Re: is x10.com dead?

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I don't think that anyone here who runs X-10 successfully tolerates a
50/50
> chance of each command working or not.  If that's *really* the kind of
> reliability you were getting, you probably own some piece of equipment
> you've been taking around from site to site that's stepping on your X-10
> signal.

Ah, but for what this stuff is supposed to it SHOULDN'T MATTER what other
devices I'm putting on the wire!

> Hopefully you're just engaging in a little hyperbole and perhaps a
> subconcious need to justify that the system you spent so much money on was
a
> good investment.

Not hardly.  While I'd *certainly* prefer these switches didn't cost an
arm-and-a-leg, I learned to recognize the value proposition.  Switches that
have worked 100% of the time have certainly been worth the money spent.

> Bill, X-10 was designed at a time when the average home powerlines looked
> very different than they do today.  It's not realistic to expect a design
> hardened against threats that didn't exist.

Thus it seriously needs to cease being promoted.  If anything, it's
certainly not worth continued efforts to promote work-arounds.  It's dead,
let it go.

> It's just part of the double-edged sword of standards.

Proprietary hacks don't quite qualify as 'standards'.