I flipped around the site for 5 minutes and came up with no clear idea what Open-Xchange is for.
However, the name strongly suggests that it has something to do with Outlook or Exchange, which are the head and ass end of the worst mail combo I'm aware of.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which end is which. I suppose it depends on which one they've had to administer.
This is the reason why no normal user would ever read/.
Is that a problem? I'm more interested in reading a site where people do know this stuff. The people who don't know or don't care have plenty of other places to go.
you seem to be unable to follow chronological information.
I don't see why you've come to that conclusion. What you just wrote is exactly consistent with what I had written, and with my understanding of it all along.
enomcentral flopped
enom took it over, according to you in order to somehow aid the existing enomcentral customers, though I don't see why that would be necessary
enom is currently charging over 3x market price for domains, whether or not enomcentral was charging such rates in the past
because, most of your 'long standing, reliable options' will in actuality be big resellers of wildwestdomains (godaddy's reselling outlet), or enom, or similar big registrars.
How is that an argument for why I should pay over 3x the price for domains? If www.ford.com were selling 2-door Ford Escorts for $150,000, would you be on here advising people to do that instead of getting them at a dealership?
But the rationale you gave for the high prices (over 3 times as high as the competition) was that they are somehow a consequence of keeping alive a formerly failed reseller for the benefit of its customers.
It's certainly not for my benefit, or that of any other new potential customer. I see no rational reason why I should pay those insane prices, even if it is possible to construct an explanation for why they are so high.
Why not just use name.com, gkg.net, or any of scores of other long-standing, reliable options?
I totally don't get why you are recommending them. Why would I want to spend all that money to support the clients of some failed reseller? That's not my problem.
And in terms of the Japanese culture, she's probably right. Are iPhones at all popular over there?
It's the number one selling smartphone in Japan, by a significant margin. So in that sense, yes.
On the other hand, smartphones aren't that big in Japan in general. Most people use devices that are somewhat shy of that level of complexity. They do a few things really well but aren't general-purpose computing devices.
I've concluded that most people have a higher tolerance for latency than myself.
...
On a LAN, there shouldn't be any perceivable latency on an echo test, yet I get about.2 seconds at best using Mameo's SIP client.
Ever call someone on a cell phone when you're standing next to them? The latency (I've measured it) is often close to half a second. Everyone survives that. I wonder if maybe you're just looking for it more in this case because of perfectionist tendencies? No criticism intended, just pointing out that it may have to do with expectations.
As a day-to-day real-world example, I live about 300ms from my VoIP server. I am on the phone all the time. People generally don't notice the delay. The only problem I have is that sometimes the latency is enough to overrun the echo cancellation buffer, so my callers can hear themselves echo on occasion. Some software tuning might sort that out but it hasn't been enough of an issue to worry about it.
Usable? 8kbps in each direction is enough for GSM-quality voice. 256kbps is enough to get four full-POTS-quality voice channels; in fact, it's exactly how much of a T1 would be provisioned for that purpose.
I'm not up on all the developments, but I was in the US last month (Feb 2011), staying at a place with Comcast, and I was able to saturate the 12mbps downlink with BitTorrent any time of day or night.
This rant might make sense if you completely ignore the context of the discussion, which is about how IPv6 would make it easy for ISPs to see how many different devices people were using and charge accordingly.
Nobody is trying to take things outside of that context except for you, and you are seemingly only doing it for the purpose of justifying a rant.
I live in a backwater country with limited international connectivity, and despite your apparently rising dander, I'm not intending to pass judgment on places for happening to be small. I'm just explaining how it works.
Because there is no peering agreement between Netfilix and anyone else.
I'm tracerouting from Comcast now.
I can get to Netflix, Facebook, Google, and a variety of other content providers without any intermediate hops which are not on either Comcast or the respective providers' network, and with no more than 1ms of increased RTT where they meet (ruling out long journeys at a lower layer that traceroute doesn't show).
The costs don't work the way you seem to think they do. Maybe if you're in a backwater country with a single pipe that everyone has to share, but that's not the case for ATT, Comcast, and the like.
