Indeed! After the recent 1.3 release of m0n0wall, which now supports v6, I rolled out v6 on my home network using Hurricane Electric as my tunnel broker. It was dead easy to set up and works extremely well (particularly when combined with a AAAA-capable free DNS hosting service like Afraid.org... goodbye dynamic DNS, it was great knowing ya). Though I did have to manually set up a script to update HE when my v4 IP changes...
Meanwhile, on the road, I just fire up Miredo (a Teredo tunnel client for Linux and presumably other Unixes), and voila, I get v6 connectivity that I can use to access my home network.
Actually it's not the ISPs they're referring to who have their heads in their asses. Indeed, I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points. From the perspective of IPv6 deployment, the whitelists suck, because mostly they prevent people who are trying to use IPv6 from using it--you have to be on the whitelist before you can get AAAA records from these online services. It's very hard to get on the whitelist, and very easy to get knocked off of it.
Meh, I dunno, I don't personally see the problem with this. Making it difficult to get on the whitelist ensures that customers are getting decent v6 connectivity, and in the end, that's a good thing. And I've not heard of a case of some ISP being unilaterally dropped from the whitelist... perhaps you have anecdotes to support that assertion?
Meanwhile, the providers have a very real reason to be concerned. As you say, there's some very broken equipment out there that ends up creating a real impact on the user experience. Yeah, that gear should be scrapped, but in many cases we're talking home routers that people don't even realize are broken. But if the ISPs just provided v6 connectivity, many of those issues would disappear (as those routers would then have v6 connectivity, so the broken routes they previously advertised would now work).
In the end, I honestly don't see any other way to deal with this issue. Providers aren't going to advertise AAAA records until they can be confident that the userbase won't be impacted by onerous delays and connection timeouts. And ISPs won't roll out v6 until there's customer demand for it. The solution solves the issues on the content provider side, and once that happens, that might clear the logjam that's currently stopping v6 from being deployed on a larger scale.
If ISPs rolled out proper v6 connectivity, this whitelist simply wouldn't be necessary. That's "how so".
Maybe you are referring to the lack of IPv6 availability. If so, at this point in the game, there is no point in offering IPv6 because there is nowhere to go.
Then they shouldn't grumble and whine because people decide to workaround their broken networks, should they?
The real 'island' problem is that IPv6 routing is kind of a mess. If you're on the east coast of North America and want to connect to western Europe, depending on who your provider is it may well decide to send all of your traffic through Korea, if it even makes it to your target at all. I imagine that's a problem that will solve itself as more routes come online.
It's actually worse than that. Currently many people have routers at home that send out v6 router advertisements despite not actually having IPv6 connectivity. The result is that many people end up with v6 addresses, and when those machines then try to connect to websites that advertise AAAA records, they end up with long delays as the browser first attempts a v6 connection, times out, and falls back to v4.
Honestly, try googling for "Ubuntu disable ipv6" some time... it's amazing how many people are struggling with this issue. Which is why so many sites are reluctant to roll out v6 connectivity and AAAA records (even Google doesn't do external AAAA resolution unless your ISP has arranged a special agreement with Google which guarantees proper v6 connectivity (luckily Hurricane Electric has such an agreement, so as long as I use their DNS servers, I get v6 connectivity to all of Google's services)).
Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more?
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? The reason this whitelist is necessary is because many people are victims of routers that send out v6 router advertisements despite not having v6 connectivity, or are on a network that claims to have v6 connectivity, but that connectivity as actually broken. As a result, these people get v6 IPs, and then when software tries to connect to websites that advertise AAAA records, they get long delays while their browser times out attempting to connect over v6, at which point it falls back to v4.
Hell, all you have to do is Google for "ubuntu disable IPv6" to see how many people are suffering with this problem.
So, please, quit being a paranoid jackass. There are *very* good reasons to set up this whitelist, and TBH, I think it may be the only way to start getting sites to advertise AAAA records (right now they don't because they're afraid of impacting the user experience due to this very issue).
So you do not care about Linux in the desktop then? Fantastic.
Wow, amazing. You took this statement about a rather small fraction of the Linux applications out there:
Worst case, they could undermine Gnome, and not even all of Gnome, just the apps built with Mono. So... who fucking cares?
And, in your head, somehow transmuted that into a statement about the entirety of the desktop Linux community. That's quite the impressive delusion, well done.
Hint: Mono-based Gnome applications are a minority in the Gnome world, let alone KDE, XFCE, etc. I'm pretty sure that, if those Mono-based projects were forced to shut down, the push to get Linux onto the desktop would somehow manage to continue to limp along...
