I think you are failing to get a basic principle. The idea of a distribution after the initial layer has always been to offer a collection of packages designed to work together. In other words to make choice. So for example Suse used to be KDE only. Ubuntu used to be a Gnome based distribution. If you don't agree with the distribution handling of a big vertical that was always seen as pretty good reason to just leave. That's not the package managers being crap, that's just you asking for a degree of flexibility that they never had any intention of offering.
There are distributions and package managers that do what you want. They are designed for people who want control. Gentoo will allow you to do exactly that. Things like Gentoo's use allow you to reconfigure how the distribution is going to work and you can emerge several times and then just swap filesystems a symlink to determine how your system is configured. Puppy certainly allows you to easily build configurations though that's much more directed at portable. I've never played with Arch Linux but it might very well do what you want.
Linux does do this. Most distributions don't because most distributions understand their job as making the right choices not, not making choices.
No you are wrong these is an eco system not a device. Apple doesn't sell raw hardware ever. The iPad can do these things if you use it properly. There is an ecosystem and various parts of the eco system play different roles. The loading files device is iTunes and from there file conversions are really easy. Email is not the appropriate interface for loading files.
I'm not being a shill by saying that iPad aren't defective because they don't do things the same way Androids do. Heck if that were the case I could just write Android off entirely because they can't use program independent cloud based object databases (like iCloud can).
Nokia smartphones were inferior, and the sooner customers made the switch the better.
It would be feature phones that mattered. 3rd world customers weren't mostly ready to switch to smartphones. And I don't know that they were pre-force inferior. I think MeeGo could have worked well. Look how well reviewed the 9 is.
That's a low return business. You can move volume, but you make next to nothing on it.
That's their business. Yeah you make 10% of $250 on say 1/2b phones a year and clear $12b a year in profits. I could live with that. Let Apple make $300 per phone in profits.
the Lumia 710 is their answer to the 250 dollar android
The problem is customers hate Windows phones. For example in the USA sales are down 40% in a market that has tripled in size in the last 3 years.
Unfortunately they didn't have a platform other than MeeGo, and I get the feeling they figured it was going to fail without a backing of developers.
Symbian customers love MeeGo. Why wouldn't Symbian developers move to the new QT based platform. Heck, assume they couldn't get developers. Develop the first 500 apps at $50k each (total expense $25m) and give them away to attract users. Apps are no big deal for a global phone. Windows doesn't have developers either right now. Eventually of course they are going to want tens of thousands of apps, but Symbian customers were on phones with less than 500 apps.
Um except for touch. That's rather circular logic. Otherwise, hardware wise they can run Win 7.
Exactly. Microsoft forks hard. Windows 7 works well for COM and NET. Windows 8 is transitional and Windows 9 mostly deprecates the old hardware and possibly some software. I'm not sure what you mean by circular. Its like digging a hole the shovel makes the hole.
None of which actually addresses my point. Touch as a concept needs to be a lot more refined before it's thrust upon users like this. Right now users shift between mouse and keyboard. In the future MS wants them to shift between touch, mouse, and keyboard. In terms of workflow, that's highly disruptive.
They disagree that it needs to be refined. They've made the call its time to roll out partially now to start changing the hardware infrastructure. 1) OS first 2) Some Apps 3) Hardware 4) Increasing pressure on stragglers to get most apps on board.
They actually want more than just touch. They want ubiquity so users are switching between desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, shared desktops, home and work... They want stylus not just finger touch.
How does touch benefit users on the desktop?
It kills the traditional desktop and gives them a desktop as just one way to work. It isn't meant to just make a single desktop experience better. Its meant to be transformative. Word Processing didn't make typing pools better, it eliminated them all together and changed the nature of document construction.
a) Data is available anywhere on a huge variety of devices b) Automatic collaboration c) intuitiveness of touch and precision controls both available and easy to switch between. d) Voice controls. etc...
That's a question you don't seem to answer.
I've answered it a few times. It starts the motion towards better systems, and one of the first things it gets rid of the separation of "desktop" and "mobile" they blend into one another on an as needed basis. Again watch the video as people move data from their smartphones to a variety of systems. For example where Alya in her hotel room as she sinks her smartphone with the extended screen tray to work on the presentation.
