No it isn't from network transparency. It is from networked applications. Network transparency is a specific mechanism for achieving application networking. Wayland has application networking it just uses a different mechanism.
That is a good brief one liner to explain it. A single display (server) has multiple clients connecting to it using its display. That being said, the problem is that: client = what human works on server = what systems's team maintains
seems to be the more common definition. The objection is really about the definition of "server" as your definition makes clear.
Read the article. She's buying commercial internet. That was a consumer grade service, he just put a commercial grade line into a house. You can get 40gbs most places in the USA providing you are willing pay for it too. That's not really relevant to discussing consumer speeds.
40gbs or 40 GB of data / month. If the later you probably already have more. If you have less, are you kidding. That's an incredibly fast pipe. Some grandmother does not have that kind of speed anywhere.
I understand that. But I think you are wrong. The way you force people back into a culture of upgrading is having things not work anymore. Many users become very satisfied with their computers and setup to get them to upgrade is often quite hard.
Until recently (essentially the Windows 8 shift) Microsoft was far more concerned with maintaining marketshare of desktops then sales, the growth was coming from the enterprise server side of the business (SQLServer, Lync, Exchange, Dynamics...) With the rise of iPads and Android they started to genuinely lose share and thus had to change their strategy. Making the PC back into a dynamic environment where upgrades are required: somewhere between where they were in 2012 and Apple, is there new direction. Forcing browser upgrades is part of that. Companies have a tough time standardizing on a browser version which means internal software will be harder and harder to write for a single browser version.
Your IE8 customers are 1) the people who are still using the default with Win 7 2) the people running XP
Well they have killed off XP quite aggressively driving the market share down from around 35% to about 7% in a year and a half. And that did induce browser upgrades. People like you not supporting Windows 8 would do the rest.
Once you have several phones the cost of an on-contract phone is $40 including $17 (though usually closer to $20+) in subsidy i.e. only really about $18-23 on contract + $5g for extra data. The off contract prices in the USA aren't close to that low.
For an individual off contract makes a lot of sense but once you are buying 2, 3, 4 the on-contract experience is just too good.
Microsoft was a huge innovator before that (I.E. 3, 4, 4.5) before that. For a long time they were deliberately holding back on web because they didn't want a migration from desktop to web. Firefox, mobile applications and Safari (mobile) allowed that huge shift to happen. Now that's its happening Microsoft's interests have shifted from holding back to pushing forward. The reason is that x86/laptops are still way faster than ARM/tablet&mobile. The more sophisticated software is the better it is for Microsoft.
Microsoft's strategic interests are now aligned with progress like they were for desktops the 1980s through mid 1990s.
If you look at desktop / laptop IE is back to being a huge leader in marketshare even for page views and not just by machines. So they are highly relevant. You might not like that, it doesn't change anything.
As for basic point you are sort of contradicting yourself. You want people to upgrade browsers but not upgrade OSes, where browsers are essentially the OS for their web experience. You either have an upgrade culture or you don't. If you do then people are rapidly upgrading both (like Apple) if you don't then you get stuck on old versions forever (what Microsoft around 2012). I think its a good thing that Microsoft is moving back towards pushing people towards their latest OS for the same reason they should be pushed towards the latest browser. Microsoft can and should be a huge driver for innovation in the industry.
They have to move a lot of data to those local cable providers. They need a substantial backend to do it, tons of bandwidth running between cities. That's what Level 3 (http://www.level3.com) would be interested in. Bandwidth, access points, colos / generators. That is the core of a telecom business.
Assume I have machine X whose address is: prefix1:X's unique identifier on subnet to get to machine Y I use address prefix1:Y's unique identifier on subnet
Then X's address changes to: prefix2:X's unique identifier on subnet which means Y if you want to use hardcoded address is just prefix2:Y's unique identifier on subnet
Which is exactly what you are doing now with NAT (for a simple network).
Address shares my prefix -> use ARP Address doesn't share my prefix -> use IP and route
No you try again. Think about how computers work... I'm standing by my statement. Computer chips ultimately reduce everything to gates. One bit operations are far easier to resolve as they can resolve on a physical circuit.
Skype address are fine. Skype maintains a unique identifier and the device ties its IP to that unique identifier. My issue is not that people don't need to find devices, its that IP shouldn't be the mechanism for doing so.
As for the general rudeness in your post that's unnecessary. Believe it or not, people can have considered an issue and still disagree with you.
You think so? Why? There certainly are some changes but that's only a small thing. I'd assume at worst a simple one or two day seminar should allow them to update.
It appears that I have to remind you that mobile phones have an IP address these days. The LTE standard includes IPv6.
