Surely you can appreciate the difference between not writing new software for a platform, and explicitly removing support for a platform from an established piece of software that many people are completely reliant upon?
No. There is no difference. After all, they have and will keep what they already have. Nobody is taking it away.
Dropping support for SCO means just that. "We do not work for you any more. Full Stop" Whoever uses SCO is on their side, pays for their lawyers with his support money and his software investments.
Every free project should immediately and without any exception drop all SCO support. This is a fight for life and death, and every move that makes the life of SCO users and customers miserable is a good one. After all, they can and should jump ship as soon as possible.
Privacy ??? Hello, anybody at home ??
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Gosh, Taco......you actually think I'm going to declare my annual household income (amoung other things) to some stinkin' web site, just to read some article you found great ???
Can't wait till the Boy Scout's start singing "Amerika Uber Alles"
Ooops. They already do.
The thing is called 'Pledge of Allegiance'
The text doesn't matter anyway - neither did all the nonsense matter that old Adolf made people sing and swear. The key is the common rite, the act of public submission which tries to instill loyalty and obedience into you on a subconcious level.
(FWIW - you quote the wrong song, and also have a typo there. The original Nazi party song was "Die Fahne hoch!" and this is also what you heard the HJ singing frequently. The Deutschlandlied you quote was the old democratic national anthem which they did not manage to abolish entirely for its populartity - but they forbade all but the first verse to be sung. It is to this day the national anthem of Germany, though we sing the third verse on official occasions, which is better suited for that anyway. )
Yes, I know the article you quote. But this is registries, which indeed get adressings upon request. Registries, OTOH, only give out adresses to ISPs and end users based on very restrictive assignment rules. Those 70% were mostly assigned before those rules were effective.
Nowadays, people, or even large companies, sometimes get their requests denied by the registries. Rumour has it, for instance, that a large European carrier requested a (large) bunch of class B for their GPRS and UMTS rollouts - and got them denied.
The whole world will run out at the same time.
This, of course might be technically correct. But since US companies already have huge reserves - unlike everbody else - this is a more theoretical time. Fact is, when that happens, most of us will have a large problem. You won't.
Name the P2P app and I can have it working within minutes.
IP phones using SIP protocol. Callmanager outside, several phones behind one NAT router, another few behind another. Make them talk to each other in any combination, with the Callmanager doing the setup and the voice data running directly phone to phone (NOT over any server).
q.e.d.
and there's numerous other cases. You just show you never used networks beyond your small one-person home network. (Heck, it even starts when 2 or 3 people share one home network connection. Some games can not be played by more than one of them at the same time)
As you stated, one of your complaints was about a client who wanted a VPN on his cell phone. To me, this is well beyond practical internet use.
*Sigh*
So you decide what is and isn't practical internet use ?
That guy has 128kbps GPRS service, but he isn't supposed to connect to his company VPN, because You have decided this is irresponsible internet use ?? Sorry ??
But I have some issues to be worked out. Oh yeah...
Even if a NAT is set up in an office, it's doesn't have to be used for VoIP. At our office, the phone switch is assigned direct IP addresses. But even if there are 75 people behind the NAT, no one would assign 75 IP addresses to the phone switch. Really smart switches would route local calls to the phone company's copper, and long distance to IP. If all IPs are in use, the phone company's copper is used for long distance. The net result is that less IPs are used than the number of workstations, even with VoIP in heavy use.
- really smart phone switches don't route IP calls at all. they just set them up and let trhe IP network do the routing. VoIP is phone-to-phone connectivity. Anything else is useless old thinking. - there will be a world without that phone company copper at some time. IP will be the phine company. - if we assume routing over POTs is undesireable, any call that could be done over IP should. Your scenario above just shows why NAT is bad here - last, why shouldn't anybody assigne 75 numbers to a phone system ? Heck, I have 10 phone numbers on my ISDN line, even though I only use 2 or 3. So what ?