Correct. That's not good enough for me. Why does this surprise you? It's one, old patent application that attempts to cover just one area where.NET is applicable, and where Mono isn't even predominantly used. Try digging a little deeper and you discover something interesting: there aren't any other patents. That seems to be the only one. And it hasn't even been granted!
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
No, you aren't bothering to research your claims because it's easier to simply state them without support, just as ever other Mono opponent has done.
But, that's okay. Mono has been around for years, and MS hasn't sued anyone. And in a few years from now, after MS *still* hasn't sued anyone, most people will realize, just as they did with the Linux kernel after MS started its posturing, that it's not worth the trouble listening to paranoid reactionaries like yourself.
You mean the nonexistent ones that Miguel's company didn't sign a contract with Microsoft not indemnifying their customers from?
That doesn't mean anything, and you damn well know it. Novell signed that contract for one reason and one reason only: to placate the paranoid.
Or did you mean ones that Microsoft would have filed if they were into such things?
Congrats, you've found a non-granted patent on.NET that only covers web applications. Whoopee. So we can agree that Beagle, F-Spot, and Gnome Do are fine, then?
No one has ever seriously disputed that parts of.NET are patented
I'm disputing it, right here, right now. *Prove it*. Until you do, all you're doing is blustering, just like every other anti-Mono fanatic out there.
The situation with Mono is *identical* to the situation with the Linux kernel. MS claims to have patents, but no one can produce. And I will bet you that the outcome will be identical: there are no such patents, MS will do nothing, and we'll all look back and laugh at the paranoid jackasses who got so worked up over this non-issue.
And you are surprised that some also disagree with you? ^^
Not even remotely. But I don't run around with the delusion that I and my opinions represent the will and beliefs of a majority of the Linux userbase.:)
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology.
Uhuh.
Where are the patents? They have to be published somewhere, so... where are they? The only one I can find is this one which is incredibly narrow, as it only covers the construction of web-based applications.
And no, I don't give a crap what the Mono website says, as I have no reason to believe they've done their diligence any more than you have. AFAICT, all this talk about patents on.NET is hot air, blown by a company prone to bluster.
It's fueled by the fear that Microsoft will use Mono as a way of undermining Linux.
How? How can Microsoft use Mono as a way of "undermining Linux"? Worst case, they could undermine Gnome, and not even all of Gnome, just the apps built with Mono. So... who fucking cares?
And that's ignoring the fact that no one has actually managed to dig up a patent on.NET...
Bullshit. That's only true if your belief is that the only value Mono provides is in offering a transition path from Windows to Linux. But who really gives a shit about that? I know I don't. What I care about is building cool Linux apps. I couldn't care less about Windows, and, in fact, I'm *far* more interesting in being able to run Gtk# apps on Windows than I am about running WPF apps on Linux.
The only counterarguments are from people who are ignorant of the fact that Microsoft has threatened to use their software patents to destroy FOSS projects, or who have reason not to care.
Well, them and people who are rational and aren't interested in stirring up baseless fears.
Yes, baseless. Or, perhaps *you've* managed to find these mythical patents MS has on.NET that it will supposedly use to blugeon the entire OSS community to death with? Because if so, great! Please show me. Because none of your paranoid compatriots has managed to achieve this rather simple task, despite the fact that patents are, by law, published within a year filing in the US (yes, not granting, filing), and.NET has been out for nearly 10 years now, so either they exist and are published, or you're just fear mongering with absolutely no evidence to back your claims.
Besides which, let's just pretend that these imaginary patents exist. *Who cares*? Worst case, Mono, and maybe some day Gnome, get hosed. BFD. People move on to KDE, and you whiners can find the next big thing to freak out about.
And he said.NET is evil because it's patent ridden.
Uhuh... yeah, you're still completely missing my point.
What Miguel said, in this most recent comment, is that Microsoft hampered the adoption of.NET by hurling (probably empty) patent threats at the open source community. That's it. He did *not* say Microsoft was evil, or that.NET was bad. He was simply criticising Microsoft's behaviour, as it has allowed Java, Ruby, and other technologies to thrive in areas that.NET has been targeted at.
Stallman, OTOH, doesn't give a shit about.NET market penetration, and never has. All he's said is that.NET == bad.
Can you see, now, how Miguel's statement bears absolutely no resemblance to any comment Stallman has made on the topic of.NET? I'm betting not. But one can hope.