The first step, Windows 8 may be a downgrade for desktop users. Window 7 is a really nice mature product, people are mostly happy. This is the way people were with DOS. DOS users didn't see Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 286 or Windows 386 as upgrades. Windows 386 had some potential. And then Windows 3.0..... today the idea of going back to DOS or being stuck on DOS is unthinkable. But the switch from DOS to Windows 3.0/3.1/for Workgroups was really disruptive. It forced people to get into a rapid hardware upgrade cycle for years and forced virtually every application to be written and shook up the whole eco system.
Do you think Microsoft did the wrong thing in forcing that change?
Vertu was a neat line of phones but that was always a niche product. The high end stuff was loved. And I think they had a good product in MeeGo.
Apple didn't have an existing phone business in 2007 Nokia did, all over the world. Apple's strategy is to make an incredible smart phone and get high margin customers to switch. Nokia's strategy should have been to migrate their dumb phone customers to feature phones and then to smart phones like the feature phones but that use more data. "the next billion" strategy. Apple wasn't a competitor of Nokia, Samsung is. They never should have been focused on the iPhone. They should focus on beating the $250 Android phone.
And what the fuck is "designed for integration" supposed to mean? Throwing buzzwords around isn't an argument. Give me some examples of where there would be insurmountable hurdles to allowing Gnome2 and Gnome3 to exist in parallel
First off, calm down. Nothing is insurmountable. It is however annoying, and labor intensive. I'd say take a look at the Slackware decision to drop Gnome. You could look at the forums at: droplinegnome.org which has lots of discussions about the integration challenges faced for the most minimal Gnome. To do 2 and 3 together would require having apps that have Gnome dependencies compile twice. An app just drops functionality when it goes from Gnome3 to XFCE but it expects things to be setup a certain way for Gnome2. So for example with dbus you need to let it know at compile time whether to compile in KDE support and that means you need kdelibs and QT. For gnome you need the associated GTK already in place (1,2 or 3). Etc... And this holds true for most packages.
At a certain point its just easier to switch distributions when it comes to a vertical package like this. Distributions either have variants like Linux Mint or they they just pick one option and move on. If you want a different option, go with a different distribution. Which has always been the case. Even during the early days there were KDE focused distributions and Gnome focused distributions.
Hosting costs are trivial. It is the cost of reviewing every app by hand and working with the developers. Remember how many non profitable apps there are for every one that does well. But each one goes through a review process.
I think Nokia did this to themselves with the platform shift. Their dumb phones were very popular until they told everyone they didn't want to support the gradual migration from Symbian and instead were going to focus on the smartphone market with Windows. Nokia has a good strategy and an execution problem but still growing sales.
Their problems were driven by the platform shift. Customers were more or less happy.
He said iPad doesn't have that flexibility. Which you agree with.
No I don't agree with that. This is no different than me wanting to view doc files on an Android device and complaining it doesn't work because when I pour soda on it the files don't pop up. You would give me a different procedure and then things would work fine.
If I wanted to load my iPad full of doc files I'd use my Mac to convert them to a iPad friendly format. And that is the procedure for using an iPad use it as a secondary device.
If the claim is that the iPad is a bad primary device, well it isn't a primary device at all, so who cares?
No I don't agree with the parent poster. The iPad is a secondary device. Flexibility should be coming from the primary device. The parent poster was failing to understand how to properly use an iOS system, and then complaining that if he used it improperly it didn't do what he wanted.
Apple makes good money from their App store. Their earnings report for 2012 Q3 states they've paid (cumulatively) $5.5 billion to app developers, which means $2.4 billion in commissions to Apple--hardly chump change.
You are confusing gross with net. They have considerably expenses in running the app store.
It does give pause about what the state of open computing will be in ten years...
It is interesting, I have no idea. The desktop sector is getting fun again.
For home users there are devices which are modem, switches, routers, firewalls all combined. And its firewalls that do NAT for v4. And most switches can be a slow firewall, which is fine for some house with 15 devices.
"1122:3344:5567::/48 via 1122:3344:5566:7788::1".
I'm assuming the 64 so the rule would be 1122:3344:5566:7788::/64 via 1122:3344:5566:7788::1 1122:3344:5566:7789::/64 via. 1122:3344:5566:7789::1 1122:3344:5566:778A::/64 via. 1122:3344:5566:778A::1
etc... for every house.
