone else will probably change to support Microsoft's weird implementation. Who cares about the problems that the users have in the meantime? If Microsoft is lucky, no one will be able to explain the problem in terms those users could understand and the rest of the world will be blamed for the problems when it is Microsoft who is not following the published standard.
      • by oliderid ( 710055 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @12:06PM (#20442165) Journal
        It almost sounds like a Linux "A feature not a bug"(tm) :-).

        Of course there is no bug! You just have to open /etc/thisdamnconfigfile.conf with vi.
        change the "DearGodPleaseMakeSureIWillBreakNothing" flag to 0
        Close the file. Kill the daemon and restart it.

        In the real world:
        Oh my God how does this text editor work? Insert not Delete! How do I save eh? :q!? What's the? Stop Editing!

        kill thedaemon
        daemon restart

        Error line 26458: : unrecognized command ":q! :forcequit :DearMisterViIreallyWantToLeaveYou :letmeoutyoupervert! :helpVItrappedme man vi reboot Emacs"

  • Lund is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Albert Sandberg ( 315235 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:31AM (#20441067) Homepage
    .. actually the city in sweden with most students per capita, since lund university is located there. If anyone is willing to adopt to linux or just bash windows it's young people. This is probably a big issue down there but so far I haven't heard anything about this over here, and I'm about 150km away.
    • So, for the densest concentration of Swedish students in the country, their perception of Vista is "broken/doesn't work/incompatible." That's a serious problem! There's no telling how many future sales this will prevent both among current consumers and future sales, when these students will be out of university and in corporations where they'll influence (and eventually become) decisionmakers. Besides, how much time/money was (and is being) spent to deal with this bug?

      Hey MSFT, what's the Total Cost of Owne
  • Not a Vista bug (Score:2, Informative)

    by figleaf ( 672550 )
    Vista sets the DHCP BROADCAST flag.
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3 [microsoft.com]

    This is in compliance with DHCP standards.

    Ofcourse the incompetent Admins will blame Vista and not fix the router software.
    • Re:Not a Vista bug (Score:5, Informative)

      by JoeCommodore ( 567479 ) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:53AM (#20441311) Homepage
      From : http://www.dhcp-handbook.com/dhcp_faq.html#wisrb [dhcp-handbook.com]

      "Which implementations support or require the broadcast flag?
      The broadcast flag is an optional element of DHCP, but a client which sets it works only with a server or relay that supports it.

      Microsoft Windows NT
      DHCP client support added with version 3.5 sets the broadcast flag. Version 3.51 and later no longer set it. The exception is in the remote access support: it sets the flag when it uses DHCP to acquire addresses to hand out to its PPP clients.
      tcp/ip-32 for Microsoft Windows for Workgroups (WFW)
      Version 3.11a sets it, but version 3.11B doesn't.
      Microsoft Windows 95
      Does not set the broadcast flag."

      So, I guess Vista only works with Servers that support it and it was an option to implemant it. End of Story.
    • From RFC2131 [faqs.org]

      A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol
      software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the
      BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or
      DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will
      provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast
      any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that c
    • Re:Not a Vista bug (Score:5, Informative)

      by ei4anb ( 625481 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:05AM (#20441447)
      Vista is only compliant to the RFCs if it is legacy code :-)
      RFC 1542 sayeth
      3.1.1 The BROADCAST flag [...] This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of this mechanism is discouraged.
  • It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.

    Nice bit of flamebait there.

    Yeah, I know it's /. , so the majority of folks will be going "HAHA ST00P1D MICRO$OFT LUSERS PWNED LOLZ!1!!eleventyone!"

    Once everybody gets that out of their system, IMHO Lundis Energi is really being a bunch of assholes, and I have no sympathy for them, as it makes them seem like a company run by a bunch of 15-year-olds who've just discovered Ubuntu.

    They find a bug (or rather, the users did) in new
    • by Cytlid ( 95255 )
      You actually have a fantastic point. (Sorry out of mod points). One would tend to think that Linux aficionado would take the moral high road and promote cooperation. By acting in this way and pointing fingers, aren't they kinda missing the point?
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:03AM (#20441437)
      Indeed. Those of us who RTFA know that Microsoft has asked for details which the town refuses to give. I'm sure now that MS will get the details from the IT community, since we are pretty insane about finding and exposing bugs, but to complain the MS won't do anything and at the same time refuse to give them the necessary information... That's not idiotic, that's asshole.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ant P. ( 974313 )

      how in the hell is Lundis Energi so sure it's not a bug on their software?
      Easy. It's not their software. It's an off-the-shelf industry standard program.
    • by Zombywuf ( 1064778 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:19AM (#20441631)
      Microsoft know exactly what the problem is, and know exactly how to fix it. They are being deceptive in their claim that they're not doing anything because Lundis are not cooperating. The bug is that they have decided to implement a legacy feature in DHCP, one that servers are not required to support, as being on by default in Vista. This was a legacy feature in 93, so there's no need for it to be on by default. In fact, the standard which specifies the flag states that the flag is for cases where you have no choice but to use it. The fact that it can be turned off in Vista shows this is not the case.