The wording "to be a truly great programmer" implies that the defining, most important characteristic of a great programmer is proper code reuse. My argument is that this is not the case.
Meh, I'd argue you just made that argument up.:) The original poster said "great programmers need to be able to write their own stuff". The AC responded with "err, no, great programmers avoid writing new code whenever possible". You then decided to step in with "great programmers don't have shit jobs where they C&P code all day!"... which makes no sense, as that implies that "reusing code" means that you have a shitty job. My response was, that's absurd, every programming job involves code reuse of some kind or another, and a great programmer will recognize that fact and write as little code as they can, as to do anything else is a waste of time, and therefore money.
'course, in the end, the fact is, the OP and the AC are both kinda right. If a programmer really knows what they're doing, they reuse where they can, and write what they must. It doesn't sound like you disagree with that, so, you know... good.:)
Gosh you're really in love with argument, aren't you?:)
What I find baffling is what seems to be happening to the CSM these days. I've had the CSM in my RSS feed reader for quite a while, now, and lately they seem to be posting a lot more right-wing blow-hard punditry, including this article. It's really incredibly disappointing...
And he's wrong. To know how to properly reuse others' work is just performing to par. The great programming tasks are known to be great because of what was added, not what was copied.
Huh? Neither the AC nor I ever once claimed that "[knowing] how to properly reuse others' work" was a sufficient precondition for defining a "great programmer". The argument is that it's a necessary one.
OTOH, you did erect a very nice strawman, and knocked it down with gusto, so, you know, kudos.
Huh? When did Stallman ever say that Microsoft "shot.NET in the foot" (paraphrased)? I'm sure he said.NET was evil. That Mono was equally evil. But Miguel's quote does not, to my knowledge, echo a single damn thing Stallman has ever said.
Maybe you should try actually reading and comprehending the text of the quote, first, before you try and fit it into your own ideological mold?
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone explain this?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: no, because it's a completely idiotic statement, as v6 addresses are, as you say, globally routable.
Indeed! After the recent 1.3 release of m0n0wall, which now supports v6, I rolled out v6 on my home network using Hurricane Electric as my tunnel broker. It was dead easy to set up and works extremely well (particularly when combined with a AAAA-capable free DNS hosting service like Afraid.org... goodbye dynamic DNS, it was great knowing ya). Though I did have to manually set up a script to update HE when my v4 IP changes...
Meanwhile, on the road, I just fire up Miredo (a Teredo tunnel client for Linux and presumably other Unixes), and voila, I get v6 connectivity that I can use to access my home network.
Actually it's not the ISPs they're referring to who have their heads in their asses. Indeed, I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points. From the perspective of IPv6 deployment, the whitelists suck, because mostly they prevent people who are trying to use IPv6 from using it--you have to be on the whitelist before you can get AAAA records from these online services. It's very hard to get on the whitelist, and very easy to get knocked off of it.
Meh, I dunno, I don't personally see the problem with this. Making it difficult to get on the whitelist ensures that customers are getting decent v6 connectivity, and in the end, that's a good thing. And I've not heard of a case of some ISP being unilaterally dropped from the whitelist... perhaps you have anecdotes to support that assertion?
Meanwhile, the providers have a very real reason to be concerned. As you say, there's some very broken equipment out there that ends up creating a real impact on the user experience. Yeah, that gear should be scrapped, but in many cases we're talking home routers that people don't even realize are broken. But if the ISPs just provided v6 connectivity, many of those issues would disappear (as those routers would then have v6 connectivity, so the broken routes they previously advertised would now work).
In the end, I honestly don't see any other way to deal with this issue. Providers aren't going to advertise AAAA records until they can be confident that the userbase won't be impacted by onerous delays and connection timeouts. And ISPs won't roll out v6 until there's customer demand for it. The solution solves the issues on the content provider side, and once that happens, that might clear the logjam that's currently stopping v6 from being deployed on a larger scale.
How so?
If ISPs rolled out proper v6 connectivity, this whitelist simply wouldn't be necessary. That's "how so".
Maybe you are referring to the lack of IPv6 availability. If so, at this point in the game, there is no point in offering IPv6 because there is nowhere to go.
Then they shouldn't grumble and whine because people decide to workaround their broken networks, should they?
The real 'island' problem is that IPv6 routing is kind of a mess. If you're on the east coast of North America and want to connect to western Europe, depending on who your provider is it may well decide to send all of your traffic through Korea, if it even makes it to your target at all. I imagine that's a problem that will solve itself as more routes come online.