This whole "IP numbers are scarce" farce is a totally needless travesty and a collossal waste of time and money wqe'd better spend elsewhere. They should be available to anybody for the asking.
Just about voicechat - I've been using teamspeak for a while. It's client-server based, and it's pretty easy to make the server work even if it's behind a NAT (with port-forwarding).
That is an excellent example. VoIP (NOT one-to-many chat) is an excellent case for peer-to-peer service. But you have grown so used to the client-server paradigma that you don't even see how bad a solution that is here.
Yes.. I use Creative Voice Blasters with fobbit phone to talk via VoIPtwice a day without a hint of trouble,
So you use One app using One protocol and it works, And you conclude from that, - in your infernal wisdom - that any app with any protocol will work flawlessly - and if not, it's the user's fault.
I do networks for a living. Large, complicated networks. I can't even count that number of times I was forced - after carefull consideration and checking - to tell somebody that his really cool product, service or feature idea just would not work - because of NAT. I can't even count the number of times I was forced to purchase expensive hardware or choose an inferior solution just for doing it the right, simple and elegant way would not work - because of NAT. Heck, my company currently considers dumping hardware worth a seven figures investment just because its fucking NAT implementation - while provably perfoming exactly to the specs - is incompatible with Cisco's implementation, and as a result of this our customers can't even do a simple DNS lookup across both (differing sets of payload translation, nowhere specified).
But you can play UT2003, and therefore there's no problem anybody else could have.
It's not like port forwarding is a big deal, or expensive, or really screws up the network.
It is a big deal. It does screw up tzhe net. royally. You lie.
You can't configure your router to gerenally serve all these services behind NAT. You just made them working for yourself, and you don't care for the rest.
Hint: have numerous people behind the same NAT box seamlessly use voice/chat apps: impossible. Hint: have numerouse people behind the same NAT box seamlessly use certain non-nattable games: impossible Hint: have numerouse people behind the same NAT box serve HTTPS pages: impossible
Are you totally sure we will be out of addresses? Would you bet your life on it?
Argh!!
This is so incredible frustrating. Some people's ignorance is, apparently, uncureable.
Yes, there is an address shortage. It is already there. Right now !
Proof is simple. People don't get all adresses they feel they need.
Truth is, Morons like you have at some point decided that they know better than me what adresses I need. So You just claim there is enough because You think everybody gets what You consider sufficient. Elitist crap asshole reasoning!
Results of plocies like that is that large carriers run public IP services on private adress space. My company is one of them. Another example: most GPRS services use private IPs and big fat lousy NAT kludges. I personally have recently had to write an analysis about a customer's bitter complaint that he couldnt use the VPN service we sold him from his cellphone. As it turned out, he used gprs, and the aforementionet NAT kludge somehow broke IPSEC.
Suckers like you are modern day internet luddites. You have - out of thin air - concluded that last year's technology is everthing anybody might ever need, and therefore decided that further technological advancement is superfluous. And so you fight tooth and nails any meaningfull progression.
Regardless, the lesson has been learned, and the core routers will not have to deal with a massive routing table with IPv6, if for no other reason than people seeing what has already happened, and not having a legacy mess to preserve.
You still don't get it.
Hierarchical routing must fail because internet routing is - in its very essence - a complicated graph of contractual relations between a large number of participants (ISPs). Hierarchical routing would force all ISPs to fall back to the good old "NSFNet backbone" concept (shove all traffic upstream) - a concept that has proven inadequate in very early internet days and has been long since abandoned.
Independant bilateral peering is one of the key concvepts that have made the internet successfull - a technology that prevents peering between isps is doomed to fail.
I essentially expect IPv6 to be routed with some kind of BGP/6 evetually, and the only advantage we will see over todays routing is a better design of adress allocation practices.
Large routing tables, btw, are not really a problem in the long run anyway. Technology growth in router memory will easily catch network growth within the next ten or twenty years - I consider Moore's law much more predictable and reality-tested than all that internet-growth-hype.
