There are at least 3x that many. There are huge blocks of unused space but then used space if often being crowded in tightly. We are long past when we should have switched.
You can change the MAC address (last 64 bits) your system advertises. If you don't like consistency, change addresses daily or whatever. Of course once systems start using your MAC address as a sort of username...
I'm going to assume that AWS can move very quickly once their customers start demanding IPv6. It wouldn't shock me if AWS's problem is that many of their carriers (remember they use tons given Direct Connect) don't support IPv6 and thus... So again they are one of the chicken & egg type problems.
AWS as a website though is a perfect point of attack. Once geolocation breaks (or there is a serious threat) I'm going to assume they go aggressively towards offering IPv6.
. I was hoping that the threat of inevitable pain would get American businesses to switch, but it looks like we’ll just have to wait for actual pain.
Yep. Given how long everyone is waiting by the time the change starts happening it might happen rather quickly. Many businesses that have done full conversions find it is a multi-year process as there are thousands of places where they make IPv4 assumptions without realizing it. Doing that at the last minute is going to hurt.
True. But other than outright regulation / fines... I'm not sure how to hit the right people. Right now we have:
a) ISPs being sluggish b) Some network people at companies being obstinate c) Companies being irresponsible about their own conversion d) The government not leading the effort (though in all fairness the Obama administration is better than I would expect on IPv6 issues).
That's true. One big advantage of IPv6 wii be the ability to create an essentially infinite number of external IPs associated with VMs / containers / microservices.
They did that. ARIN didn't want to raise prices they just blew through their IPv4s. So ISPs will need to buy them from each other rather while IPv6 addresses will given out for free.
The first step is the carriers / ISPs getting everyone an IPv6 address. The first thing to break after that will be geolocation as the carriers start pooling their home / small business IPv4 addresses and allocating them from a single common pool (so all Verizon originates in West Virginia). That will give companies a reason to switch their consumer internet.
In terms of B2B... I suspect most companies will change most stuff. However longer terms routing tables are getting too fragmented for some many routers and there are overlapping addresses (i.e. we don't have 1 address goes to one place anymore, especially in the 3rd world). As that gets worse IPv4 will break and companies will change.
The big question is: why haven't the telcos moved home / small business over yet?
A local internet registry at smallest only gets a/32. Which means they can only do 65k homes which would be too small. Now admittedly if they are getting a/20 (maximum allocation) will be fine. But that means you can only have 256 locals in each regional (i.e. each/12) and that's likely too few. There is tons of room but it isn't infinite.
I'm a fan of a/60 for homes. I guess you are right there is enough room to make a/48 work but that seems like needlessly throwing away a lot of bits.
You really shouldn't be using NAT with IPv6. The idea is one machine, one address. Given DNS I'm not sure why you would want fixed fully external IPs. But if you do you want to have some fixed external addresses do it via. some sort of relay where you have an external server at a telco colo with a very long term address and then the telco wires it back to your server (or just host your server with the telco). I think part of the idea of IPv6 is simplifying the routing tables so the old any address can go to any physical location should die. Routers should as much as possible be making routing choices not based on lookups buy literally picking one or more address bits and assigning them to a physical wire, very low latency routing.
The FSF does not include those qualifiers. Their statements as written are misleading.
For example "regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes" clearly is meant to imply "all movies". If they said "regulated every use of some movies.." that would be better. Even better would be to put the onus where it belongs, "allowing the system to implement the regulations publishers request on the use of movies allowing for either/both/neither of time locks & machines locks ". You see the difference?
As for the FSF being right on software they aren't right they don't include the qualifiers.
You state that without anything to back it up. I'm using the standard X11 that comes with Debian just fine,
Well yeah of course you are. It isn't 1993. Back then you wouldn't have been. The X11 was a disaster. 2015 is not the early 1990s. As I mentioned XFree86 became the standard well over a dozen years ago.
You started out saying, "systems that were once free become in practice proprietary and unfree even though there is some free almost worthless version hanging out under the BSD license". Yet it served Linux fine for over 20 years, while most of the commercial Unix's died out. Your point is invalid.