It's actually worse than that. Currently many people have routers at home that send out v6 router advertisements despite not actually having IPv6 connectivity. The result is that many people end up with v6 addresses, and when those machines then try to connect to websites that advertise AAAA records, they end up with long delays as the browser first attempts a v6 connection, times out, and falls back to v4.
Honestly, try googling for "Ubuntu disable ipv6" some time... it's amazing how many people are struggling with this issue. Which is why so many sites are reluctant to roll out v6 connectivity and AAAA records (even Google doesn't do external AAAA resolution unless your ISP has arranged a special agreement with Google which guarantees proper v6 connectivity (luckily Hurricane Electric has such an agreement, so as long as I use their DNS servers, I get v6 connectivity to all of Google's services)).
LOLFR, "globally unique MAC address"... riiight. No manufacturer has *ever* reused a MAC address... *snicker*
Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more?
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? The reason this whitelist is necessary is because many people are victims of routers that send out v6 router advertisements despite not having v6 connectivity, or are on a network that claims to have v6 connectivity, but that connectivity as actually broken. As a result, these people get v6 IPs, and then when software tries to connect to websites that advertise AAAA records, they get long delays while their browser times out attempting to connect over v6, at which point it falls back to v4.
Hell, all you have to do is Google for "ubuntu disable IPv6" to see how many people are suffering with this problem.
So, please, quit being a paranoid jackass. There are *very* good reasons to set up this whitelist, and TBH, I think it may be the only way to start getting sites to advertise AAAA records (right now they don't because they're afraid of impacting the user experience due to this very issue).
So you do not care about Linux in the desktop then? Fantastic.
Wow, amazing. You took this statement about a rather small fraction of the Linux applications out there:
And, in your head, somehow transmuted that into a statement about the entirety of the desktop Linux community. That's quite the impressive delusion, well done.
Hint: Mono-based Gnome applications are a minority in the Gnome world, let alone KDE, XFCE, etc. I'm pretty sure that, if those Mono-based projects were forced to shut down, the push to get Linux onto the desktop would somehow manage to continue to limp along...
And that's not good enough for you? .
Correct. That's not good enough for me. Why does this surprise you? It's one, old patent application that attempts to cover just one area where .NET is applicable, and where Mono isn't even predominantly used. Try digging a little deeper and you discover something interesting: there aren't any other patents. That seems to be the only one. And it hasn't even been granted!
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
No, you aren't bothering to research your claims because it's easier to simply state them without support, just as ever other Mono opponent has done.
But, that's okay. Mono has been around for years, and MS hasn't sued anyone. And in a few years from now, after MS *still* hasn't sued anyone, most people will realize, just as they did with the Linux kernel after MS started its posturing, that it's not worth the trouble listening to paranoid reactionaries like yourself.
And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day
Uhh... what the fuck. How are you spending *hours* on Facebook every single day??
You mean the nonexistent ones that Miguel's company didn't sign a contract with Microsoft not indemnifying their customers from?
That doesn't mean anything, and you damn well know it. Novell signed that contract for one reason and one reason only: to placate the paranoid.
Or did you mean ones that Microsoft would have filed if they were into such things?
Congrats, you've found a non-granted patent on .NET that only covers web applications. Whoopee. So we can agree that Beagle, F-Spot, and Gnome Do are fine, then?
No one has ever seriously disputed that parts of .NET are patented
I'm disputing it, right here, right now. *Prove it*. Until you do, all you're doing is blustering, just like every other anti-Mono fanatic out there.
The situation with Mono is *identical* to the situation with the Linux kernel. MS claims to have patents, but no one can produce. And I will bet you that the outcome will be identical: there are no such patents, MS will do nothing, and we'll all look back and laugh at the paranoid jackasses who got so worked up over this non-issue.
And you are surprised that some also disagree with you? ^^
Not even remotely. But I don't run around with the delusion that I and my opinions represent the will and beliefs of a majority of the Linux userbase. :)
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology.
Uhuh.
Where are the patents? They have to be published somewhere, so... where are they? The only one I can find is this one which is incredibly narrow, as it only covers the construction of web-based applications.
And no, I don't give a crap what the Mono website says, as I have no reason to believe they've done their diligence any more than you have. AFAICT, all this talk about patents on .NET is hot air, blown by a company prone to bluster.
Gcc is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology
And Mono is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology.
Or have you found a patent that covers .NET? I haven't. No one else I've asked has. Have you?
It's fueled by the fear that Microsoft will use Mono as a way of undermining Linux.