Absolutely true. Consumer mobile phones should probably just be on a giant subnet per carrier so the routing / switching isn't public i.e. everything in the last 64 bits. Business mobile phones maybe get their individual subnets but the carrier side is still totally private. So for example Verizon might reserve a/48 for all their mobile phones, business and consumer they service with the routing after that private. But the start of the/48 should be an easy public route to handoffs to Verizon's mobile network. Which preserves the basic idea that the IP address is meaningful for the public internet and isn't something that a company can rely on. If a company moves their mobile phones from Verizon to AT&T the IPs all change.
Sixty-four bit operations are beginning to be the normal thing now and 128 bit operations are not a big deal.
No they aren't a big deal. They are still much slower than one bit operations.
Does that show you simply enough that the use-case of fixed objects is not universal and that tracking moving ones is not such a big deal as to give up on them for arbitrary historical reasons?
I don't think people get the vision. There is a fundamentally can't do attitude that I think came from the IT of the budget crisis. There just isn't vision. The idea that we could have a much better internet what existed in the 1990s when every machine could talk to every machine by just completely solving the problem of IP scarcity.
Whereas with v6 you are expected to assign public IPs to end machines (most likely via stateless autoconfiguration) In principle you can assign machines multiple IPs so that you can keep your local stuff in the same place when your ISP changes your global addresses. How well this works in practice I don't know, it's certainly something that would make me wary when deploying v6 on a small buisness network.
You deploy a small business network, assume on a single subnet (a/64). Every machine knows its own first 64 bits. All the other local machines are going to have the same first 64 bits and then be fixed for the next 64 or whatever. Nothing has to change about your internal subnet structures other than you have far more options.
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that IPv6 is designed for much faster subnetting and routing. That's the reason it is so restrictive (example all subnets are/64). I could be wrong. If so what is the purpose of the change in policy.
Comcast residential customers are apparently being assigned/60s, which provides 16 subnets
Which is terrific. I can't wait to have various subnets with easy firewall rules based on the IP for home and small business networks.
That didn't help much. What's helping is the RIRs not having any v4 space to give out. People are going to fight hard to stay on IPv4. The RIRs can increase the pressure as high as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't. Cloud applications run over high latency networks. X11 assumes low latency networks.
No it isn't from network transparency. It is from networked applications. Network transparency is a specific mechanism for achieving application networking. Wayland has application networking it just uses a different mechanism.
That is a good brief one liner to explain it. A single display (server) has multiple clients connecting to it using its display. That being said, the problem is that:
client = what human works on
server = what systems's team maintains
seems to be the more common definition. The objection is really about the definition of "server" as your definition makes clear.
Read the article. She's buying commercial internet. That was a consumer grade service, he just put a commercial grade line into a house. You can get 40gbs most places in the USA providing you are willing pay for it too. That's not really relevant to discussing consumer speeds.
40gbs or 40 GB of data / month. If the later you probably already have more. If you have less, are you kidding. That's an incredibly fast pipe. Some grandmother does not have that kind of speed anywhere.
I understand that. But I think you are wrong. The way you force people back into a culture of upgrading is having things not work anymore. Many users become very satisfied with their computers and setup to get them to upgrade is often quite hard.
Until recently (essentially the Windows 8 shift) Microsoft was far more concerned with maintaining marketshare of desktops then sales, the growth was coming from the enterprise server side of the business (SQLServer, Lync, Exchange, Dynamics...) With the rise of iPads and Android they started to genuinely lose share and thus had to change their strategy. Making the PC back into a dynamic environment where upgrades are required: somewhere between where they were in 2012 and Apple, is there new direction. Forcing browser upgrades is part of that. Companies have a tough time standardizing on a browser version which means internal software will be harder and harder to write for a single browser version.
Your IE8 customers are
1) the people who are still using the default with Win 7
2) the people running XP
Well they have killed off XP quite aggressively driving the market share down from around 35% to about 7% in a year and a half. And that did induce browser upgrades. People like you not supporting Windows 8 would do the rest.
You just load a rootkit or just go into developer mode if you want pure root: http://trendblog.net/how-to-ro...
As for the configuration, its hackable. Load the OS configuration you want.
Once you have several phones the cost of an on-contract phone is $40 including $17 (though usually closer to $20+) in subsidy i.e. only really about $18-23 on contract + $5g for extra data. The off contract prices in the USA aren't close to that low.
For an individual off contract makes a lot of sense but once you are buying 2, 3, 4 the on-contract experience is just too good.
What's wrong with the Google Nexus as a nerd-friendly hackable phone?