Are you that dishonest or just stupid? X Windows is invented in 1984. X11 comes out in 1987 and at that point commercial Xs are viable and introducing all sorts of cool features many of which are still not in XFree86. XFree86 starts in 1991 because the BSD licensed version of X is worthless. Linuxes are using commercial Xs mostly. XFree86 doesn't become really usable until 1995 or 1996 and even then it is just providing the basics still well behind the commercial X's. Your 20 year time period starts with an XFree86 that is nowhere near what SUN or SGI have and by then the the UNIX workstation market is on the decline. Linux misses the conversion and that instead goes to Windows NT. And the reason for that failure of X is the BSD license allowing commercial Xs not to share back. It isn't until the early 2000s that Linuxs have caught up with where the commercial UNIXes were in the early 1990s. The BSD version of X11 didn't serve Linux it crippled it.
Stop posting stupidity. Deal with the reality of the world. And if you don't know it, look it up.
You seem to think because a proprietary fork exists that counts as a failure.
No a proprietary fork that becomes the norm is a failure. That's the definition. That's what you are debating that BSD protects free software and keeps it free.
As for Apache if the value adds on top of Apache are proprietary than Apache is not thriving.
Well that's the question which is his objective. Having a non-proprietery operating system for mobile (Android with something playing the role of Google Play) on other people's hardware with no DRM doesn't require the FSF to get into the hardware business. Obviously they can create a phone using Replicant. And let's assume they can hit volumes of around 200k per 6mo which is about where they need to be to be not losing money. What does that buy them? It does nothing to change culture.
As far as I'm concerned RMS has always aimed for more mainstream not just hobbyist usage. That's why for example the GNU project tackled COBOL so early while doing other hacker friendly stuff later. He wanted GNU to be mainstream (not that the COBOL helped but the attitude of aiming for mainstream did). A Replicant based obscure phone that under a million people use does almost nothing for the cause of freedom.
I'm not sure if he is going to answer but if you don't explicitly waive copyright then you retain it. Releasing software to GitHub with no copyright notice means the original author retains all rights. No one else has a right to use it excluding exceptions to copyright law like fair use...
The point is that effectively permissively licensed programs can be made proprietary. The criticism is true. It is not FUD to tell people about proven dangers that have been multiply repeated. It isn't FUD to talk about how drunk driving gets people killed.
I think you are missing my point. The FSF could run the enterprise server with different policies and allow people to point their iPads and iPhones to it. They don't have to create anything. They don't have to change Apple's behaviors. They just need to use the features that Apple already provides to do most of what they want. Obviously the FSF can't overcome Apple's billions in R&D. They can't produce a better tablet. But they can follow simple directions and setup their own app store with their own policies that phones could choose to register against.
The system for Linux was from XFree86 which came after the work in the 1980s. Which I explained several times. The fact that 20 years ago it was so far behind and that many people were using commercial X's for Linux is the evidence of how badly the BSD model had failed.
As for OpenSSH has had many similar failures. Apache itself so far has mostly been cooperative and collaborative. At the same time the extensions into app servers like Tomcat have forked over into proprietary products. So in this case the ecosystem doesn't work.
But ultimately we have X.Org and all those old UNIX systems pretty much died out.
Ultimately they did. XFree86 outcompeted them. But the years in between were lost. The damage it did to free systems may not have been fixable. Those lost years were the period when Microsoft got their desktop model more unified with XP. A key reason why Linux on the desktop didn't happen. And of course the tremendous number of features which even now 25-30 years later are not part of X11 can't be magically added. X is precisely the kind of disaster that the GPL people talk about. It is the original example of total license failure from a free software perspective.
To the contrary there are a lot of hugely popular examples of success: Docker, OpenStack, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, Apache webserver, Hadoop, WebKit, zlib, postgres, OpenLDAP, Ruby, Clang, X.Org, etc.
I don't know that those are all successes. Hadoop has tons of proprietary extensions that aren't making it into the open product. Hadoop would have been experiencing what X experienced, except that Hortonworks has done such a good job of keeping the open source product viable while MapR. Revolution and Cloudera have been forking away. OpenSSL/OpenSSH have had proprietary extensions which aren't in the open product. Postgres has proprietary extensions. OpenLDAP, Ruby both do. I don't know about Clang.
