You also said they can't transition to v6 because their own OS doesn't support it, which isn't true. It's supported full automatic configuration of v6 network details out of the box since Vista in 2006, which is a lot longer than most Linux distros have been doing it.
"full automatic configuration of v6 network details". The word "full" is quite relative here. It only works on a single specific (and very uncommon) scenario where you have dhcpv6
I believe Debian only started doing that last year, and I'd be unsurprised if there were still major distros that didn't.
We were not discussing Linux nor debian. That's completely out-of-topic and irrelevant.
I wish I could find the discussions they must have had at the time about RAs... I assumed there would be mailing list archives or somesuch but I haven't managed to find anything. I guess the logic was that dns info (or other host config) doesn't belong in RAs
That's they opinion. The standard differs. Both the written standard, and common real life scenarios.
That's just what I was thinking: if they're firms based overseas, then they can't force them to disclose SSL keys (making the communication secure-er). They shouldn't be able to force them to do anything, legally.
But doesn't facebook have a UK subsidiary, and offices in the UK (and mirrors, since I'm pretty sure they use CDNs)?
Like I said, I doesn't support retrieving DNS over RA; only retrieving IP address/prefix (it's quite silly to support getting an address but not DNS servers, by the way. Why would I want a public IP address and no DNS on a desktop OS?).
RA is the more common (and simple) option for advertising DNS. DHCPv6 requires a second (redundant) service just for DNS - seems a bit of an overkill. Also, I've yet to come across a network that uses stateless DHCPv6.
I really don't get what your post is about. Only very specific situations require you to actually use IP (4 or 6) numbers. We've had DNS for decades and mDNS for a long time as well. You only need to work with dns when initially configuring network devices (eg: routers) or DNS servers themselves. No other scenario should require that you use IP numbers.
The sad part is, they can't really transition to IPv6 because their own OS doesn't really support it. Sure, some groundwore is present, but there's something critical missing: Windows can't retrieve a DNS server over RA. That means, it can get an IP, but not DNS servers.
I'd rather have hardware that works well. Closed source drivers don't bother me.
While I agree, I still would prefer that nvidia open sourced it's drivers once and for all, so we can have hardware that works well and stability to go with it.
Actually, were it not for propietary blobs, there would be abolutely no necesity for them. Linux is designed to have drivers in-kernel, so no user intervention should be required to have devices working, hence, a friedly UI for users to configure devices is sort of wierd.
Seeing as how propietary drives need to be properly integrated for non-power-users to install them, the package manager usually sounds like the right place.
Text files have their huge advantage. They're easy to back up and don't require anything aside from a text-editor to restore a broken system. I can easily copy them over, and diff them. Sample configuration files are quick to compare.
None of this is true for the windows registry.
Text files may be less newbie friendy, but then again, programs do have a settings/preferences option generally for stuff newbies want to touch. Messing the config files OR a registry by these sort of users tends to end badly anyway.
Actually, that's quite wrong. There's are standards for configuration locations, and only legacy applications and notable exceptions keep them elsewhere. Generally,/etc is for system-wide configuration, and $XDG_CONFIG_HOME (~/.config, be default) for user-level configuration. The former is only user when configuring the OS itself, generally, and the latter for desktop applications. Most users will only care about ~/.config.
Encryption is security through obscurity, just like MAC filtering.
No it's not. None of them have any obscuriy. Encryption can openly defined, it's just they keys/passphrases that are secret. Mac filtering has no obscurity at all.
One is far more difficult than the other, but they are more or less the same. The MAC is a 6 byte key that gets broadcast openly fairly often where as most people use far larger keys for encryption that aren't broadcast at all if possible, but in the end the principles are the same.
Please stop repeating things someone else said that you don't understand.
Security is built in layers, defense in depth. You use as many as you can/need. You ACCEPT that one or more of your security protocols CAN and WILL fail, but you design in the hope that enough of them will work to keep you safe.
Your argument is the height of ignorance. You're arguing that leaving your valuables out in the front yard near the street is just as secure as putting them in your home because you left the door unlocked, ignoring the fact that no one will see them inside the house so they won't know its there to steal. Sure, its easy to walk through then unlocked door, but thats already a step beyond what most people will do.
I'm not repeating something someone else said. Mac filtering is like having a doorman to whom you scream your name before getting into the building. Anyone in range can hear it, and pretend to be you by screaming your name.
Actual encryption is like having a key. Nobody can get in until you give them a copy of it (eg: tell them the password).