      There are also reports that Cisco equipment won't work with it either.
  • by mikael_j ( 106439 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:34AM (#20441107)

    I do tech support and when Internet Explorer 7 came out we noticed that it didn't really get along with the NAT routers we send out to our customers (they sometimes need to do a very very small amount of configuring), I'm not entirely certain of what the problem is but there is no problem with IE5/6, FF, Safari, Opera or even links, but IE7 is a no-go. It took the manufacturer a good three months to come up with a new firmware that addressed the problem, and until then we had to teach hundreds/thousands of customers how to use telnet (and how to install it if they were running Vista, the telnet client is disabled by default). Good times...

    Oh well, at least it's not Windows 9x, I have to give MS some credit for eventually killing off all support for that branch as our superiors decided that since MS no longer supported 95/98/ME in any way then neither should we. :-)


  • What is the bug? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:35AM (#20441119) Homepage
    "It doesn't work" has never been a useful comment.
    Also, I don't see why an ISP should test every OS version to check if it's compatible with their network. I thought we all used the TCP/IP standard for internet stuff. And if Vista had a broken TCP/IP implementation, then why is this the first report about this? What makes this ISPs infrastructure so different?
    • The only thing I can think of is the ISP might have an incompatibility with the new per-connection recieve window autotuning that Vista does. I can't really think of why this would affect an ISP's routers though - really I've only heard of it affecting some older consumer routers that didn't support it.
  • One, relatively strong Monopoly (Microsoft) gets screwed in a small town by another absolute monopoly. Think about it, they are the only ISP, so they are a monopoly and they are using that to damage a company in a completely separate market. Anyone who makes out that this is good is completely wrong, just because someone isn't Microsoft doesn't mean its a good thing that they screw over the consumers.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kriss ( 4837 )
      One, relatively strong Monopoly (Microsoft) gets screwed in a small town by another absolute monopoly.

      Ah, no, sorry, welcome to Sweden. I know things work a bit differently in the states, but we actually got competition.

      Lunds energi drop fiber along with their heating pipes and sell net access over that. Other than that, you'd have at least four different DSL providers plus net over CATV. Chances are that you'd actually have another 100Mbit ethernet provider over in Lund on top of that.

      Lunds energi is defin
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rolfc ( 842110 )
      They are not a monopoly and their prices are not too bad

      Monthly fee

      contract 1 year 3 year 5 year
      100 Mbit/s 349 kr 329 kr 299 kr
      10 Mbit/s 199 kr 179 kr 159 kr
      Taxes included.
      7 SEK = 1 $
  • by chasingsol ( 743706 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:44AM (#20441209)
    I'm using a couple of Vista boxes on my local LAN with a home brewed CentOS router running ISC dhcpd 3.0.5. No problems with obtaining an IP address at all. Sounds like the flaming is misguided this time for a change. Perhaps Lund is using an ancient version of dhcpd?
  • Lost in translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hoppelainen ( 969375 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:44AM (#20441217)
    Both of the english articles listed in this slashdot-post says that Lundis Energi has no desire to do anything. However, in a Swedish newspaper http://www.metro.se/se/article/2007/08/28/14/2423- 48/index.xml [metro.se] they say: "Our technicians are looking in the matter to see what we can do but it is mainly up to Microsoft to fix this issue" /Åsa Holmander, product manager at Lundis Energi (rough translation)
  • by davidc ( 91400 ) <cdpuffNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 02, 2007 @10:48AM (#20441267)
    This is another example of how Vista has better security than previous Windows releases. It won't let you connect to the internet, by design. Another problem solved!
  • by topham ( 32406 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:07AM (#20441471) Homepage

    Bad news guys; Microsoft isn't the one with a bug causing the problem. Poor implementation yes, bug no.

    For some bizarre reason Vista expects the address returned from the DHCP server to be broadcast, instead of sent via unicast packet. This is permitted in the specs and supporting the broadcast flag on the server is suggested. ("SHOULD", not "MUST" in the spec.).

    When researching this I found 2 network types which required this, Infinibad and 1394 (Firewire). It looks to me like Microsoft picked the one which would (theoretically atleast) work on all network types, instead of only on a few.

    Of course, this is a typical bad decision as it means that responses from a DHCP server with a lot of Vista clients will flood the network with broadcast responses, but hey, they arent know for making good decisions.

  • The very pithy Inquirer article says:

    he reason is because Lund is a Linux city which has a a Linux server that doesn't like Vista.