Docker, OpenStack, etc... are new. They are with their original creators.
So here we have your list. And virtually every example demonstrates the failure of the BSD licensing model. That's the problem a long proven track record of failure. Webkit may be the only success on that list where the open product is as good as the closed ones. Now in most cases the open product is still usable from your list, but you picked your list so that this would be true. There are may examples where that isn't true.
Compare that to download from anywhere & install, which is the way with FSF software
True, but provisioning files are a security feature. It is one of the many reasons that virus are much more difficult to create for iOS. If you can sign your own software that makes software installation more difficult.
Now yes, you can get some agreement with Apple if you are big, successful, and/or have cash
This is not some mystery. You pay a nominal fee and you can run your own server replacing some of the functionality. Many of the MDM's include the enterprise SDK and some are sold on a per device per month basis.
Of course they mean DOWNLOAD from the Apple iTunes cloud services. Go try and play that video on your GNU/Linux box.
I can play non-DRMed content that I buy from the Apple ITunes services fine on a GNU/Linux box. I can also stream / share that content to a GNU/Linux box even if it is DRMed (obviously there needs to be a Mac in the loop somewhere). So even that description is not accurate. The problem isn't the store the problem is the DRM. The publisher determines if they want Apple to apply DRM or not, that's not Apple doing anything but enabling the choice for publishers. Some movies don't have DRM. It is reasonable to object to them enabling this. It is reasonable to object to the publishers choosing this. It is simply false to claim that Apple is regulating every use of every movie.
The Apple software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way.
That's still not true you still need to weaken it one more step. The iOS software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing non-enterprise software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way. Microstrategy which AFAIK sells more iOS software than anyone else in the world has very little of their product in the App store. They just don't sell on a $2.99 basis to individuals.
Another way of saying this is that Apple provides a regulated consumer ecosystem. One can certainly argue the advantages and disadvantages of a regulated consumer ecosystem vs. a fully open one. But mischaracterizing and misdescribing Apple's policies and technology do not aide that conversation. Anyway you cut it the FSF is either being incredibly sloppy or dishonest in their critique and that deserves criticism.
Again if the FSF doesn't like Apple's policies why not run their own enterprise SDK and allow people to point to their systems instead of Apple's? Apple fully supports this. They don't need to do anything tricky here.
Slashdot Mirror
There are at least 3x that many. There are huge blocks of unused space but then used space if often being crowded in tightly. We are long past when we should have switched.
You can change the MAC address (last 64 bits) your system advertises. If you don't like consistency, change addresses daily or whatever. Of course once systems start using your MAC address as a sort of username...
I'm going to assume that AWS can move very quickly once their customers start demanding IPv6. It wouldn't shock me if AWS's problem is that many of their carriers (remember they use tons given Direct Connect) don't support IPv6 and thus... So again they are one of the chicken & egg type problems.
AWS as a website though is a perfect point of attack. Once geolocation breaks (or there is a serious threat) I'm going to assume they go aggressively towards offering IPv6.
Yep. Given how long everyone is waiting by the time the change starts happening it might happen rather quickly. Many businesses that have done full conversions find it is a multi-year process as there are thousands of places where they make IPv4 assumptions without realizing it. Doing that at the last minute is going to hurt.
True. But other than outright regulation / fines... I'm not sure how to hit the right people. Right now we have:
a) ISPs being sluggish
b) Some network people at companies being obstinate
c) Companies being irresponsible about their own conversion
d) The government not leading the effort (though in all fairness the Obama administration is better than I would expect on IPv6 issues).
Makes sense. This is where I wish ARIN were pushing much harder to break the chicken and egg issue.
I hope ARIN doesn't reclaim. Let the shortages create the pain.
That's true. One big advantage of IPv6 wii be the ability to create an essentially infinite number of external IPs associated with VMs / containers / microservices.
They did that. ARIN didn't want to raise prices they just blew through their IPv4s. So ISPs will need to buy them from each other rather while IPv6 addresses will given out for free.
The first step is the carriers / ISPs getting everyone an IPv6 address. The first thing to break after that will be geolocation as the carriers start pooling their home / small business IPv4 addresses and allocating them from a single common pool (so all Verizon originates in West Virginia). That will give companies a reason to switch their consumer internet.