...but the NATing/Proxying (or "buckets" in your case at least give a level of security and control
Thats an old myth. NAT is'nt security. If you want security, by all means, have it. Your NAT device could do 100% the same security without NAT (just call that statefull acl). NAT and security are unrelated concepts.
... with my cablemodem/router/firewall/DNS setup [...] I have approximately 10 devices all with their own IP addresses and only use 1 public address. If I wish, I can place a server in a DMZ and route the traffic accordingly.
Nope.
You can can gate them - but your gateway has to have full understanding of every single of the protocol involved and even then there are numerous protocols that you just can't NAT.
And, yes, even protocols people use. Suggestion - have two or more PCs behind your NAT box play Microsoft Games over the Internet using direct play.
IPv6 does NOT take the IPv4 world of "a.b.0.0/16 is reachable via c.d.e.0/24 which is reachable via z.y.0.0/16 AND x.w.u.0/24 and..." IPv6 routing is a strict tree to explicitly combat that problem. How do you get to abcd::/32? You go through abc::/24.
LOL - this is hilarious nonsense. This would be the end of all peering. Tis protocol already exists - its name is spanning tree and it fails with more than a few hundred nodes.
Well, that means I can get away with sueing Micrsoft because I predict their buggy Windows 2003 Server crashes, and I estimate my damages to be 20 billion dollars.
You have not really understood who the Master is and who the servant, have you ?
You can't sue Microsoft. Microsoft could sue you and utterly ruin you, just for complaining about their wonderful product. After a few years of fruitless legal wrangling you will end up with a few 100k$ of legal costs, and they will just drop it. Or you settle and pay immediately.
Ah, the wonders of corporate America. Brave New World, indeed....
To be pendantic you should also note that they are 'imminent owners of the slowest 64-bit Personal Computer in the World', with the understanding that it is the only 64-bit Personal Computer in the World (at least until the AMD chips start showing up on PC's.)
It could be argued, that small Sun desktops (Ultra 5, Ultra 10, Blade100) are essentially PCs with an Ultrasparc CPU. (aside from the UltraSparc CPU and the mainboard, they have commodity hardware like IDE drives, PCI bus and cards, VGA graphics, USB etc)
I think it's how you treat people that makes them help you. If [...] you treat people well, they will help
Oh my god. This was Felix von Leitner speaking. *Wiping off tears of laughter*
While I completely agree with your article, this is like Theo DeRaadt preaching against the evils of flame wars. You are legendary in German Usenet for your extraordinary rudeness, and people put up with you mostly for your (undisputed) skills. Unless you present a completely different persona in your software endeavors, consider contributions you get a testament to your code's quality alone.
The senator's web designer didn't register *free* software (you have to pay for commerical use only).
This is a joke, isn' it ?
Hatch is a politician by trade, and he even calls this site "my virtual office". This is no f** way a personal site - this is commercial. The Senator should be ashamed to cheat a hard working software author out of a few hundred bucks!
I'm trying to make sure I understand this - it seems like the "loser pays" law is designed to allow the side with the most expensive lawyers to use them as a bludgeon against the side with less money
When legal fees are well regulated there is no such thing as a "most expensive lawyer" in a lawsuit.
At least, in other jurisdictions, the winning party gets reimbursed for its legal fees by the losing party.
Living in such a jurisdiction (Germany) let me add some data...
[...] just out of curiosity, what happens in the case of a settlement?
Whatever the settlement says, of course. Often in a settlement everybody pays his own legal costs.
Or, suppose the student loses here. Does he have to pay for RIAA's legal team?
Yes. But since legal costs are strictly regulated, this is not an issue - their cost - like the court fees - depends mostly on the value of the matter at hand.
Does "loser pays" only apply to the defense costs? Or does it mean the loser pays the costs for both sides?
Whoever loses pays all costs. (Except the court determines otherwise, which it usually done, when it is not a clear "win/lose" situation)
If the student would have to pay the RIAA's fees, how is that determined? Could the RIAA then simply put 1000's of attorneys on the case to simply increase the potential costs of the case?
