No. Goldman Sachs (just as a single example, because they're the biggest crooks of them all) has been selling junks KNOWING they were junks. And you know what? They are continuing to do so.
Right. This is why the government started an investigation of the financial sector, arrested Geithner and Poulson, closed the FED, and bailed out people and not corporations, why everything is sooooo transparent especially with monetary policies, and that we "see in Washington, the kind of government that can be accounted for" (do you even remember who said that joke few years ago?). You must be right, nobody bought the government...
You want to go on that ground? Yeah, let's do that... Let's talk about Goldman Sachs, our 100 cents on the dollar friend Timmy, and all these crooks, who have stolen not thousands, not millions, not even billions, but TRILLIONS from the economy, have put workers out of their house AND jobs AND on food stamps, sometimes with lethal consequences. Let's talk about them, who aren't worried that an investigation would even start, and lets compare to the file sharer sites.
USA, everyone knows it, is the land of freedom, right? At this point, it's going to be very difficult for the president to have human rights talks with countries like China. USA is not a good example any more, it's one of the worst.
I tend to not agree with that. I'm the boss of GPLHost, and we have 10 points of presence. We have asked absolutely all of the data centers if they had IPv6 connectivity, and could announce some/38 for us, as we have a/32 delegation from APNIC (yes, that's 4 billions x 4 billions x 4 billions IPs, and that's the smallest block you can get for IPv6 with APNIC !!!). Then guess what ? Only ONE of them provided a full dual stack support, and they are doing very funny RADVd announces (eg: not announcing a/64, which doesn't work by default on Linux). All the others, they either said just "no", or "yes, we're working on it, maybe later...". That's just lame. So of course, since we do have customers willing to use IPv6, we did it by ourselves, and we peer with HE using v6 over v4 tunnel. All this is lame lame lame.
So no, the issue isn't just home router. ISPs are globally lame. There's nothing hard in setting-up IPv6, but they just don't do it.
Then WHAT? It's not because we're years away from IPv4 exhaustion that we shouldn't setup IPv6 connectivity RIGHT NOW. Why? Simply because some organizations are already using IPv6, and that it's extremely convenient to have so many IP addresses that you can use. Like, having a full/64 for your home is not just a fancy new thing, it REALLY IS convenient. So I really don't get why you are talking about IPv4 exhaustion, I never did. I just wrote that absolutely all ISPs should be implementing IPv6 right away now, and if they don't they are just lame.
there is simply zero business case to be amongst the early adopters
That sentence is simply wrong. Maybe not a lot, but you can't say zero. Some customers might choose an ISP because of the v6 support, or rather, some might not use an ISP because he doesn't support v6 (and if you want it another way: IPv6 dual stack is a very valid selling point).
See companies like Hurricane Electric, a large part of their current success has been IPv6 support. That story alone shows that it really is possible to make more money because you do support v6 while others don't. Now soon, customers will soon start to run away if you don't have v6. That day might well be the next 6th of June!
Nobody asked you to switch your home ADSL/cable to ipv6, but to have a dual stack and support both. I'd like the "IPv6 is useless" argument to simply stop. There's no reason for saying that. IPv6 is just another cyber space, there's nothing fancy, new, with it, it should be commonly accepted as something we MUST have, right now.
Frankly, in these days and ages, if you're an ISP and don't have v6 support, you're just a... (replace the dots with your favorite insult). I'd understand that you might have a very old home router at home that wouldn't support it though, but if ISPs were doing their jobs correctly, this should be the last piece of equipment that would be problematic, not your ISP's.
Seems you really didn't get it at all! The standard is called UEFI secure booting, and that's the main topic of this slashdot news. If you want to know more about it, and understand how it works, read this recent post on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00168.html
That's not the issue. People will buy a device with win 8 pre-installed, and they wont care the logo. It's us, who want to install something else, and wont be able to, who will have no control and have it in the...
Why do you insist with this broken definition? It really doesn't make sense. Would a laptop with let's say an ARM or a Mips CPU would be considered fake or imaginary to you?