If they attach directly to the model then they are::1.
As for LAN side and WAN side that's more of a v4 concept I thought. We no longer have any distinction between internal and external IP for v6?
Why did they do that? Because there was no easy way to get Gnome2 back. How the heck is that acceptable behavior for a package manger in 2012?
That's not the fault of the package manager. Gnome is designed for integration. You want a Gnome 2 system you have it from a fairly low level or not integrate. But Linux Mint exists for people who liked Ubuntu's approach and want Gnome 2 with 2 well respected variants of Gnome 2.
GNU/Linux true believers are incapable of seeing that GNU/Linux is dying
BS. Linux owns -- a huge chunk of the server market -- essentially all of the super computing market -- a huge chunk of the embedded market -- is becoming a major guest OS for new development on mainframe -- 2 families of cell phone operating systems including the most popular one.
We are either close or at the point that there are more linux kernels than NT kernels running on any given day. Linux is doing great.
And frankly as a desktop OS with the Windows 8 strategy likely driving up hardware costs it is not unreasonable that Windows may create a sizable window for Linux to exploit at the bottom of the market. Late 2013 approx may be the best opportunity Linux has had since netbooks.
Operation systems aren't that modular. They require integrations and dependencies to work. There are real choices that need to be made. You should try Gentoo which comes closest to that model.
No, it doesn't obviously know it. It needs to look it up in the routing table, and somebody needs to configure the routing table, and you need to configure the router to match the routing table.
But the next downstream router from the ISP is the edge device say 1122:3344:5566:7788:0000:0000:0000:0001 and they would certainly know about that address they assigned it to the home user.
However, you wouldn't be able give those devices IPv4 addresses because your TOS usually allows only one IPv4 address.
With only one IPv4 address I'm going to have to use NAT for IPv4 traffic, that's a given. I'm trying to figure out what goes wrong for v6.
I agree with the setup. I'm still not seeing where this doesn't work.
Scenario A, home gets a/64 Lets assume I get 1122:3344:5566:7788:: So now traffic comes in for any home device like 1122:3344:5566:7788::ABCD:EF01:2222:5678 the ISP obviously knows where to route because of the first 64 bits. They don't have to route beyond that because the home router takes care of the devices.
Scenario B I want subnets
Then either ISP --> modem --> edge switch --> switch A, switch B switch A -> device A1, device A2 switch B -> device B1, device B2
all 4 devices and all switches register with one another just like normal stackable routers. The switches can also handle light home routing. Why would the ISP need to know anything? And of course I can have all sorts of restrictions on address spaces and VLANs just like I do today.
I do see your point about the/56 or/48 making it possible for auto-configuration and routing but I don't see why this sort of setup isn't still fine.
One of the main points of your assumption is predicated that consumers will buy touch screens for desktops. At this point, people are not buying new desktops as often because their existing hardware is good enough.
Windows 8 starts the process of it not being good enough. As more apps go Metro it will get worse. By Windows 9 it will be totally unusable.
If they have a good decent sized monitors why would they pay extra money for touch? The other part of the assumption is that touch is a compelling reason to upgrade. Similar to above. Because they won't have a choice. Their apps don't work well without touch.
You aren't thinking what is actually good for the user and how users actually work.
Well first off, I'm not Microsoft. But yes I think Microsoft is thinking about what's good for the user but in a much longer term sense. Windows users are not advantaged by having a moribund platfomr that's designed for mid 1990s computers when they could have so much more. The potential exists for amazing interfaces. The end users of 2025 deserve the version of Microsoft Office from that video, not the rate of change they've seen over the past 13 years. On the other hand the end users at any given year don't necessarily want the disruption that's required to bring back a vibrant tech sector. I think they are wrong and I have no problem with supporting Microsoft in bring back a vibrant tech sector.
Secondly. Windows users, particularly benefit from a healthy eco system that is unified (here is an area I hope Microsoft fails BTW). Training costs were much lower in the late 90s when you could just assume had "Microsoft office" than they were in the 80s where end users all knew different packages. It is not to the user's advantage that consumer be lost to Microsoft and that by the end of this decade the exciting segments of technology are using paradigms that can't co-exist with Windows. It is not to their advantage that 2017-2040 be years when Microsoft falls completely and the entire computing software infrastructure needs to be totally replaced, possibly more than once.