If Uber really has a better business model, it may drive the traditional taxi companies out of business. Then all those taxi drivers will join a service like Uber, bringing the same problems with them. Uber will be a nation-wide monopoly or part of an oligopoly.
The bad drives will eventually be down-rated and will end up having no job any more. The same applies for badly-conditioned cars.
Not everyone will be served by Uber, which is just a way of connecting drivers and riders; the drivers will have the legal right to refuse to pick up customers. Being a newer technology, older people will have problems using Uber. In the end, Uber will end slightly better-looking than a traditional taxi company, but less reliable, the (unregulated) prices will end up higher, and when it goes bankrupt in 15 years or so its founders will be rich, but everyone else will be poorer.
You're assuming that no other company can do the same as Uber does. You are mistaken.
— n , pl taxis , taxies 1. cab , Also called: taxicab a car, usually fitted with a taximeter, that may be hired, along with its driver, to carry passengers to any specified destination
So, how is Uber and Lyft not a taxi service despite the method to hire said drivers?
Given that you've selectively highlighter a certain portion of the text and ignored the rest, I'm going by that definition, and caliming that American Airlines is an unlicensed cab company! We need to stop them from working illegally at once!
Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe they finally realized that they could re-use existing code instead of shipping their broken drivers year after year. Good for AMD!
Your enterprise networks gets crashed by a [broken?] device that scans for availabe wireless networks? Looks like your enterprise network has some very serious issues you'll want to look into asap!
Not, crappy security is not better that no security. When users know there's no security, they may be slightly cautious. If they belive there's security in place, they might let their guard down, so this false sensation of security is actually a bad thing.
Simply put, having seen the arc of technology advance over the last 30+ years, I still don't trust an automated driver system with my safety. PERIOD.
Why? How many plane accidents have been computer error and how many human error, in those 30 years? Remember, plane pilots are well trained professinals. Car drivers, just about any random person you can find. So the ratio would be even more inclined towards human-error in car accidents.
Finally, would you rather trust a stranger than a specialized machine?
Slashdot Mirror
You also said they can't transition to v6 because their own OS doesn't support it, which isn't true. It's supported full automatic configuration of v6 network details out of the box since Vista in 2006, which is a lot longer than most Linux distros have been doing it.
"full automatic configuration of v6 network details". The word "full" is quite relative here. It only works on a single specific (and very uncommon) scenario where you have dhcpv6
I believe Debian only started doing that last year, and I'd be unsurprised if there were still major distros that didn't.
We were not discussing Linux nor debian. That's completely out-of-topic and irrelevant.
I wish I could find the discussions they must have had at the time about RAs... I assumed there would be mailing list archives or somesuch but I haven't managed to find anything. I guess the logic was that dns info (or other host config) doesn't belong in RAs
That's they opinion. The standard differs. Both the written standard, and common real life scenarios.
Nokia would not have been able to ensure that the phones accept only applications approved by the company.
Sounds more like a feature than a bug. Do device "owners" really want phones that "accept only applications approved by the company".
The dive can run any code, the signing key makes it look "officially approved" by Nokia.
That's just what I was thinking: if they're firms based overseas, then they can't force them to disclose SSL keys (making the communication secure-er). They shouldn't be able to force them to do anything, legally.
But doesn't facebook have a UK subsidiary, and offices in the UK (and mirrors, since I'm pretty sure they use CDNs)?
Why can't you mirror the repository into github, and update it just after every release?
If they do it right, the might be able to cheat unnoticed for a pretty long while.
Oh yeah, and you can leave inline comments in text files. Like the old setting when trying something new, or a note-to-self.
Like I said, I doesn't support retrieving DNS over RA; only retrieving IP address/prefix (it's quite silly to support getting an address but not DNS servers, by the way. Why would I want a public IP address and no DNS on a desktop OS?).
RA is the more common (and simple) option for advertising DNS. DHCPv6 requires a second (redundant) service just for DNS - seems a bit of an overkill. Also, I've yet to come across a network that uses stateless DHCPv6.
I really don't get what your post is about. Only very specific situations require you to actually use IP (4 or 6) numbers. We've had DNS for decades and mDNS for a long time as well. You only need to work with dns when initially configuring network devices (eg: routers) or DNS servers themselves. No other scenario should require that you use IP numbers.
The sad part is, they can't really transition to IPv6 because their own OS doesn't really support it.
Sure, some groundwore is present, but there's something critical missing: Windows can't retrieve a DNS server over RA. That means, it can get an IP, but not DNS servers.
I'd rather have hardware that works well. Closed source drivers don't bother me.
While I agree, I still would prefer that nvidia open sourced it's drivers once and for all, so we can have hardware that works well and stability to go with it.