If by "PC hardware" you're referring to x86-based machines
The point is: I'm not! Why would PC hardware be limited to Intel compatible CPU computers? The whole point is that win 8 will be able to run on ARM CPUs, meaning that conventional laptops wont always run on i386 compatible hardware. And as OEM's most customers will be running win 8, even on ARM motherboards, we'll have a big issue if we want to run Linux, since the hardware may not allow it.
Why are you talking about phones? We're talking about UEFI here, which will be used for your next PC hardware... Will you do without a computer as well?
Irrelevant. I don't want to have to HACK my next PC to install Linux on it, and I even less want to have to hack windows to be able to run Linux on it. I want to be able to install Linux (nearly) like before, which means easily, and that's it. Having to enter a secure boot key will already be a pain, but I'll accept the fact that grub's key wont be there by default. Here, we're talking about not being able to do that at all, and that, the Software Freedom Law Center, the EFF, the FSF, many people in Debian, and many more, can't accept it.
What "phone or tablet" with UEFI secure boot are you talking about? Last time I checked, there was no such device on the market. Wake up, we're talking about your next PC here, not just any random phone or tablet!
Unfortunately, we don't want hard to use hacks, we want official methods to be able to install ANY operating system in a NORMAL way, just like the UEFI specs says.
If it's not possible to customize the secure boot keys, or even deactivate the checks, does that mean that win 9, when it comes out, wont be installable ? Or does this mean that never, ever, Microsoft will change its boot loader? To me, that seems to be the former. Because seeing the way UEFI is designed, there's enough space for huge boot loaders, meaning that probably, we'll see vendors putting lots of stuffs in it (eg, the times of the 473 bytes of the MBR are FINALLY fading away). So I don't see how a vendor wouldn't want to update the boot loader when a new version of the OS comes out.
Anyway, if I'm right or not, it doesn't mater. Both ways, if OEMs are respecting Microsoft specs, this also means that anytime, MS can decide that the new version of their OS will be incompatible with the hardware you bought, simply by changing/adding one byte in the boot loader file. If that proves to be right, then OEM makers will be very happy to respect specs that will push their customers to buy a new version of their hardware each time they will want to use the new version of the MS operating system.
That's were the customer normally stands up and boycotts both the software and hardware product for more sustainable alternatives. At some point, it will show, and even the wider general public will get what's happening (yes I know, I'm dreaming here...).
Gosh... You're the 2398472 person to write this crap. Do you realize that the issue is about not being able to boot anything else but win8? You wont have the choice to choose even win7!!!
Frankly, look at the whole thread. Almost nobody understood what it is about (many talked about Android phones, tablets, others wrote that preventing to write on the MBR is enough, and all other kinds of non-related bullshit), and this is slashdot. Now, think about how difficult it's going to be to let congressmen understand. The simple truth: no law makers will.
If you want to make a competition on which of Google, Microsoft and Apple is the most open, I wish you good luck with that. I hope that most, like me, will think it's a waste of time, and moves you away from the real issue, which is, most everyone of the above have anti-competition closed behavior.
Do you realize that the issue here isn't about the software, but about the hardware, which will refuse you to choose the OS you want? Also, did you realize that maybe, it's going to be very hard to find a hardware that does what you want (which is, load something else than win8), since most OEM will probably do what MS is telling them?
First off, show me the Tablet Monopoly that Microsoft Has.
We are not talking about tablet, unless you can show me tablets using UEFI. As far as I know, none use it (yet?).
Second, I don't see any reason why an OEM couldn't just release the same tablet with Android preinstalled instead of Windows 8.
Maybe because we aren't talking about tablets, but real computers, which are designed to run Windows?
In fact, It would be severely stupid not to do it
It would be severely stupid for OEM makers not to make computers that respect the specs of the OS that more than 90% of their customers is using.
Third, This is no different than Android having a locked bootloader. It will be cracked and people will install other OS'es on it.
Again, did you realize that we aren't talking about tablets, but about UEFI secure boot, which is going to replace (and in some case, is already replacing) your good old MBR by a (mostly, FAT) partition containing the bootloader? Maybe you should read this: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00168.html
Slashdot Mirror
No. Goldman Sachs (just as a single example, because they're the biggest crooks of them all) has been selling junks KNOWING they were junks. And you know what? They are continuing to do so.