Users can give a damn about how COM and.NET works.
I understand that. So what? They don't give a damn about how their water system works we don't allow them to drink hazardous chemicals or high bacterial concentrations, water experts make choices for them. In this case Microsoft, is making those choices.
Developers are stuck with using UI methods that they may not like.
I'm still not following the neighbor discovery issue. Can you send me a link or something. I get what neighbor discovery does but I'm not seeing the problem. I'm missing something in your argument.
No I get that. The NAT (in the answer above) exists for the v4 network not the v6 network. There shouldn't be any NAT for the v6. What I'm not seeing is why a/64 doesn't work for anything at home except multiple routers + autoconfiguration.
Hold on a second. The movement of icons is fully animated. There is no forced grid of icons in terms of animation. There are slots in terms of the way the UI operates but those have folders which I don't think I had on my PDAs from a 15 years ago. But certainly not much different in terms of functionality than BlackBerry OS, Apple just got the interface to be much more intuitive.
I said the OSes look similar. I think it would be better for Android if it looked less similar. There is a lot going on that's too subtle. The Samsung trial is doing a good job of convincing me that Samsung should have stuck with the F700 style interface they had which strikes me as a better fit for Android than the iPhone like interface, which as we seem to agree is designed for a simpler OS.
So "capacitive touchscreen" is now "core aspect of the interface" now? Seriously?
Yes. The same way the Mac's interface for 30 years has had mouse / pointer / click interactions as a core aspect. Even with the move from mice to trackpads lots of the mouse legacy: moving a pointer and clicking, remain. The capacitive touchscreen interface gets rid of the pointer for everything but text entry. And text entry is being replaced with voice dictation.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are failing to get a basic principle. The idea of a distribution after the initial layer has always been to offer a collection of packages designed to work together. In other words to make choice. So for example Suse used to be KDE only. Ubuntu used to be a Gnome based distribution. If you don't agree with the distribution handling of a big vertical that was always seen as pretty good reason to just leave. That's not the package managers being crap, that's just you asking for a degree of flexibility that they never had any intention of offering.
There are distributions and package managers that do what you want. They are designed for people who want control. Gentoo will allow you to do exactly that. Things like Gentoo's use allow you to reconfigure how the distribution is going to work and you can emerge several times and then just swap filesystems a symlink to determine how your system is configured. Puppy certainly allows you to easily build configurations though that's much more directed at portable. I've never played with Arch Linux but it might very well do what you want.
Linux does do this. Most distributions don't because most distributions understand their job as making the right choices not, not making choices.
. There is a device, it can or cannot do things
No you are wrong these is an eco system not a device. Apple doesn't sell raw hardware ever. The iPad can do these things if you use it properly. There is an ecosystem and various parts of the eco system play different roles. The loading files device is iTunes and from there file conversions are really easy. Email is not the appropriate interface for loading files.
I'm not being a shill by saying that iPad aren't defective because they don't do things the same way Androids do. Heck if that were the case I could just write Android off entirely because they can't use program independent cloud based object databases (like iCloud can).
Nokia smartphones were inferior, and the sooner customers made the switch the better.
It would be feature phones that mattered. 3rd world customers weren't mostly ready to switch to smartphones. And I don't know that they were pre-force inferior. I think MeeGo could have worked well. Look how well reviewed the 9 is.
That's a low return business. You can move volume, but you make next to nothing on it.
That's their business. Yeah you make 10% of $250 on say 1/2b phones a year and clear $12b a year in profits. I could live with that. Let Apple make $300 per phone in profits.
the Lumia 710 is their answer to the 250 dollar android
The problem is customers hate Windows phones. For example in the USA sales are down 40% in a market that has tripled in size in the last 3 years.
Unfortunately they didn't have a platform other than MeeGo, and I get the feeling they figured it was going to fail without a backing of developers.
Symbian customers love MeeGo. Why wouldn't Symbian developers move to the new QT based platform. Heck, assume they couldn't get developers. Develop the first 500 apps at $50k each (total expense $25m) and give them away to attract users. Apps are no big deal for a global phone. Windows doesn't have developers either right now. Eventually of course they are going to want tens of thousands of apps, but Symbian customers were on phones with less than 500 apps.
