> I don't think the minor differences in command lines between different operating systems have any influence on the speed at which IPv6 is being deployed.
The clumsiness of IPv6 tools (ping, ssh, scp, and others) and basically the whole ecosystem working together acts as a stumbling block to those admins (and even devs and power users) who just want to get their feet wet. When they get their hands burned (ok, mixed metaphor), they back off because they perceive that you have to become an IPv6 guru (like you) in order to merely connect two hosts.
For you, a DNS server is nothing. You've probably got 20 of them running in your labs. The 21st is no big thing. For small networks, config for the 1st one is.
None of this is we shouldn't move to IPv6, merely that obstacles in the way are part of what are delaying it.
Re:Draw a line in the sand is my zwei pfennig
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
But, who's supposed to file papers? Clerks who have know idea what the papers are talking about?
Seems a little uppity, like saying you won't do basic lab work, you're here to do engineering.
Also, I think your's is a pretty moderate response: that you can have NAT on IPv6, but the vendors haven't supported it yet.
By contrast, on/. IPv6'ers usually take the line of "Don't do NAT." That would be like Windows users saying, "How can you do X on Linux", and the response being "Don't do X."
Also, doing SSH to IPv6 hosts named in/etc/hosts has been problematic for me to the extent that I've just forgone my initial attempts at local IPv6. scp even works differently than ssh in this regard. In one or the other of the two, you can't do luser@[IPv6], although luser@1.2.3.4 works just fine.
> I think the people who ask for NAT with IPv6 just wants an excuse to not have to work on upgrading their network.
I'm not one of them. And I wasn't saying that I wouldn't want IPv6 without NAT, just that the IPv6 fundamentalists won't allow people to say that NAT has been useful in some circumstances.
I.e., I just want people to advocate for IPv6 without feeling that they have to defend the anti-NAT ideology 100%.
I think I'm in the vast middle of Slashdotters who really want to move to this cool new thing except that: 1) ISPs don't support it, 2) cheap router manufacturers don't support it AFAIK, and 3) tools are sort of lacking.
E.g., why do you have to do ping6? Why not just have ping check the format of the passed argument and call classic ping or ping6 appropriately? Why force a human to do what a computer can?
They're not doing an end run around the court. If, according to German law, Motorola is in the right, then they have the right to enjoin (in Germany).
Many companies have to do a lot of things in foreign jurisdictions because of European (or other) laws. It's out of line for a US court to say that they can't do so because a case in a US court.
Most of the people who don't have an inclination to reproduce have been, ahem, weeded out of the population since their parents and grandparents didn't reproduce.
That's the question which a lot of overworked federal agency heads might be asking.
I.e., "What's in it for me?"
And, "If we miss the deadline, what will happen." It would be nice if every federal agency just did whatever they were told to do, as if they were merely the organs of one single body. But actually, they are multiple bodies. And if the answer to the question is "nothing", then some wily agency heads will choose to simply ignore the directive.
Used Redhat back in the day. Everybody did. Remember the ads in the Linux Journal with the guy in the red hat handing off an attache case to someone else in a trenchcoat?
It was quirky, but worked. KDE had everything you needed: KMail, KOffice, Konqueror. nedit for editing files.
Later I got a desktop that had XP already installed. And it was "good enough". So I used it, and continued to use it. I had a a lot of open source software installed: Firefox, putty, Cygwin, Gimp, OpenOffice, etc.
After that I fell victim to some really hard to remove viruses, and decided that it was time to move on.
By that time, Redhat had abandoned the desktop, so I checked out what everybody was talking about: the new distro with the funny name, Ubuntu.
I installed 10.04, and stuck with it. I had read about Unity/Gnome3 and didn't like what I had heard. I thought that I would have to find another distro, which would probably be a pain since Ubuntu had enough momentum that you can usually always find a specific answer to a problem you might be having.
