"The death of IPv4 has not really killed the Internet. In fact, far from it, we've managed to make an industry around it. We've already created a business around where we are, not where we want to be. Skype is not a charity and it works in all of this muck. If it couldn't work, complain to me, but as long as it works, I don't see the problem."
and
"Anyone that is a clever economic unit will buy and sell. Anyone with class B addresses will figure out that if they band up behind a NAT, they can sell off all spare addresses. So scarcity is just a pricing function and there will be a market in address compression."
So now APNIC gets 3 out of the last 7/8 blocks, which I know was always to be expected due to the growth in the APAC region. But one also gets the feeling that several big players are planning to purposefully delay IPv6 adoption as long as humanly possible in order to monetise the hell out of their IPv4 allocations.
Expect the net to become nice big clusterfuck of CGN and other "solutions" in the next few years before everyone finally gives up and migrates to IPv6... assuming the transition actually happens and we don't kiss end-to-end goodbye forever.
You only have to look at their current Linux i386 support to see how unlikely it is that Skype will ever do a mipsel port that can run on a bunch of these routers. Your best bet would be a SIP phone with Asterisk, which has already been ported to OpenWRT.
He's referring to this fantastic book, where dialogues between Achilles and the tortoise (c.f. Zeno's Paradoxes) are sometimes used to dramatise various concepts.
> Why do people use adblock? Isn't that what the hosts file is for?
No. Here's an excerpt of the hosts manpage from a Debian system: HISTORICAL NOTES
RFC 952 gave the original format for the host table, though it has
since changed.
Before the advent of DNS, the host table was the only way of resolving
hostnames on the fledgling Internet. Indeed, this file could be created
from the official host data base maintained at the Network Information
Control Center (NIC), though local changes were often required to bring
it up to date regarding unofficial aliases and/or unknown hosts. The
NIC no longer maintains the hosts.txt files, though looking around at
the time of writing (circa 2000), there are historical hosts.txt files
on the WWW. I just found three, from 92, 94, and 95.
> If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Hosts file lines in Windows\system32\Drivers\etc\ think of it as a blacklist.
No, think of it as what it's meant to be -- a way to "advise" the resolver library so as to override the DNS, add host aliases or do name-based address lookup in the absence of DNS, which is useful in very small networks. It works like this because the resolver tries the hosts file first by default, though on Unix systems you can change this.
> Windows won't allow those sites to connect to you, thus, No ADS!
Wrong. Windows will see an incoming packet's source IP address. It doesn't need a name to reply, so at no point will your hosts file come into play. A program could try to resolve the address and log messages or control access based on the hostname. That address will not be found anywhere in the hosts list so again no effect.
> If you are thinking, golly, that's alot of typing, my hosts file is 421k.
Puke.
> You can copy paste from others off the internet. that's one less process, smaller footprint, and speeds up browsing somewhat, as the ad connections aren't made so the crap isn't loaded.
Yes, the crap isn't loaded, but connections *are* attempted to whatever address is in the host entry. If you have 127.0.0.1, your browser will try to connect to localhost -- that's your own machine. This will fail even if you do run a webserver, because the requested page will most likely not exist.
So, from your point of view, you add domains to the hosts file and they go away. Under the hood though, the system has to do a whole lot of crap before the request will fail. Contrast this with an adblocker, which does patern matching on a URL and simply ignores it if it's on the blacklist.
Can you see now why your 421K hosts file is a horrible kludge?:-)
No, that's charity. It would only be sound economics to sell at $0 if there was an intent to raise prices later, once a network effect was established.
The way I see it, it's charity to _some_ extent, but there's also a price: more free software. If you distribute something derived from my GPL'd program, it has to be under the same license and I get to use your code under these terms.
The "network effect" here is that at as free software becomes more capable, it makes economic sense to contribute back so you can leverage it. I remember, for example, reading an article where RMS said that applications have been made free just so they could use the readline library. Other examples are Qt, and even the Quake3 engine, although Trolltech and id would also be quite happy to sell you a proprietary license and take your money instead.
It's great that Novell and RedHat see a commercial advantage in developing OpenGL accelerated X servers, and that they compete with each other while contributing to the free software base. Of course, other companies have been known to use vast amounts of free software in their products and give back absolutely nothing (or even violate the license outright -- various manufacturers of networking gear come to mind), so the model may not be working all that well in practice. This may also be a fault in the GPL, but I don't know enough to comment on that.
You can create the mirror with one drive "missing".
Basically, you set things up so that Linux can boot from a raid device, copy everything to the second drive, reboot off the raid, add the first drive to the array, and watch the blinkenlights as the mirror is constructed.
x0rfbserver. Run it in your main X session and it will make it remotely accessible by other RFB clients (such as xrfbviewer and vncclient). Oh, and you want version >= 0.6.1 (google for rfb-0.6.1.tar.gz if necessary) .