    This implies that it's Vista refusing to interoperate with Linux, which obviously would play into story submitter twitter [slashdot.org]'s frequently-espoused odd Microsoft conspiracy theories. In actual fact, it's a recognised bug [microsoft.com] acknowledged by Microsoft as being due to old routers or DHCP servers which do not support the DHCP broadcast flag (a formal part of the DHCP RFC standard).


    • Every one of the DHCP servers in the world, on every OS whether embedded or multi-purpose should be audited and downgraded (yes, this is a downgrade to a deprecated method) or replaced with obsolete equipment.

      This should be done because Microsoft's Vista network programming team could not be troubled to code in something like "If DHCP request using deprecated method times out, retry with the standard method."

      And no copying my idea. That's valuable Intellectual Property there.

  • by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @11:14AM (#20441551) Homepage

    It's nice to see the right people being held accountable for a change.

    From the article, even in Swedish, it makes it clear that the town doesn't want to cooperate with Microsoft on providing data for the bugfix. The accountable party here, then, is the town internet provider and not Microsoft.

    [Town]: Our internets doesn't work with Vista
    [Microsoft]: Okay, do you have any data on why not?
    [Town]: no but it's your fault, fix it!?!?
    [Microsoft]: Well, what's even a short description of the problem? Side effects? Can your Linux server be changed to alleviate it in the meantime?

    Yeah, all Microsoft's fault. If this was on Mozilla or Novell or Linux bugzillas it would have been closed as "irrelevant".
  • Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @12:59PM (#20442773)
    Right people here are discussing RCFs and wonder what is going on, well I live in Lund and here is my take on what has happened:

    a)Per the RFC servers do not need to implement the broadcast flag, but it is a good idea if you want to support systems that use it.

    b)Per RFC Vista doesn't need to clear the broadcast bit, but it is strongly recommended and setting it is intended for legacy clients only.

    c)Lund's energi's network doesn't support the broadcast and thus Vista machines do not get an IP over DHCP since they set the broadcast bit.

    d)For reasons we don't yet know, Lund energi won't implement a workaround on their server. I don't know enough about DHCP or their systems to tell why, so I guess there might be a technical issue or perhaps they are just being jerks.

    e)The fix is to set a registry key, which is easy for technical users, but a pain for those who don't know about it.

    My judgement is that Lund's energi has a shitty DHCP server and Vista is a shitty DHCP client. Since the fix is so simple ( adding a registry key ) this really ought to be a non-issue, but because Microsoft and Lund's energi are both incompetent crappy companies the end user is left with a problem that would actually be rather easy to resolve. Those in the know can work around it, but non-technical users are left without service while those responsible point the finger at one another. The sad thing is that this really isn't particularly surprising. Hmm, did I forget something? Oh yea, the article summary is wrong since there are scores of ISPs in Lund, and this only affects one of them. So yea, I'm not very surprised at all...
  • by AaronW ( 33736 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @02:38PM (#20443879) Homepage
    From my understanding of the problem, Microsoft is no longer supporting the unicast response for DHCP like it did previously, even though that is the recommended way to do this. While Microsoft's implementation is valid (though not recommended), I can see why the ISP doesn't want to honor it. If a lot of Vista subscribers start doing this, there could potentially be a lot of broadcast packets. I.e. each time a Vista user connects, the DHCP server would send a broadcast response to everyone on the local subnet (which can be quite huge).

    I remember scanning the broadcast network traffic years ago on my cable modem and it was tens to hundreds of DHCP requests packets per second. If most users start running Vista then this would double the broadcast traffic.

    Broadcast should be avoided unless absolutely required.
  • by Absolut187 ( 816431 ) on Sunday September 02, 2007 @02:48PM (#20443987) Homepage
    This is a feature, not a bug.

    Please don't mod this funny, I am 100% serious.

    Microsoft maintains its monopoly by intentional incompatibility.

    Inter-operability = death for MS because then they would have to compete on price/quality.
  • by Tanuki64 ( 989726 ) on Monday September 03, 2007 @02:18AM (#20448971)
    It is very interesting how the ISP is blamed here. He could, he should, yada yada. M$ delivered a broken configurations and the ISP has to fix this. Generally not wrong. However, as Linux user I wonder a bit, why he should do this? I have enough examples where ISP refuse to support Linux. If it works, fine. If not, problem of the user. I never heard similar ISP blaming comments about this in any forum. More likely: "Oh yeah, Linux is the outsider, only 0.00001% of all user use it, heh heh heh."

    And how often do I hear about the superiority of Windoze. When some WiFi card does not work under Linux: Linux is not fit for the general desktop. If some WiFi card does not work under Vista: The stupid manufacturer was not able to deliver proper drivers on time.

    I begin to think the only reason that Windoze works at all is because everybody bends over for M$ and paves their path.

    Sorry, but even if those voices, which say the ISP could have acted on behalf of their customers, are right, and they are, I still deem them hypocrites.

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!