Slashdot Mirror

That one asshole developer claims on his blog that it is "uncertain" whether or not the terms of the Windows Store are compatible with the GPLv2 and then goes on an incomprehensible rant about the App Store and Applidium (the developers of the short-lived iOS VLC app), all in the name of 'freedom'. As in beer.

So, yes, in short, he's still an asshole.

Anyone else noticed that Remlab reversed is Balmer?

That one asshole developer claims on his blog that it is "uncertain" whether or not the terms of the Windows Store are compatible with the GPLv2 and then goes on an incomprehensible rant about the App Store and Applidium (the developers of the short-lived iOS VLC app), all in the name of 'freedom'. As in beer.

So, yes, in short, he's still an asshole.

Are YOU willing to pay an extra $5/mo for IPV6

I've actually chosen an ISP that provides IPv6 (Free.fr) over a very slightly cheaper one that doesn't.

It's not that I actually need native IPv6 (Miredo works just fine), but providing native IPv6 indicates that the ISP is likely to be less clueless than its competitors when IPv4 addresses actually start running out. The assurance that they'll still be around next year is well worth the couple Euros I'm paying extra.

Free software is compatible with the AppStore. Heck, the App Store is even compatible with Open Source. This is all just the result of one whiny developer that decided he hated iOS and decided to make it his personal project to toss a low punch at both, iOS owners and MobileVLC developers by arguing over terms of use.

Rémi Denis-Courmont says he has no sympathy for no one affected by this. But what can you expect from a Nokia software engineer. Objectivity is the last thing I would expect from someone in such a position. I would like to know what is the opinion of the rest of the VLC development team.

All Unices prefer 6to4 to v4, not just Mac OS X. At least Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris do.

The real bug, of course, is not that 6to4 is preferred, it is that 6to4 is unreliable. 6to4 does not monitor its tunnels -- it just assumes that a tunnel will work if there is a global IPv4 address. Which is obviously not necessarily the case in the presence of a v4 firewall.

Do yourself a favour -- disable the 6to4 functionality on your Mac and run Miredo, a Teredo implementation for Unices.

(Some more anecdotical evidence.)

Just because there isn't a good implementation of Teredo doesn't mean free software is late with IPv6 adoption.

There's an excellent implementation of Teredo for free Unices.

However, I don't know of a single Linux or BSD distribution that enables Teredo by default, or at least makes it easily accessible to the user, unlike Windows, where Teredo is enabled as soon as an application attempts to connect to an IPv6 address.

patches are welcome more then complaining.

Please try a web search for my name (not my Slashdot nick!) and IPv6.

I live in Canada and none of the ISPs that provide internet connection to the home provide native IPv6 support. Holidaying in France the other day I found that free.fr and possibly Wanadoo/Orange provide IPv6 support. An incomplete list of Internet Service Providers providing native IPv6 is available, though it could probably be updated and as more ISPs start providing native support to their customers. DSL Reports, also has a forum dedicated to IPv6.

Myself, I have started experimenting with IPv6 simply so I can understand all the issues and be able to help out other adopters. I started using Teredo on my Mac (since it supports being behind a NAT), by means of Miredo (a nice front-end for the Mac is available here), and then moved onto Aiccu. The advantage with going using Aiccu, is that I can have an IPv6 subnet for my computers at home. Also, since I wanted to make my web server available on the IPv6 addressable net, I registered its IP address with FreeDNS, since they allow for registration of AAAA records on their servers. There are certainly other 6to4 tunnels providers, such as Freenet6, but I haven't really investigate them since I already have a solution that fits my needs.

There is a lot of feet dragging going on, partly because too many business plans rely on short term spending. The irony is that some of the companies which you expect to be leading the way in IPv6 migration don't even have web sites that are IPv6 enabled. This includes IBM, Apple, Microsoft, RedHat and Cisco. I make the point because they should be picking up the torch now that research sites have already done their part, and showing that it is an achievable goal, and not some sort of pipe-dream. /. readers at the same time, should probably get to know and understand the technology, since it is not a question of whether it will happen, but when. When it happens if the IT crowd doesn't understand IPv6, then we really have issues.

If you want to get an IPv6 web site running there are number of solutions, including using Apache 2 with IPv6 support activated and making sure you have an OS that supports an IPv6 stack - most modern OSs do.

Migration technologies for people stuck behind IPv4 NATs include Aiccu and Teredo (Vista includes this, and for other OSs there is Miredo). If you are at home, then one of the 'consumer' routers to support IPv6 out of the box is the Airport Extreme. If others support it out of the box I am not aware of this.

When you are ready see the dancing turtle - if you don't see it you are accessing it via IPv4.

Other stuff you can do in the meantime is checking to see if some your favourite network based applications handle IPv6 and if they don't make some noise. Its best to make the noise now, when it doesn't matter so much, than waiting until it does. On the bonus side they can advertise the fact they are IPv6 ready.

IPv6 is not quite there yet, with some of the popular web sites still not accessible via IPv6.

If you are stuck behind a home router, with NAT then you will probably find yourself unable to access IPv6 sites. In the meantime there are two solutions:
    - Teredo. If you have Vista this is standard. For everything else there is Miredo
    - Aiccu. A litte more work and bureaucracy to get up an running, but a solution non-the less

Of course there is also Apple's Airport Extreme, which is one of the few home routers out there that support IPv6. I believe some of the third-party firmwares will do this too, but I don't think the IPv6 support is mature. As for Linksys, D-Link, et al. I think you are out of luck for the moment.

Also, if you running Apache, you will need a minium of Apache 2 and specify IPv6 support, using the configure script, prior to building it.

If you are interested in playing with IPv6 and are behind a NAT, then Teredo provides the necessary solution. There are certainly other 6to4 solutions, but they usually fail behind a NAT or require that your local gateway lets through certain packet types. Windows Vista already supports Teredo, from what I understand, but for other platforms an implemenation is available in the form of Miredo. Its GPL licensed, for those who care.

Unless your DSL router happens to be the latest Apple Airport Extreme, chances are your DSL router is a huge bottle neck in your IPv6 experience. Most 4to6 tunneling solutions only work if you don't have any NAT going on. Microsoft came up with Teredo as one solution to dealing with IPv6 tunneling in the presence of a NAT. Naturally Microsoft only offers an implementation for their MS-Windows platform. If you want it for any other platform then there is the open source implementation known as Miredo. I would rather have more routers supporting IPv6, but in the meantime this does the job.