See above. Of course it could, but that wouldn't affect the cost. Since the lawyers would not be permitted to charge the RIAA more for their inflated numbers services, such a scenario is higly unlikely anyway. Lawyers usually dislike working for free:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Dropping support for SCO means just that. "We do not work for you any more. Full Stop" Whoever uses SCO is on their side, pays for their lawyers with his support money and his software investments.
Every free project should immediately and without any exception drop all SCO support. This is a fight for life and death, and every move that makes the life of SCO users and customers miserable is a good one. After all, they can and should jump ship as soon as possible.
Gosh, Taco... ...you actually think I'm going to declare my annual household income (amoung other things) to some stinkin' web site, just to read some article you found great ???
:-(
Slashdot is getting worse by the day lately
The thing is called 'Pledge of Allegiance'
The text doesn't matter anyway - neither did all the nonsense matter that old Adolf made people sing and swear. The key is the common rite, the act of public submission which tries to instill loyalty and obedience into you on a subconcious level.
(FWIW - you quote the wrong song, and also have a typo there. The original Nazi party song was "Die Fahne hoch!" and this is also what you heard the HJ singing frequently. The Deutschlandlied you quote was the old democratic national anthem which they did not manage to abolish entirely for its populartity - but they forbade all but the first verse to be sung. It is to this day the national anthem of Germany, though we sing the third verse on official occasions, which is better suited for that anyway. )
that link is totally rubbish. Not legible signs in an ancient deprecated and superseded code
Expect a hostile takeover of MIT by Japanese firms....
Yes, I know the article you quote. But this is registries, which indeed get adressings upon request. Registries, OTOH, only give out adresses to ISPs and end users based on very restrictive assignment rules. Those 70% were mostly assigned before those rules were effective.
Nowadays, people, or even large companies, sometimes get their requests denied by the registries. Rumour has it, for instance, that a large European carrier requested a (large) bunch of class B for their GPRS and UMTS rollouts - and got them denied.
This, of course might be technically correct. But since US companies already have huge reserves - unlike everbody else - this is a more theoretical time. Fact is, when that happens, most of us will have a large problem. You won't.
IP phones using SIP protocol. Callmanager outside, several phones behind one NAT router, another few behind another. Make them talk to each other in any combination, with the Callmanager doing the setup and the voice data running directly phone to phone (NOT over any server).
q.e.d.
and there's numerous other cases. You just show you never used networks beyond your small one-person home network. (Heck, it even starts when 2 or 3 people share one home network connection. Some games can not be played by more than one of them at the same time)
Go buy a clue.
So you decide what is and isn't practical internet use ?
That guy has 128kbps GPRS service, but he isn't supposed to connect to his company VPN, because You have decided this is irresponsible internet use ?? Sorry ??
But I have some issues to be worked out. Oh yeah...
- really smart phone switches don't route IP calls at all. they just set them up and let trhe IP network do the routing. VoIP is phone-to-phone connectivity. Anything else is useless old thinking.
- there will be a world without that phone company copper at some time. IP will be the phine company.
- if we assume routing over POTs is undesireable, any call that could be done over IP should. Your scenario above just shows why NAT is bad here
- last, why shouldn't anybody assigne 75 numbers to a phone system ? Heck, I have 10 phone numbers on my ISDN line, even though I only use 2 or 3. So what ?
This whole "IP numbers are scarce" farce is a totally needless travesty and a collossal waste of time and money wqe'd better spend elsewhere. They should be available to anybody for the asking.
Just because you can use it, not everybody can.
Another victim of the NAT world.