Also, Ubuntu is highly useful on the server. You can't use RHell unless you shell out $$. And Centos doesn't have any back--it's so messed up that a guy left the project, and the rest of the guys had to beg him for the domain and donation account. Their versions come out much later than RedHat releases, and RHell generally is many versions behind Ubuntu in software releases, many of which have features that are sorely needed. Also, RHell repositories barely have any packages compared to Ubuntu. (True, there's a community effort called RPMForge, but if you want to go with that, why are you going with the "conservative" distro? Dissonance.)
After Precise 12.04 came out, I decided to give it a try. By that time Unity had actually become a useful environment, making most power users/devs more productive. And so here I'll probably stay, both on the desktop and the server.
Git's tagline is "everything local". But is that a good idea? Every developer has the company's entire codebase (including history) on his laptop. Which means it's just a tar and an scp away from delivering to his next place of employment.
>everyone uses RH or Cent Really? Depending on your point of view, you might call RHell stable or crusty, and Ubuntu featureful or unstable. Anyway, sometimes, especially for fast-moving young companies, you need the features in newer versions of packages to get you the features you need to enable your business, whether in haproxy, MySQL, or the kernel. E.g., Centos 6 uses 2.6.32, Ubuntu 12.04 has 3.2. You may not see it from where you are, but a lot of people view RHell the way RedHat users used to view Windows servers: legacy.
> I predict Canonical will be gone in two years or less, just not enough income coming in.
Despite his status as a technology icon, Mr Wozniak said he was not connected to a broadband service in his home in California, classing the options available to him as a 'monopoly.'
The National Broadband Network does not seem to be a plural.
Yeah, I know Mint is a remixing of Ubuntu. Same for *buntu.
What I thought we were talking about is: Ubuntu spends $$ on development, but can't recover the full amount, because anybody is free to make their own remix.
Let me elaborate why I think it's not a problem. Here are Ubuntu's revenue sources:
1) Desktop support contracts. Not affected by *buntu. People that buy support contracts are unlikely to load up Mint et alia. 1b) Server support contracts: these are expensive, but the businesses making money with Ubuntu Server can afford it. 2) Ubuntu One premium offerings. Not affected by *buntu, unless Mint wants to come up with Mint One. 3) Ubuntu Software Center (paid apps). Not affected by *buntu. If someone wants to buy a paid app, it'll be in Ubuntu. 4) Product results in Unity. Again *buntu can't "steal" this because their entire raison d'etre is that they don't have Unity. 5) Pre-installed Ubuntu on OEM computers. 6) They'll likely come up with something in relation to Valve/Steam.
Alternatively, if somebody comes up with Joe Bob's Ubuntu with the affiliate links reset, would you download it? Doubtful.
Note that 1B above is basically RedHat's model. The difference is that RedHat basically gave up on the desktop, which I think was a mistake because it gave Ubuntu the opening to grab mindshare. And the fact is, if you run something on the desktop, you are more likely to run it on the server. That's how M$ got into the datacenter. These days, startups use Ubuntu by default. RHell is like Windows for Workgroups 3.11, venerable and crusty.
So, even if they only break even on the desktop, that's getting them the mindshare for server deployment$.
Although that's true, Mint has sort of worked itself into a corner. Since its claim to fame now is supposed to be as the un-Unity distro, they can't quite put it back in. And if they do, what's the point of bothering with Mint as opposed to stock Ubuntu? There have been some bugs with Mint, so that'd be another reason to just stay with Ubuntu.
Same goes for xubuntu, lubuntu, etc. They can't quite put shopping-lens-enabled Unity in the mix.
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't think the minor differences in command lines between different operating systems have any influence on the speed at which IPv6 is being deployed.
The clumsiness of IPv6 tools (ping, ssh, scp, and others) and basically the whole ecosystem working together acts as a stumbling block to those admins (and even devs and power users) who just want to get their feet wet. When they get their hands burned (ok, mixed metaphor), they back off because they perceive that you have to become an IPv6 guru (like you) in order to merely connect two hosts.
For you, a DNS server is nothing. You've probably got 20 of them running in your labs. The 21st is no big thing. For small networks, config for the 1st one is.