The model that's even more maddening to me are sites that spawn additional browsers without asking me. I hate clicking to a site only to have 3 more browser windows pop up with surveys and videos and ads -- even worse when you're trying to leave the site to have multiple, persistent, ads flung at you without recourse. This kind of browser-jacking is a fast way to get on my list of sites I'll never come back to.
If you use mozilla (0.8+), including the following in your prefs.js will help:
user_pref("capability.policy.default.windowinter na l.open","noAccess");
>Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons, >enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh >science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Science didn't invent nuclear weapons, it only discovered how to split the atom. It was the governments that decided to use this technology to make weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, science has nothing to do with the environmental rape; this is a result of pure human greed and stupidity. As for the antibiotics, I suppose it is a trade-off between saving human lives now and risking losing some in the future. Man has always been a notoriously shortsighted creature:)
IMHO, science should have nothing to do with moral values. Its goal is to extend our knowledge; what we do with it is entirely up to us. We can't blame science if we use it to shoot ourselves in the foot with.
Personally, I'm tired of the old "we are not ready yet" theme. If we don't make mistakes we'll never be.
I think "The New Physics" (ISBN: 0-521-43831-4, Cambridge Univ. Press) by Paul Davies (editor) in an excellent introductory book. There is enough detail to distinguish it from the usual `popular science' books and at the same time it only assumes you know A-level physics/maths, so it should definitely be readable. Your college library should have it, check it out!
Same here (a segfault). Although the BUILD file for hewx in the source distribution says that "wxHugo was developed with wxWindows 2.1 snapshot 8 and later" it only seems to work with snapshot 8, not 9! I got it from here. Brilliant game, BTW!
Re:Ironic? In more ways than one.
on
SCO does Linux
·
· Score: 1
I find this ironic for an entirely different reason; a message sent by SCO to a RHL mailing list about two years ago, suggesting that Linux users would be better off replacing their `old Linux OS' with (some version of) SCO -- at the price of ~$1500:>
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to read what APNIC's own chief scientist thought of IPv4 exhaustion only five years ago. Quotes from that article:
"The death of IPv4 has not really killed the Internet. In fact, far from it, we've managed to make an industry around it. We've already created a business around where we are, not where we want to be. Skype is not a charity and it works in all of this muck. If it couldn't work, complain to me, but as long as it works, I don't see the problem."
and
"Anyone that is a clever economic unit will buy and sell. Anyone with class B addresses will figure out that if they band up behind a NAT, they can sell off all spare addresses. So scarcity is just a pricing function and there will be a market in address compression."
So now APNIC gets 3 out of the last 7 /8 blocks, which I know was always to be expected due to the growth in the APAC region. But one also gets the feeling that several big players are planning to purposefully delay IPv6 adoption as long as humanly possible in order to monetise the hell out of their IPv4 allocations.
Expect the net to become nice big clusterfuck of CGN and other "solutions" in the next few years before everyone finally gives up and migrates to IPv6... assuming the transition actually happens and we don't kiss end-to-end goodbye forever.
You only have to look at their current Linux i386 support to see how unlikely it is that Skype will ever do a mipsel port that can run on a bunch of these routers. Your best bet would be a SIP phone with Asterisk, which has already been ported to OpenWRT.
He's referring to this fantastic book, where dialogues between Achilles and the tortoise (c.f. Zeno's Paradoxes) are sometimes used to dramatise various concepts.
> Why do people use adblock? Isn't that what the hosts file is for?
:-)
No. Here's an excerpt of the hosts manpage from a Debian system:
HISTORICAL NOTES
RFC 952 gave the original format for the host table, though it has
since changed.
Before the advent of DNS, the host table was the only way of resolving
hostnames on the fledgling Internet. Indeed, this file could be created
from the official host data base maintained at the Network Information
Control Center (NIC), though local changes were often required to bring
it up to date regarding unofficial aliases and/or unknown hosts. The
NIC no longer maintains the hosts.txt files, though looking around at
the time of writing (circa 2000), there are historical hosts.txt files
on the WWW. I just found three, from 92, 94, and 95.
> If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Hosts file lines in Windows\system32\Drivers\etc\ think of it as a blacklist.
No, think of it as what it's meant to be -- a way to "advise" the resolver library so as to override the DNS, add host aliases or do name-based address lookup in the absence of DNS, which is useful in very small networks. It works like this because the resolver tries the hosts file first by default, though on Unix systems you can change this.
> Windows won't allow those sites to connect to you, thus, No ADS!
Wrong. Windows will see an incoming packet's source IP address. It doesn't need a name to reply, so at no point will your hosts file come into play. A program could try to resolve the address and log messages or control access based on the hostname. That address will not be found anywhere in the hosts list so again no effect.
> If you are thinking, golly, that's alot of typing, my hosts file is 421k.