In terms of B2B... I suspect most companies will change most stuff. However longer terms routing tables are getting too fragmented for some many routers and there are overlapping addresses (i.e. we don't have 1 address goes to one place anymore, especially in the 3rd world). As that gets worse IPv4 will break and companies will change.
The big question is: why haven't the telcos moved home / small business over yet?
Why do you need multiple IPs on a machine with 1 nic? Besides the last 64 is going to be the MAC address.
AFAIk the 2001:678::/29 provider independent space are just supposed to be a bunch of /48 relays.
For residential users on IPv6 they can likely now have a fixed IP (or a /60) now. So it would only change when they their home ISP.
A local internet registry at smallest only gets a /32. Which means they can only do 65k homes which would be too small. Now admittedly if they are getting a /20 (maximum allocation) will be fine. But that means you can only have 256 locals in each regional (i.e. each /12) and that's likely too few. There is tons of room but it isn't infinite.
I'm a fan of a /60 for homes. I guess you are right there is enough room to make a /48 work but that seems like needlessly throwing away a lot of bits.
You really shouldn't be using NAT with IPv6. The idea is one machine, one address. Given DNS I'm not sure why you would want fixed fully external IPs. But if you do you want to have some fixed external addresses do it via. some sort of relay where you have an external server at a telco colo with a very long term address and then the telco wires it back to your server (or just host your server with the telco). I think part of the idea of IPv6 is simplifying the routing tables so the old any address can go to any physical location should die. Routers should as much as possible be making routing choices not based on lookups buy literally picking one or more address bits and assigning them to a physical wire, very low latency routing.
You sure that's residential? Why would a home need 65k subnets?
The FSF does not include those qualifiers. Their statements as written are misleading.
For example "regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes" clearly is meant to imply "all movies". If they said "regulated every use of some movies.." that would be better. Even better would be to put the onus where it belongs, "allowing the system to implement the regulations publishers request on the use of movies allowing for either/both/neither of time locks & machines locks ". You see the difference?
As for the FSF being right on software they aren't right they don't include the qualifiers.
Their statements are simply false.
Well yeah of course you are. It isn't 1993. Back then you wouldn't have been. The X11 was a disaster. 2015 is not the early 1990s. As I mentioned XFree86 became the standard well over a dozen years ago.
Are you that dishonest or just stupid? X Windows is invented in 1984. X11 comes out in 1987 and at that point commercial Xs are viable and introducing all sorts of cool features many of which are still not in XFree86. XFree86 starts in 1991 because the BSD licensed version of X is worthless. Linuxes are using commercial Xs mostly. XFree86 doesn't become really usable until 1995 or 1996 and even then it is just providing the basics still well behind the commercial X's. Your 20 year time period starts with an XFree86 that is nowhere near what SUN or SGI have and by then the the UNIX workstation market is on the decline. Linux misses the conversion and that instead goes to Windows NT. And the reason for that failure of X is the BSD license allowing commercial Xs not to share back. It isn't until the early 2000s that Linuxs have caught up with where the commercial UNIXes were in the early 1990s. The BSD version of X11 didn't serve Linux it crippled it.
Stop posting stupidity. Deal with the reality of the world. And if you don't know it, look it up.
No a proprietary fork that becomes the norm is a failure. That's the definition. That's what you are debating that BSD protects free software and keeps it free.
As for Apache if the value adds on top of Apache are proprietary than Apache is not thriving.
Well that's the question which is his objective. Having a non-proprietery operating system for mobile (Android with something playing the role of Google Play) on other people's hardware with no DRM doesn't require the FSF to get into the hardware business. Obviously they can create a phone using Replicant. And let's assume they can hit volumes of around 200k per 6mo which is about where they need to be to be not losing money. What does that buy them? It does nothing to change culture.
As far as I'm concerned RMS has always aimed for more mainstream not just hobbyist usage. That's why for example the GNU project tackled COBOL so early while doing other hacker friendly stuff later. He wanted GNU to be mainstream (not that the COBOL helped but the attitude of aiming for mainstream did). A Replicant based obscure phone that under a million people use does almost nothing for the cause of freedom.