None of this is we shouldn't move to IPv6, merely that obstacles in the way are part of what are delaying it.
But, who's supposed to file papers? Clerks who have know idea what the papers are talking about?
Seems a little uppity, like saying you won't do basic lab work, you're here to do engineering.
Also, I think your's is a pretty moderate response: that you can have NAT on IPv6, but the vendors haven't supported it yet.
By contrast, on /. IPv6'ers usually take the line of "Don't do NAT." That would be like Windows users saying, "How can you do X on Linux", and the response being "Don't do X."
Also, doing SSH to IPv6 hosts named in /etc/hosts has been problematic for me to the extent that I've just forgone my initial attempts at local IPv6. scp even works differently than ssh in this regard. In one or the other of the two, you can't do luser@[IPv6], although luser@1.2.3.4 works just fine.
> I think the people who ask for NAT with IPv6 just wants an excuse to not have to work on upgrading their network.
I'm not one of them. And I wasn't saying that I wouldn't want IPv6 without NAT, just that the IPv6 fundamentalists won't allow people to say that NAT has been useful in some circumstances.
I.e., I just want people to advocate for IPv6 without feeling that they have to defend the anti-NAT ideology 100%.
I think I'm in the vast middle of Slashdotters who really want to move to this cool new thing except that: 1) ISPs don't support it, 2) cheap router manufacturers don't support it AFAIK, and 3) tools are sort of lacking.
E.g., why do you have to do ping6? Why not just have ping check the format of the passed argument and call classic ping or ping6 appropriately? Why force a human to do what a computer can?
Yeah, how would it go over if a Korean court awarded Samsung $1 billion to make up for the case against Apple in California?
They're not doing an end run around the court. If, according to German law, Motorola is in the right, then they have the right to enjoin (in Germany).
Many companies have to do a lot of things in foreign jurisdictions because of European (or other) laws. It's out of line for a US court to say that they can't do so because a case in a US court.
Can a German court tell a US corporation not to do something or another in the US?
Can a US court tell British Petroleum to do or not do something in Nigeria?
Can a US court tell a Korean corp to do or not do something in Europe?
Can a Korean court tell a California corporation to knock it off?
How do you enable this on the latest Linux kernels? Ubuntu 12.04?
Most of the people who don't have an inclination to reproduce have been, ahem, weeded out of the population since their parents and grandparents didn't reproduce.
Except that now you know the exact address a reply is coming from, and you can do all sorts of network mapping. Do that and keep that info aside.
Next, the moment you find a vulnerability in the firewall, pull out your premade network map, and go to town.
I'm as much a fan of IPv6 as the next guy (and disagree with the guy saying just keep on IPv4 forever).
But I hate the IPv6 fundamentalists who won't allow any deviation from the IPv6 dogma.
Come on, just let people have their NATs, why don't you?
That's the question which a lot of overworked federal agency heads might be asking.
I.e., "What's in it for me?"
And, "If we miss the deadline, what will happen." It would be nice if every federal agency just did whatever they were told to do, as if they were merely the organs of one single body. But actually, they are multiple bodies. And if the answer to the question is "nothing", then some wily agency heads will choose to simply ignore the directive.
Used Redhat back in the day. Everybody did. Remember the ads in the Linux Journal with the guy in the red hat handing off an attache case to someone else in a trenchcoat?
It was quirky, but worked. KDE had everything you needed: KMail, KOffice, Konqueror. nedit for editing files.
Later I got a desktop that had XP already installed. And it was "good enough". So I used it, and continued to use it. I had a a lot of open source software installed: Firefox, putty, Cygwin, Gimp, OpenOffice, etc.
After that I fell victim to some really hard to remove viruses, and decided that it was time to move on.
By that time, Redhat had abandoned the desktop, so I checked out what everybody was talking about: the new distro with the funny name, Ubuntu.
I installed 10.04, and stuck with it. I had read about Unity/Gnome3 and didn't like what I had heard. I thought that I would have to find another distro, which would probably be a pain since Ubuntu had enough momentum that you can usually always find a specific answer to a problem you might be having.