There shouldn't be for customers of paid operating systems. Microsoft needs to throw off customers who find $40/yr for their OS to be too onerous.
Were are you getting that from. IE 8 is still popular but less than 11. IE 7 is under 1% share.
Microsoft was a huge innovator before that (I.E. 3, 4, 4.5) before that. For a long time they were deliberately holding back on web because they didn't want a migration from desktop to web. Firefox, mobile applications and Safari (mobile) allowed that huge shift to happen. Now that's its happening Microsoft's interests have shifted from holding back to pushing forward. The reason is that x86/laptops are still way faster than ARM/tablet&mobile. The more sophisticated software is the better it is for Microsoft.
Microsoft's strategic interests are now aligned with progress like they were for desktops the 1980s through mid 1990s.
If you look at desktop / laptop IE is back to being a huge leader in marketshare even for page views and not just by machines. So they are highly relevant. You might not like that, it doesn't change anything.
As for basic point you are sort of contradicting yourself. You want people to upgrade browsers but not upgrade OSes, where browsers are essentially the OS for their web experience. You either have an upgrade culture or you don't. If you do then people are rapidly upgrading both (like Apple) if you don't then you get stuck on old versions forever (what Microsoft around 2012). I think its a good thing that Microsoft is moving back towards pushing people towards their latest OS for the same reason they should be pushed towards the latest browser. Microsoft can and should be a huge driver for innovation in the industry.
The original poster got TWcable and twtelecom mixed up. But they have that: http://www.twtelecom.com/
They have to move a lot of data to those local cable providers. They need a substantial backend to do it, tons of bandwidth running between cities. That's what Level 3 (http://www.level3.com) would be interested in. Bandwidth, access points, colos / generators. That is the core of a telecom business.
Routers already have dedicated circuitry and chips for routing. For example:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/p...
They are not now nor will they then be generic computers. Things happen way to fast for a generic CPU.
Peter this is the same thing as NAT.
Assume I have machine X whose address is:
prefix1:X's unique identifier on subnet
to get to machine Y I use address
prefix1:Y's unique identifier on subnet
Then X's address changes to:
prefix2:X's unique identifier on subnet
which means Y if you want to use hardcoded address is just
prefix2:Y's unique identifier on subnet
Which is exactly what you are doing now with NAT (for a simple network).
Address shares my prefix -> use ARP
Address doesn't share my prefix -> use IP and route
I don't see the difference.
No you try again. Think about how computers work... I'm standing by my statement. Computer chips ultimately reduce everything to gates. One bit operations are far easier to resolve as they can resolve on a physical circuit.
Skype address are fine. Skype maintains a unique identifier and the device ties its IP to that unique identifier. My issue is not that people don't need to find devices, its that IP shouldn't be the mechanism for doing so.
As for the general rudeness in your post that's unnecessary. Believe it or not, people can have considered an issue and still disagree with you.
You think so? Why? There certainly are some changes but that's only a small thing. I'd assume at worst a simple one or two day seminar should allow them to update.
Absolutely true. Consumer mobile phones should probably just be on a giant subnet per carrier so the routing / switching isn't public i.e. everything in the last 64 bits. /48 for all their mobile phones, business and consumer they service with the routing after that private. But the start of the /48 should be an easy public route to handoffs to Verizon's mobile network. Which preserves the basic idea that the IP address is meaningful for the public internet and isn't something that a company can rely on. If a company moves their mobile phones from Verizon to AT&T the IPs all change.
Business mobile phones maybe get their individual subnets but the carrier side is still totally private. So for example Verizon might reserve a
No they aren't a big deal. They are still much slower than one bit operations.
Nope.
I don't think people get the vision. There is a fundamentally can't do attitude that I think came from the IT of the budget crisis. There just isn't vision. The idea that we could have a much better internet what existed in the 1990s when every machine could talk to every machine by just completely solving the problem of IP scarcity.
You deploy a small business network, assume on a single subnet (a /64). Every machine knows its own first 64 bits. All the other local machines are going to have the same first 64 bits and then be fixed for the next 64 or whatever. Nothing has to change about your internal subnet structures other than you have far more options.
Absolutely correct. Stupid on my part.
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that IPv6 is designed for much faster subnetting and routing. That's the reason it is so restrictive (example all subnets are /64). I could be wrong. If so what is the purpose of the change in policy.
Which is terrific. I can't wait to have various subnets with easy firewall rules based on the IP for home and small business networks.
That didn't help much. What's helping is the RIRs not having any v4 space to give out. People are going to fight hard to stay on IPv4. The RIRs can increase the pressure as high as needed.