I do networks for a living. Large, complicated networks. I can't even count that number of times I was forced - after carefull consideration and checking - to tell somebody that his really cool product, service or feature idea just would not work - because of NAT. I can't even count the number of times I was forced to purchase expensive hardware or choose an inferior solution just for doing it the right, simple and elegant way would not work - because of NAT. Heck, my company currently considers dumping hardware worth a seven figures investment just because its fucking NAT implementation - while provably perfoming exactly to the specs - is incompatible with Cisco's implementation, and as a result of this our customers can't even do a simple DNS lookup across both (differing sets of payload translation, nowhere specified).
But you can play UT2003, and therefore there's no problem anybody else could have.
People like you make me sick.
It is a big deal.
It does screw up tzhe net. royally.
You lie.
You can't configure your router to gerenally serve all these services behind NAT. You just made them working for yourself, and you don't care for the rest.
Hint: have numerous people behind the same NAT box seamlessly use voice/chat apps: impossible.
Hint: have numerouse people behind the same NAT box seamlessly use certain non-nattable games: impossible
Hint: have numerouse people behind the same NAT box serve HTTPS pages: impossible
The list goes on.
Selfish, clueless, amateurish little asshole.
This is so incredible frustrating. Some people's ignorance is, apparently, uncureable.
Yes, there is an address shortage. It is already there. Right now !
Proof is simple. People don't get all adresses they feel they need.
Truth is, Morons like you have at some point decided that they know better than me what adresses I need. So You just claim there is enough because You think everybody gets what You consider sufficient. Elitist crap asshole reasoning!
Results of plocies like that is that large carriers run public IP services on private adress space. My company is one of them. Another example: most GPRS services use private IPs and big fat lousy NAT kludges. I personally have recently had to write an analysis about a customer's bitter complaint that he couldnt use the VPN service we sold him from his cellphone. As it turned out, he used gprs, and the aforementionet NAT kludge somehow broke IPSEC.
Suckers like you are modern day internet luddites. You have - out of thin air - concluded that last year's technology is everthing anybody might ever need, and therefore decided that further technological advancement is superfluous. And so you fight tooth and nails any meaningfull progression.
Hierarchical routing must fail because internet routing is - in its very essence - a complicated graph of contractual relations between a large number of participants (ISPs). Hierarchical routing would force all ISPs to fall back to the good old "NSFNet backbone" concept (shove all traffic upstream) - a concept that has proven inadequate in very early internet days and has been long since abandoned.
Independant bilateral peering is one of the key concvepts that have made the internet successfull - a technology that prevents peering between isps is doomed to fail.
I essentially expect IPv6 to be routed with some kind of BGP/6 evetually, and the only advantage we will see over todays routing is a better design of adress allocation practices.
Large routing tables, btw, are not really a problem in the long run anyway. Technology growth in router memory will easily catch network growth within the next ten or twenty years - I consider Moore's law much more predictable and reality-tested than all that internet-growth-hype.
Nope.
You can can gate them - but your gateway has to have full understanding of every single of the protocol involved and even then there are numerous protocols that you just can't NAT.
And, yes, even protocols people use. Suggestion - have two or more PCs behind your NAT box play Microsoft Games over the Internet using direct play.
Face the ugly truth. NAT is Evil!
Wondering...
You can't sue Microsoft. Microsoft could sue you and utterly ruin you, just for complaining about their wonderful product. After a few years of fruitless legal wrangling you will end up with a few 100k$ of legal costs, and they will just drop it. Or you settle and pay immediately.
Ah, the wonders of corporate America. Brave New World, indeed....
So there are other 64bit PCs.
While I completely agree with your article, this is like Theo DeRaadt preaching against the evils of flame wars. You are legendary in German Usenet for your extraordinary rudeness, and people put up with you mostly for your (undisputed) skills. Unless you present a completely different persona in your software endeavors, consider contributions you get a testament to your code's quality alone.
Sorry to burst your bubble...
Hatch is a politician by trade, and he even calls this site "my virtual office". This is no f** way a personal site - this is commercial. The Senator should be ashamed to cheat a hard working software author out of a few hundred bucks!
When legal fees are well regulated there is no such thing as a "most expensive lawyer" in a lawsuit.