Um except for touch. That's rather circular logic. Otherwise, hardware wise they can run Win 7.
Exactly. Microsoft forks hard. Windows 7 works well for COM and NET. Windows 8 is transitional and Windows 9 mostly deprecates the old hardware and possibly some software. I'm not sure what you mean by circular. Its like digging a hole the shovel makes the hole.
None of which actually addresses my point. Touch as a concept needs to be a lot more refined before it's thrust upon users like this. Right now users shift between mouse and keyboard. In the future MS wants them to shift between touch, mouse, and keyboard. In terms of workflow, that's highly disruptive.
They disagree that it needs to be refined. They've made the call its time to roll out partially now to start changing the hardware infrastructure.
1) OS first
2) Some Apps
3) Hardware
4) Increasing pressure on stragglers to get most apps on board.
They actually want more than just touch. They want ubiquity so users are switching between desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, shared desktops, home and work... They want stylus not just finger touch.
How does touch benefit users on the desktop?
It kills the traditional desktop and gives them a desktop as just one way to work. It isn't meant to just make a single desktop experience better. Its meant to be transformative. Word Processing didn't make typing pools better, it eliminated them all together and changed the nature of document construction.
a) Data is available anywhere on a huge variety of devices
b) Automatic collaboration
c) intuitiveness of touch and precision controls both available and easy to switch between.
d) Voice controls.
etc...
That's a question you don't seem to answer.
I've answered it a few times. It starts the motion towards better systems, and one of the first things it gets rid of the separation of "desktop" and "mobile" they blend into one another on an as needed basis. Again watch the video as people move data from their smartphones to a variety of systems. For example where Alya in her hotel room as she sinks her smartphone with the extended screen tray to work on the presentation.
The first step, Windows 8 may be a downgrade for desktop users. Window 7 is a really nice mature product, people are mostly happy. This is the way people were with DOS. DOS users didn't see Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 286 or Windows 386 as upgrades. Windows 386 had some potential. And then Windows 3.0 ..... today the idea of going back to DOS or being stuck on DOS is unthinkable. But the switch from DOS to Windows 3.0/3.1/for Workgroups was really disruptive. It forced people to get into a rapid hardware upgrade cycle for years and forced virtually every application to be written and shook up the whole eco system.
Do you think Microsoft did the wrong thing in forcing that change?
Vertu was a neat line of phones but that was always a niche product. The high end stuff was loved. And I think they had a good product in MeeGo.
Apple didn't have an existing phone business in 2007 Nokia did, all over the world. Apple's strategy is to make an incredible smart phone and get high margin customers to switch. Nokia's strategy should have been to migrate their dumb phone customers to feature phones and then to smart phones like the feature phones but that use more data. "the next billion" strategy. Apple wasn't a competitor of Nokia, Samsung is. They never should have been focused on the iPhone. They should focus on beating the $250 Android phone.
I think you are right on that one. I'm shocked I'd have figured they switched already.
And what the fuck is "designed for integration" supposed to mean? Throwing buzzwords around isn't an argument. Give me some examples of where there would be insurmountable hurdles to allowing Gnome2 and Gnome3 to exist in parallel
First off, calm down. Nothing is insurmountable. It is however annoying, and labor intensive. I'd say take a look at the Slackware decision to drop Gnome. You could look at the forums at: droplinegnome.org which has lots of discussions about the integration challenges faced for the most minimal Gnome. To do 2 and 3 together would require having apps that have Gnome dependencies compile twice. An app just drops functionality when it goes from Gnome3 to XFCE but it expects things to be setup a certain way for Gnome2. So for example with dbus you need to let it know at compile time whether to compile in KDE support and that means you need kdelibs and QT. For gnome you need the associated GTK already in place (1,2 or 3). Etc... And this holds true for most packages.
At a certain point its just easier to switch distributions when it comes to a vertical package like this. Distributions either have variants like Linux Mint or they they just pick one option and move on. If you want a different option, go with a different distribution. Which has always been the case. Even during the early days there were KDE focused distributions and Gnome focused distributions.
Hosting costs are trivial. It is the cost of reviewing every app by hand and working with the developers. Remember how many non profitable apps there are for every one that does well. But each one goes through a review process.