Actually, were it not for propietary blobs, there would be abolutely no necesity for them. Linux is designed to have drivers in-kernel, so no user intervention should be required to have devices working, hence, a friedly UI for users to configure devices is sort of wierd.
Seeing as how propietary drives need to be properly integrated for non-power-users to install them, the package manager usually sounds like the right place.
Text files have their huge advantage. They're easy to back up and don't require anything aside from a text-editor to restore a broken system. I can easily copy them over, and diff them. Sample configuration files are quick to compare.
None of this is true for the windows registry.
Text files may be less newbie friendy, but then again, programs do have a settings/preferences option generally for stuff newbies want to touch. Messing the config files OR a registry by these sort of users tends to end badly anyway.
Actually, that's quite wrong. /etc is for system-wide configuration, and $XDG_CONFIG_HOME (~/.config, be default) for user-level configuration. The former is only user when configuring the OS itself, generally, and the latter for desktop applications. Most users will only care about ~/.config.
There's are standards for configuration locations, and only legacy applications and notable exceptions keep them elsewhere.
Generally,
See the XDG Basedir Spec for more details.
Wrong.
Encryption is security through obscurity, just like MAC filtering.
No it's not. None of them have any obscuriy. Encryption can openly defined, it's just they keys/passphrases that are secret. Mac filtering has no obscurity at all.
One is far more difficult than the other, but they are more or less the same. The MAC is a 6 byte key that gets broadcast openly fairly often where as most people use far larger keys for encryption that aren't broadcast at all if possible, but in the end the principles are the same.
Please stop repeating things someone else said that you don't understand.
Security is built in layers, defense in depth. You use as many as you can/need. You ACCEPT that one or more of your security protocols CAN and WILL fail, but you design in the hope that enough of them will work to keep you safe.
Your argument is the height of ignorance. You're arguing that leaving your valuables out in the front yard near the street is just as secure as putting them in your home because you left the door unlocked, ignoring the fact that no one will see them inside the house so they won't know its there to steal. Sure, its easy to walk through then unlocked door, but thats already a step beyond what most people will do.
I'm not repeating something someone else said. Mac filtering is like having a doorman to whom you scream your name before getting into the building. Anyone in range can hear it, and pretend to be you by screaming your name.
Actual encryption is like having a key. Nobody can get in until you give them a copy of it (eg: tell them the password).
Mac filtering is aking to drawing a lock on your door instead of having one.
Why was your driver maintained out-of-tree?
If Uber really has a better business model, it may drive the traditional taxi companies out of business. Then all those taxi drivers will join a service like Uber, bringing the same problems with them. Uber will be a nation-wide monopoly or part of an oligopoly.
The bad drives will eventually be down-rated and will end up having no job any more. The same applies for badly-conditioned cars.
Not everyone will be served by Uber, which is just a way of connecting drivers and riders; the drivers will have the legal right to refuse to pick up customers. Being a newer technology, older people will have problems using Uber.
In the end, Uber will end slightly better-looking than a traditional taxi company, but less reliable, the (unregulated) prices will end up higher, and when it goes bankrupt in 15 years or so its founders will be rich, but everyone else will be poorer.
You're assuming that no other company can do the same as Uber does. You are mistaken.
Two words: Unlicensed taxis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxi
So, how is Uber and Lyft not a taxi service despite the method to hire said drivers?
Given that you've selectively highlighter a certain portion of the text and ignored the rest, I'm going by that definition, and caliming that American Airlines is an unlicensed cab company! We need to stop them from working illegally at once!
Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe they finally realized that they could re-use existing code instead of shipping their broken drivers year after year. Good for AMD!
Your enterprise networks gets crashed by a [broken?] device that scans for availabe wireless networks?
Looks like your enterprise network has some very serious issues you'll want to look into asap!
Not, crappy security is not better that no security. When users know there's no security, they may be slightly cautious. If they belive there's security in place, they might let their guard down, so this false sensation of security is actually a bad thing.
Please explain how your bank account is any more real.
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
No need to - they are an advertising company.
That just inocent lobbying, companies showing their support for democracy. I hope you're not implying that it's something like bribery, are you?
Simply put, having seen the arc of technology advance over the last 30+ years, I still don't trust an automated driver system with my safety. PERIOD.
Why? How many plane accidents have been computer error and how many human error, in those 30 years?
Remember, plane pilots are well trained professinals. Car drivers, just about any random person you can find. So the ratio would be even more inclined towards human-error in car accidents.
Finally, would you rather trust a stranger than a specialized machine?