How? How can Microsoft use Mono as a way of "undermining Linux"? Worst case, they could undermine Gnome, and not even all of Gnome, just the apps built with Mono. So... who fucking cares?
And that's ignoring the fact that no one has actually managed to dig up a patent on .NET...
That doesn't help Linux.
Bullshit. That's only true if your belief is that the only value Mono provides is in offering a transition path from Windows to Linux. But who really gives a shit about that? I know I don't. What I care about is building cool Linux apps. I couldn't care less about Windows, and, in fact, I'm *far* more interesting in being able to run Gtk# apps on Windows than I am about running WPF apps on Linux.
because we know what the potential consequences would be.
Those consequences would be... what, exactly? A few OSS projects being shut down? Some distros forced to remove a few packages? OH GOD NO! THE HORROR!
The only counterarguments are from people who are ignorant of the fact that Microsoft has threatened to use their software patents to destroy FOSS projects, or who have reason not to care.
Well, them and people who are rational and aren't interested in stirring up baseless fears.
Yes, baseless. Or, perhaps *you've* managed to find these mythical patents MS has on .NET that it will supposedly use to blugeon the entire OSS community to death with? Because if so, great! Please show me. Because none of your paranoid compatriots has managed to achieve this rather simple task, despite the fact that patents are, by law, published within a year filing in the US (yes, not granting, filing), and .NET has been out for nearly 10 years now, so either they exist and are published, or you're just fear mongering with absolutely no evidence to back your claims.
Besides which, let's just pretend that these imaginary patents exist. *Who cares*? Worst case, Mono, and maybe some day Gnome, get hosed. BFD. People move on to KDE, and you whiners can find the next big thing to freak out about.
I'd thought that after all this time he was finally wising up and accepting what everyone else you agree with was saying.
There, fixed that for ya.
I know, amazing! Some people might *actually* disagree with you, oh wise and omniscient one!
And he said .NET is evil because it's patent ridden.
Uhuh... yeah, you're still completely missing my point.
What Miguel said, in this most recent comment, is that Microsoft hampered the adoption of .NET by hurling (probably empty) patent threats at the open source community. That's it. He did *not* say Microsoft was evil, or that .NET was bad. He was simply criticising Microsoft's behaviour, as it has allowed Java, Ruby, and other technologies to thrive in areas that .NET has been targeted at.
Stallman, OTOH, doesn't give a shit about .NET market penetration, and never has. All he's said is that .NET == bad.
Can you see, now, how Miguel's statement bears absolutely no resemblance to any comment Stallman has made on the topic of .NET? I'm betting not. But one can hope.
The wording "to be a truly great programmer" implies that the defining, most important characteristic of a great programmer is proper code reuse. My argument is that this is not the case.
Meh, I'd argue you just made that argument up. :) The original poster said "great programmers need to be able to write their own stuff". The AC responded with "err, no, great programmers avoid writing new code whenever possible". You then decided to step in with "great programmers don't have shit jobs where they C&P code all day!"... which makes no sense, as that implies that "reusing code" means that you have a shitty job. My response was, that's absurd, every programming job involves code reuse of some kind or another, and a great programmer will recognize that fact and write as little code as they can, as to do anything else is a waste of time, and therefore money.
'course, in the end, the fact is, the OP and the AC are both kinda right. If a programmer really knows what they're doing, they reuse where they can, and write what they must. It doesn't sound like you disagree with that, so, you know... good. :)
Gosh you're really in love with argument, aren't you? :)
Yes. Yes I am. :)
What I find baffling is what seems to be happening to the CSM these days. I've had the CSM in my RSS feed reader for quite a while, now, and lately they seem to be posting a lot more right-wing blow-hard punditry, including this article. It's really incredibly disappointing...
And he's wrong. To know how to properly reuse others' work is just performing to par. The great programming tasks are known to be great because of what was added, not what was copied.
Huh? Neither the AC nor I ever once claimed that "[knowing] how to properly reuse others' work" was a sufficient precondition for defining a "great programmer". The argument is that it's a necessary one.
OTOH, you did erect a very nice strawman, and knocked it down with gusto, so, you know, kudos.
The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents.
Yeah... problem the first: No such patents exist, and you can't patent an already-published invention.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of fearmongering, right?
Huh? When did Stallman ever say that Microsoft "shot .NET in the foot" (paraphrased)? I'm sure he said .NET was evil. That Mono was equally evil. But Miguel's quote does not, to my knowledge, echo a single damn thing Stallman has ever said.
Maybe you should try actually reading and comprehending the text of the quote, first, before you try and fit it into your own ideological mold?