I think Nokia did this to themselves with the platform shift. Their dumb phones were very popular until they told everyone they didn't want to support the gradual migration from Symbian and instead were going to focus on the smartphone market with Windows. Nokia has a good strategy and an execution problem but still growing sales.
Their problems were driven by the platform shift. Customers were more or less happy.
He said iPad doesn't have that flexibility. Which you agree with.
No I don't agree with that. This is no different than me wanting to view doc files on an Android device and complaining it doesn't work because when I pour soda on it the files don't pop up. You would give me a different procedure and then things would work fine.
If I wanted to load my iPad full of doc files I'd use my Mac to convert them to a iPad friendly format. And that is the procedure for using an iPad use it as a secondary device.
If the claim is that the iPad is a bad primary device, well it isn't a primary device at all, so who cares?
No I don't agree with the parent poster. The iPad is a secondary device. Flexibility should be coming from the primary device. The parent poster was failing to understand how to properly use an iOS system, and then complaining that if he used it improperly it didn't do what he wanted.
Well they've already pushed Gnome 3 out. Their customers are fine with it.
Apple makes good money from their App store. Their earnings report for 2012 Q3 states they've paid (cumulatively) $5.5 billion to app developers, which means $2.4 billion in commissions to Apple--hardly chump change.
You are confusing gross with net. They have considerably expenses in running the app store.
It does give pause about what the state of open computing will be in ten years...
It is interesting, I have no idea. The desktop sector is getting fun again.
For home users there are devices which are modem, switches, routers, firewalls all combined. And its firewalls that do NAT for v4. And most switches can be a slow firewall, which is fine for some house with 15 devices.
"1122:3344:5567::/48 via 1122:3344:5566:7788::1".
I'm assuming the 64 so the rule would be
1122:3344:5566:7788::/64 via 1122:3344:5566:7788::1
1122:3344:5566:7789::/64 via. 1122:3344:5566:7789::1
1122:3344:5566:778A::/64 via. 1122:3344:5566:778A::1
etc... for every house.
If they attach directly to the model then they are ::1.
As for LAN side and WAN side that's more of a v4 concept I thought. We no longer have any distinction between internal and external IP for v6?
Why did they do that? Because there was no easy way to get Gnome2 back. How the heck is that acceptable behavior for a package manger in 2012?
That's not the fault of the package manager. Gnome is designed for integration. You want a Gnome 2 system you have it from a fairly low level or not integrate. But Linux Mint exists for people who liked Ubuntu's approach and want Gnome 2 with 2 well respected variants of Gnome 2.
I'm having a tough time seeing the stupidity
If you don't have vision that's not a problem that has anything to do with mainstream distributions.
But an excellent distribution is: http://knopper.net/knoppix-adriane/index-en.html
GNU/Linux true believers are incapable of seeing that GNU/Linux is dying
BS. Linux owns
-- a huge chunk of the server market
-- essentially all of the super computing market
-- a huge chunk of the embedded market
-- is becoming a major guest OS for new development on mainframe
-- 2 families of cell phone operating systems including the most popular one.
We are either close or at the point that there are more linux kernels than NT kernels running on any given day. Linux is doing great.
And frankly as a desktop OS with the Windows 8 strategy likely driving up hardware costs it is not unreasonable that Windows may create a sizable window for Linux to exploit at the bottom of the market. Late 2013 approx may be the best opportunity Linux has had since netbooks.
Operation systems aren't that modular. They require integrations and dependencies to work. There are real choices that need to be made. You should try Gentoo which comes closest to that model.
sorry I know I'm being dense here
No, it doesn't obviously know it. It needs to look it up in the routing table, and somebody needs to configure the routing table, and you need to configure the router to match the routing table.
But the next downstream router from the ISP is the edge device say 1122:3344:5566:7788:0000:0000:0000:0001 and they would certainly know about that address they assigned it to the home user.
However, you wouldn't be able give those devices IPv4 addresses because your TOS usually allows only one IPv4 address.
With only one IPv4 address I'm going to have to use NAT for IPv4 traffic, that's a given. I'm trying to figure out what goes wrong for v6.
I agree with the setup. I'm still not seeing where this doesn't work.