Puke.
> You can copy paste from others off the internet.
that's one less process, smaller footprint, and speeds up browsing somewhat, as the ad connections aren't made so the crap isn't loaded.
Yes, the crap isn't loaded, but connections *are* attempted to whatever address is in the host entry. If you have 127.0.0.1, your browser will try to connect to localhost -- that's your own machine. This will fail even if you do run a webserver, because the requested page will most likely not exist.
So, from your point of view, you add domains to the hosts file and they go away. Under the hood though, the system has to do a whole lot of crap before the request will fail. Contrast this with an adblocker, which does patern matching on a URL and simply ignores it if it's on the blacklist.
Can you see now why your 421K hosts file is a horrible kludge?
No, that's charity. It would only be sound economics to sell at $0 if there was an intent to raise prices later, once a network effect was established.
The way I see it, it's charity to _some_ extent, but there's also a price: more free software. If you distribute something derived from my GPL'd program, it has to be under the same license and I get to use your code under these terms.
The "network effect" here is that at as free software becomes more capable, it makes economic sense to contribute back so you can leverage it. I remember, for example, reading an article where RMS said that applications have been made free just so they could use the readline library.
Other examples are Qt, and even the Quake3 engine, although Trolltech and id would also be quite happy to sell you a proprietary license and take your money instead.
It's great that Novell and RedHat see a commercial advantage in developing OpenGL accelerated X servers, and that they compete with each other while contributing to the free software base.
Of course, other companies have been known to use vast amounts of free software in their products and give back absolutely nothing (or even violate the license outright -- various manufacturers of networking gear come to mind), so the model may not be working all that well in practice.
This may also be a fault in the GPL, but I don't know enough to comment on that.
...two German students have invented a beer mat, or coaster, that uses sensor chips to determine when the beer glass it supports is empty.
:p
So, is this a follow-up to Wild Gorillas Impress With Their Tools then?
You can create the mirror with one drive "missing".
Basically, you set things up so that Linux can boot from a raid device, copy everything to the second drive, reboot off the raid, add the first drive to the array, and watch the blinkenlights as the mirror is constructed.
There's a small how-to on this here.
PCI is MegaBYTES per second. So, PCI is capable of 1330 MegaBITS per second.
:-)
Huh? What bytes are these?
% units -v 33Mhz*32bit megabit/second
33Mhz*32bit = 1056 megabit/second
% units -v 33Mhz*32bit megabyte/second
33Mhz*32bit = 132 megabytes/second
x0rfbserver. Run it in your main X session and it will make it remotely accessible by other RFB clients (such as xrfbviewer and vncclient). Oh, and you want version >= 0.6.1 (google for rfb-0.6.1.tar.gz if necessary)
.
One of these on every desk, remotely accessible over the network, and it's every(?) sysadmin's dream come true: a minimum effort LART :)
CoachS said:
r na l.open","noAccess");
The model that's even more maddening to me are sites that spawn additional browsers without asking me. I hate clicking to a site only to have 3 more browser windows pop up with surveys and videos and ads -- even worse when you're trying to leave the site to have multiple, persistent, ads flung at you without recourse. This kind of browser-jacking is a fast way to get on my list of sites I'll never come back to.
If you use mozilla (0.8+), including the following in your prefs.js will help:
user_pref("capability.policy.default.windowinte
More on this in the mozilla 0.8 release notes.
>Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons,
:)
>enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh
>science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Science didn't invent nuclear weapons, it only discovered how to split the atom. It was the governments that decided to use this technology to make weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, science has nothing to do with the environmental rape; this is a result of pure human greed and stupidity.
As for the antibiotics, I suppose it is a trade-off between saving human lives now and
risking losing some in the future. Man has always been a notoriously shortsighted creature
IMHO, science should have nothing to do with moral values.
Its goal is to extend our knowledge; what we do with it is entirely up to us. We can't blame science if we use it to shoot ourselves in the foot with.
Personally, I'm tired of the old "we are not ready yet" theme. If we don't make mistakes we'll never be.
Regards,
sb.
I think "The New Physics" (ISBN: 0-521-43831-4, Cambridge Univ. Press) by Paul Davies (editor) in an excellent introductory book. There is enough detail to distinguish it from the usual `popular science' books and at the same time it only assumes you know A-level physics/maths, so it should definitely be readable.
Your college library should have it, check it out!
Rgds,
sb.
Same here (a segfault). Although the BUILD file for hewx in the source distribution says that "wxHugo was developed with wxWindows 2.1 snapshot 8 and later" it only seems to work with snapshot 8, not 9!
I got it from here. Brilliant game, BTW!
I find this ironic for an entirely different reason; a message sent by SCO to a RHL :>
mailing list about two years ago, suggesting that Linux users would be better off
replacing their `old Linux OS' with (some version of) SCO -- at the price of ~$1500
sb