Right. This is why the government started an investigation of the financial sector, arrested Geithner and Poulson, closed the FED, and bailed out people and not corporations, why everything is sooooo transparent especially with monetary policies, and that we "see in Washington, the kind of government that can be accounted for" (do you even remember who said that joke few years ago?). You must be right, nobody bought the government...
The real thieves are elected.
I never heard that the head of the FED, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, and other financial terrorists were elected. Is that something new?
You want to go on that ground? Yeah, let's do that... Let's talk about Goldman Sachs, our 100 cents on the dollar friend Timmy, and all these crooks, who have stolen not thousands, not millions, not even billions, but TRILLIONS from the economy, have put workers out of their house AND jobs AND on food stamps, sometimes with lethal consequences. Let's talk about them, who aren't worried that an investigation would even start, and lets compare to the file sharer sites.
USA, everyone knows it, is the land of freedom, right? At this point, it's going to be very difficult for the president to have human rights talks with countries like China. USA is not a good example any more, it's one of the worst.
You got a point here. If you can share your "facebook and email password", then probably, it's an unsafe, dictionary based, low entropy password.
I told my wife that my email password was kx8xay2m4knnh9tjgn4f5nzy, but surprisingly, she doesn't feel like it's a proof of trust!
I tend to not agree with that. I'm the boss of GPLHost, and we have 10 points of presence. We have asked absolutely all of the data centers if they had IPv6 connectivity, and could announce some /38 for us, as we have a /32 delegation from APNIC (yes, that's 4 billions x 4 billions x 4 billions IPs, and that's the smallest block you can get for IPv6 with APNIC !!!). Then guess what ? Only ONE of them provided a full dual stack support, and they are doing very funny RADVd announces (eg: not announcing a /64, which doesn't work by default on Linux). All the others, they either said just "no", or "yes, we're working on it, maybe later...". That's just lame. So of course, since we do have customers willing to use IPv6, we did it by ourselves, and we peer with HE using v6 over v4 tunnel. All this is lame lame lame.
So no, the issue isn't just home router. ISPs are globally lame. There's nothing hard in setting-up IPv6, but they just don't do it.
We're years away from ipv4 exhaustion.
Then WHAT? It's not because we're years away from IPv4 exhaustion that we shouldn't setup IPv6 connectivity RIGHT NOW. Why? Simply because some organizations are already using IPv6, and that it's extremely convenient to have so many IP addresses that you can use. Like, having a full /64 for your home is not just a fancy new thing, it REALLY IS convenient. So I really don't get why you are talking about IPv4 exhaustion, I never did. I just wrote that absolutely all ISPs should be implementing IPv6 right away now, and if they don't they are just lame.
there is simply zero business case to be amongst the early adopters
That sentence is simply wrong. Maybe not a lot, but you can't say zero. Some customers might choose an ISP because of the v6 support, or rather, some might not use an ISP because he doesn't support v6 (and if you want it another way: IPv6 dual stack is a very valid selling point).
See companies like Hurricane Electric, a large part of their current success has been IPv6 support. That story alone shows that it really is possible to make more money because you do support v6 while others don't. Now soon, customers will soon start to run away if you don't have v6. That day might well be the next 6th of June!
Nobody asked you to switch your home ADSL/cable to ipv6, but to have a dual stack and support both. I'd like the "IPv6 is useless" argument to simply stop. There's no reason for saying that. IPv6 is just another cyber space, there's nothing fancy, new, with it, it should be commonly accepted as something we MUST have, right now.
... (replace the dots with your favorite insult). I'd understand that you might have a very old home router at home that wouldn't support it though, but if ISPs were doing their jobs correctly, this should be the last piece of equipment that would be problematic, not your ISP's.
Frankly, in these days and ages, if you're an ISP and don't have v6 support, you're just a
Seems you really didn't get it at all! The standard is called UEFI secure booting, and that's the main topic of this slashdot news. If you want to know more about it, and understand how it works, read this recent post on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00168.html
That's not the issue. People will buy a device with win 8 pre-installed, and they wont care the logo. It's us, who want to install something else, and wont be able to, who will have no control and have it in the ...
real PCs (meaning Intel)
Why do you insist with this broken definition? It really doesn't make sense. Would a laptop with let's say an ARM or a Mips CPU would be considered fake or imaginary to you?