I'm not sure if he is going to answer but if you don't explicitly waive copyright then you retain it. Releasing software to GitHub with no copyright notice means the original author retains all rights. No one else has a right to use it excluding exceptions to copyright law like fair use...
The point is that effectively permissively licensed programs can be made proprietary. The criticism is true. It is not FUD to tell people about proven dangers that have been multiply repeated. It isn't FUD to talk about how drunk driving gets people killed.
I think you are missing my point. The FSF could run the enterprise server with different policies and allow people to point their iPads and iPhones to it. They don't have to create anything. They don't have to change Apple's behaviors. They just need to use the features that Apple already provides to do most of what they want. Obviously the FSF can't overcome Apple's billions in R&D. They can't produce a better tablet. But they can follow simple directions and setup their own app store with their own policies that phones could choose to register against.
The system for Linux was from XFree86 which came after the work in the 1980s. Which I explained several times. The fact that 20 years ago it was so far behind and that many people were using commercial X's for Linux is the evidence of how badly the BSD model had failed.
As for OpenSSH has had many similar failures. Apache itself so far has mostly been cooperative and collaborative. At the same time the extensions into app servers like Tomcat have forked over into proprietary products. So in this case the ecosystem doesn't work.
Ultimately they did. XFree86 outcompeted them. But the years in between were lost. The damage it did to free systems may not have been fixable. Those lost years were the period when Microsoft got their desktop model more unified with XP. A key reason why Linux on the desktop didn't happen. And of course the tremendous number of features which even now 25-30 years later are not part of X11 can't be magically added. X is precisely the kind of disaster that the GPL people talk about. It is the original example of total license failure from a free software perspective.
I don't know that those are all successes. Hadoop has tons of proprietary extensions that aren't making it into the open product. Hadoop would have been experiencing what X experienced, except that Hortonworks has done such a good job of keeping the open source product viable while MapR. Revolution and Cloudera have been forking away. OpenSSL/OpenSSH have had proprietary extensions which aren't in the open product. Postgres has proprietary extensions. OpenLDAP, Ruby both do. I don't know about Clang.
Docker, OpenStack, etc... are new. They are with their original creators.
So here we have your list. And virtually every example demonstrates the failure of the BSD licensing model. That's the problem a long proven track record of failure. Webkit may be the only success on that list where the open product is as good as the closed ones. Now in most cases the open product is still usable from your list, but you picked your list so that this would be true. There are may examples where that isn't true.
The AC above claimed Linux kernel was the only example.
True, but provisioning files are a security feature. It is one of the many reasons that virus are much more difficult to create for iOS. If you can sign your own software that makes software installation more difficult.
This is not some mystery. You pay a nominal fee and you can run your own server replacing some of the functionality. Many of the MDM's include the enterprise SDK and some are sold on a per device per month basis.
I can play non-DRMed content that I buy from the Apple ITunes services fine on a GNU/Linux box. I can also stream / share that content to a GNU/Linux box even if it is DRMed (obviously there needs to be a Mac in the loop somewhere). So even that description is not accurate. The problem isn't the store the problem is the DRM. The publisher determines if they want Apple to apply DRM or not, that's not Apple doing anything but enabling the choice for publishers. Some movies don't have DRM. It is reasonable to object to them enabling this. It is reasonable to object to the publishers choosing this. It is simply false to claim that Apple is regulating every use of every movie.
That's still not true you still need to weaken it one more step. The iOS software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing non-enterprise software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way. Microstrategy which AFAIK sells more iOS software than anyone else in the world has very little of their product in the App store. They just don't sell on a $2.99 basis to individuals.
Another way of saying this is that Apple provides a regulated consumer ecosystem. One can certainly argue the advantages and disadvantages of a regulated consumer ecosystem vs. a fully open one. But mischaracterizing and misdescribing Apple's policies and technology do not aide that conversation. Anyway you cut it the FSF is either being incredibly sloppy or dishonest in their critique and that deserves criticism.
Again if the FSF doesn't like Apple's policies why not run their own enterprise SDK and allow people to point to their systems instead of Apple's? Apple fully supports this. They don't need to do anything tricky here.