Why doesn't /g/ ever talk about networking?

Because talking about shit like 802.1X auth, BGP, GLBP and L2/L3 confuses the normies who only know how to smash parts of hardware together to make a somewhat functioning endpoint.

because everyone here are fucking /v/ toddlers who only care about their gaymes

>>58343833
Because most of /g/ is anti social and talking with people is for faggot nu-males.

>>58343833
because i only know how to start sentences with because

>>58343859
That's true but people still talk about muh code.

Perhaps talking about devising subnetting schemes and implementing OSPF isn't cool like coding is (bc zogbook).

Because networking is really, really fucking boring.

>>58343947
W-WRONG

>>58343833
I'm looking for a way to create an ATM/MPLS like scapy parser.

I'm looking for advice since I can't find a way to create a N-to1 or 1-to-N layer kind of scapy parser.

>>58343931
That or the barrier to getting into programming is downloading an IDE and thinking up different ways to make "Hello World" pop up in a dialog box, meanwhile to get into any decent level of networking you have to invest a decent amount of money into hardware just for starting out.

File: SyscoTruck.jpg (45KB, 600x370px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x370px

>>58343833
What kind of networking equipment is this?

>>58343833
>Why doesn't /g/ ever talk about networking?
Wanna talk networking?

Okay, ask someone who's submitted a patch to the Linux kernel modifying the TCP output engine to bundle previously sent segments into new segments scheduled for retransmission anything

File: Screenshot_20170105_142813.png (40KB, 1919x347px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1919x347px

>>58343833
Networking itself is rather boring once it's all set up. I have some UTMs at the house that work ok. They are decent at being a UTM but doesn't have many of the features that pfsense does.

Well I guess this is why we never have networking threads, they just die because nobody posts in them.