If by "PC hardware" you're referring to x86-based machines
The point is: I'm not! Why would PC hardware be limited to Intel compatible CPU computers? The whole point is that win 8 will be able to run on ARM CPUs, meaning that conventional laptops wont always run on i386 compatible hardware. And as OEM's most customers will be running win 8, even on ARM motherboards, we'll have a big issue if we want to run Linux, since the hardware may not allow it.
Wrong. The EU government is in Georges Town (more exactly, in it's university). :)
Why are you talking about phones? We're talking about UEFI here, which will be used for your next PC hardware... Will you do without a computer as well?
Irrelevant. I don't want to have to HACK my next PC to install Linux on it, and I even less want to have to hack windows to be able to run Linux on it. I want to be able to install Linux (nearly) like before, which means easily, and that's it. Having to enter a secure boot key will already be a pain, but I'll accept the fact that grub's key wont be there by default. Here, we're talking about not being able to do that at all, and that, the Software Freedom Law Center, the EFF, the FSF, many people in Debian, and many more, can't accept it.
What "phone or tablet" with UEFI secure boot are you talking about? Last time I checked, there was no such device on the market. Wake up, we're talking about your next PC here, not just any random phone or tablet!
Unfortunately, we don't want hard to use hacks, we want official methods to be able to install ANY operating system in a NORMAL way, just like the UEFI specs says.
If it's not possible to customize the secure boot keys, or even deactivate the checks, does that mean that win 9, when it comes out, wont be installable ? Or does this mean that never, ever, Microsoft will change its boot loader? To me, that seems to be the former. Because seeing the way UEFI is designed, there's enough space for huge boot loaders, meaning that probably, we'll see vendors putting lots of stuffs in it (eg, the times of the 473 bytes of the MBR are FINALLY fading away). So I don't see how a vendor wouldn't want to update the boot loader when a new version of the OS comes out.
Anyway, if I'm right or not, it doesn't mater. Both ways, if OEMs are respecting Microsoft specs, this also means that anytime, MS can decide that the new version of their OS will be incompatible with the hardware you bought, simply by changing/adding one byte in the boot loader file. If that proves to be right, then OEM makers will be very happy to respect specs that will push their customers to buy a new version of their hardware each time they will want to use the new version of the MS operating system.
That's were the customer normally stands up and boycotts both the software and hardware product for more sustainable alternatives. At some point, it will show, and even the wider general public will get what's happening (yes I know, I'm dreaming here...).
Gosh... You're the 2398472 person to write this crap. Do you realize that the issue is about not being able to boot anything else but win8? You wont have the choice to choose even win7!!!
Frankly, look at the whole thread. Almost nobody understood what it is about (many talked about Android phones, tablets, others wrote that preventing to write on the MBR is enough, and all other kinds of non-related bullshit), and this is slashdot. Now, think about how difficult it's going to be to let congressmen understand. The simple truth: no law makers will.
If you want to make a competition on which of Google, Microsoft and Apple is the most open, I wish you good luck with that. I hope that most, like me, will think it's a waste of time, and moves you away from the real issue, which is, most everyone of the above have anti-competition closed behavior.
Do you realize that the issue here isn't about the software, but about the hardware, which will refuse you to choose the OS you want? Also, did you realize that maybe, it's going to be very hard to find a hardware that does what you want (which is, load something else than win8), since most OEM will probably do what MS is telling them?
First off, show me the Tablet Monopoly that Microsoft Has.
We are not talking about tablet, unless you can show me tablets using UEFI. As far as I know, none use it (yet?).
Second, I don't see any reason why an OEM couldn't just release the same tablet with Android preinstalled instead of Windows 8.
Maybe because we aren't talking about tablets, but real computers, which are designed to run Windows?
In fact, It would be severely stupid not to do it
It would be severely stupid for OEM makers not to make computers that respect the specs of the OS that more than 90% of their customers is using.
Third, This is no different than Android having a locked bootloader. It will be cracked and people will install other OS'es on it.
Again, did you realize that we aren't talking about tablets, but about UEFI secure boot, which is going to replace (and in some case, is already replacing) your good old MBR by a (mostly, FAT) partition containing the bootloader? Maybe you should read this: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/01/msg00168.html