Also, Ubuntu is highly useful on the server. You can't use RHell unless you shell out $$. And Centos doesn't have any back--it's so messed up that a guy left the project, and the rest of the guys had to beg him for the domain and donation account. Their versions come out much later than RedHat releases, and RHell generally is many versions behind Ubuntu in software releases, many of which have features that are sorely needed. Also, RHell repositories barely have any packages compared to Ubuntu. (True, there's a community effort called RPMForge, but if you want to go with that, why are you going with the "conservative" distro? Dissonance.)
After Precise 12.04 came out, I decided to give it a try. By that time Unity had actually become a useful environment, making most power users/devs more productive. And so here I'll probably stay, both on the desktop and the server.
Did the rental companies operate in multiple states? I thought most of these rental places were just one-store deals.
Git's tagline is "everything local". But is that a good idea? Every developer has the company's entire codebase (including history) on his laptop. Which means it's just a tar and an scp away from delivering to his next place of employment.
<del>Moslems</del> open sourcers to condemn this wanton act of (non?)violence.
>everyone uses RH or Cent
Really? Depending on your point of view, you might call RHell stable or crusty, and Ubuntu featureful or unstable. Anyway, sometimes, especially for fast-moving young companies, you need the features in newer versions of packages to get you the features you need to enable your business, whether in haproxy, MySQL, or the kernel. E.g., Centos 6 uses 2.6.32, Ubuntu 12.04 has 3.2. You may not see it from where you are, but a lot of people view RHell the way RedHat users used to view Windows servers: legacy.
> I predict Canonical will be gone in two years or less, just not enough income coming in.
OK, we'll see.
Ieee!
Yeah, that sounds good.
What about the specter of censorship, applied at the highest level?
What? What is there about MS Office that can't be taught in high school?
The National Broadband Network does not seem to be a plural.
Yeah, I know Mint is a remixing of Ubuntu. Same for *buntu.
What I thought we were talking about is: Ubuntu spends $$ on development, but can't recover the full amount, because anybody is free to make their own remix.
Let me elaborate why I think it's not a problem. Here are Ubuntu's revenue sources:
1) Desktop support contracts. Not affected by *buntu. People that buy support contracts are unlikely to load up Mint et alia.
1b) Server support contracts: these are expensive, but the businesses making money with Ubuntu Server can afford it.
2) Ubuntu One premium offerings. Not affected by *buntu, unless Mint wants to come up with Mint One.
3) Ubuntu Software Center (paid apps). Not affected by *buntu. If someone wants to buy a paid app, it'll be in Ubuntu.
4) Product results in Unity. Again *buntu can't "steal" this because their entire raison d'etre is that they don't have Unity.
5) Pre-installed Ubuntu on OEM computers.
6) They'll likely come up with something in relation to Valve/Steam.
Alternatively, if somebody comes up with Joe Bob's Ubuntu with the affiliate links reset, would you download it? Doubtful.
Note that 1B above is basically RedHat's model. The difference is that RedHat basically gave up on the desktop, which I think was a mistake because it gave Ubuntu the opening to grab mindshare. And the fact is, if you run something on the desktop, you are more likely to run it on the server. That's how M$ got into the datacenter. These days, startups use Ubuntu by default. RHell is like Windows for Workgroups 3.11, venerable and crusty.
So, even if they only break even on the desktop, that's getting them the mindshare for server deployment$.
It doesn't increase costs: the commission is taken out of the normal price you would have paid anyway.
They are offering support contracts: http://www.ubuntu.com/business/advantage
Or do you mean they are not promoting them enough?
Although that's true, Mint has sort of worked itself into a corner. Since its claim to fame now is supposed to be as the un-Unity distro, they can't quite put it back in. And if they do, what's the point of bothering with Mint as opposed to stock Ubuntu? There have been some bugs with Mint, so that'd be another reason to just stay with Ubuntu.
Same goes for xubuntu, lubuntu, etc. They can't quite put shopping-lens-enabled Unity in the mix.