Scenario A, home gets a /64 Lets assume I get 1122:3344:5566:7788::
So now traffic comes in for any home device like 1122:3344:5566:7788::ABCD:EF01:2222:5678
the ISP obviously knows where to route because of the first 64 bits. They don't have to route beyond that because the home router takes care of the devices.
Scenario B I want subnets
Then either
ISP --> modem --> edge switch --> switch A, switch B
switch A -> device A1, device A2
switch B -> device B1, device B2
all 4 devices and all switches register with one another just like normal stackable routers. The switches can also handle light home routing. Why would the ISP need to know anything? And of course I can have all sorts of restrictions on address spaces and VLANs just like I do today.
I do see your point about the /56 or /48 making it possible for auto-configuration and routing but I don't see why this sort of setup isn't still fine.
One of the main points of your assumption is predicated that consumers will buy touch screens for desktops. At this point, people are not buying new desktops as often because their existing hardware is good enough.
Windows 8 starts the process of it not being good enough. As more apps go Metro it will get worse. By Windows 9 it will be totally unusable.
If they have a good decent sized monitors why would they pay extra money for touch? The other part of the assumption is that touch is a compelling reason to upgrade.
Similar to above. Because they won't have a choice. Their apps don't work well without touch.
You aren't thinking what is actually good for the user and how users actually work.
Well first off, I'm not Microsoft. But yes I think Microsoft is thinking about what's good for the user but in a much longer term sense. Windows users are not advantaged by having a moribund platfomr that's designed for mid 1990s computers when they could have so much more. The potential exists for amazing interfaces. The end users of 2025 deserve the version of Microsoft Office from that video, not the rate of change they've seen over the past 13 years. On the other hand the end users at any given year don't necessarily want the disruption that's required to bring back a vibrant tech sector. I think they are wrong and I have no problem with supporting Microsoft in bring back a vibrant tech sector.
Secondly. Windows users, particularly benefit from a healthy eco system that is unified (here is an area I hope Microsoft fails BTW). Training costs were much lower in the late 90s when you could just assume had "Microsoft office" than they were in the 80s where end users all knew different packages. It is not to the user's advantage that consumer be lost to Microsoft and that by the end of this decade the exciting segments of technology are using paradigms that can't co-exist with Windows. It is not to their advantage that 2017-2040 be years when Microsoft falls completely and the entire computing software infrastructure needs to be totally replaced, possibly more than once.
Users can give a damn about how COM and .NET works.
I understand that. So what? They don't give a damn about how their water system works we don't allow them to drink hazardous chemicals or high bacterial concentrations, water experts make choices for them. In this case Microsoft, is making those choices.
Developers are stuck with using UI methods that they may not like.
This objection I don't follow.
I'm still not following the neighbor discovery issue. Can you send me a link or something. I get what neighbor discovery does but I'm not seeing the problem. I'm missing something in your argument.
No I get that. The NAT (in the answer above) exists for the v4 network not the v6 network. There shouldn't be any NAT for the v6. What I'm not seeing is why a /64 doesn't work for anything at home except multiple routers + autoconfiguration.
grid of square icons that we had ages ago on PDAs
Hold on a second. The movement of icons is fully animated. There is no forced grid of icons in terms of animation. There are slots in terms of the way the UI operates but those have folders which I don't think I had on my PDAs from a 15 years ago. But certainly not much different in terms of functionality than BlackBerry OS, Apple just got the interface to be much more intuitive.
On the other hand action launching is something I couldn't do with my PDA and I do via. iOS: http://appcubby.com/launch-center/
It's hard to see how OSes are "similar".
I said the OSes look similar. I think it would be better for Android if it looked less similar. There is a lot going on that's too subtle. The Samsung trial is doing a good job of convincing me that Samsung should have stuck with the F700 style interface they had which strikes me as a better fit for Android than the iPhone like interface, which as we seem to agree is designed for a simpler OS.
So "capacitive touchscreen" is now "core aspect of the interface" now? Seriously?
Yes. The same way the Mac's interface for 30 years has had mouse / pointer / click interactions as a core aspect. Even with the move from mice to trackpads lots of the mouse legacy: moving a pointer and clicking, remain. The capacitive touchscreen interface gets rid of the pointer for everything but text entry. And text entry is being replaced with voice dictation.