They peer with content providers at POPs all over the country. Often their own content servers are in the same building as the "outside" content providers'. The marginal costs are next to nothing.
Aren't those limits for PC-to-Phone calling? I can't imagine why they'd want to set a limit on PC-to-PC. And many people use way more than 6 hours a day of PC-to-PC.
Hm. I have something like this: If I am persistently disturbed while I am trying to sleep (for example, by construction noise or loud music nearby), I will often fall into a super-deep sleep that lasts a minimum of 3 or 4 hours.
So the noise will wake me up a few times, but then my brain seems to switch off outside stimuli and go into hibernation.
Granted, people could always trip over your cable without any fault of your own, but at that rate, anyone could always come over and spill stuff on your laptop as well. Moot point.
Yeah! Superb argument. Why get fire insurance when someone could just break into your home and steal your shit?
My time is worth a lot to me and you can bet my kids will have Macs in college because my time is important to me.
Amen to that. One of the most expensive decisions I ever made in my life was to sit passively by while my mother got railroaded into buying a Windows PC. Dealing with the endless virus, uninstall, driver, and other stupid issues over the years has cost me enough time to put a downpayment on a house.
Slashdot Mirror
I flipped around the site for 5 minutes and came up with no clear idea what Open-Xchange is for.
However, the name strongly suggests that it has something to do with Outlook or Exchange, which are the head and ass end of the worst mail combo I'm aware of.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which end is which. I suppose it depends on which one they've had to administer.
Even worse, here in Anglophone Southeast Asia, "blur" means "stupid" or "confused".
Is that a problem? I'm more interested in reading a site where people do know this stuff. The people who don't know or don't care have plenty of other places to go.
That is absolutely not true. Who told you that? Your babysitter?
There is an established mechanism for dealing with these situations; I've been through it a few times already and never had any problems. Feel free to read about it here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09nov07.htm
If it can't run Eudora, then forget about it.
I don't see why you've come to that conclusion. What you just wrote is exactly consistent with what I had written, and with my understanding of it all along.
How is that an argument for why I should pay over 3x the price for domains? If www.ford.com were selling 2-door Ford Escorts for $150,000, would you be on here advising people to do that instead of getting them at a dealership?
But the rationale you gave for the high prices (over 3 times as high as the competition) was that they are somehow a consequence of keeping alive a formerly failed reseller for the benefit of its customers.
It's certainly not for my benefit, or that of any other new potential customer. I see no rational reason why I should pay those insane prices, even if it is possible to construct an explanation for why they are so high.
Why not just use name.com, gkg.net, or any of scores of other long-standing, reliable options?
I totally don't get why you are recommending them. Why would I want to spend all that money to support the clients of some failed reseller? That's not my problem.
Sorry, I should have included the IP, since that's the location-sensitive part. I get e3191.c.akamaiedge.net as 118.215.101.15.
I don't believe what you say is true, at least not anymore.
I'm in Malaysia, a bandwidth-constrained country 200ms from the USA. Using the wrong CDN node makes a huge difference.
When I use 8.8.8.8 to find www.apple.com, I get e3191.c.akamaiedge.net, which is 17ms from my house. That's as good as it's going to get.
Perhaps Google has started using source IPs for its DNS queries that match the client's location?
It's the number one selling smartphone in Japan, by a significant margin. So in that sense, yes.
On the other hand, smartphones aren't that big in Japan in general. Most people use devices that are somewhat shy of that level of complexity. They do a few things really well but aren't general-purpose computing devices.
Ever call someone on a cell phone when you're standing next to them? The latency (I've measured it) is often close to half a second. Everyone survives that. I wonder if maybe you're just looking for it more in this case because of perfectionist tendencies? No criticism intended, just pointing out that it may have to do with expectations.
As a day-to-day real-world example, I live about 300ms from my VoIP server. I am on the phone all the time. People generally don't notice the delay. The only problem I have is that sometimes the latency is enough to overrun the echo cancellation buffer, so my callers can hear themselves echo on occasion. Some software tuning might sort that out but it hasn't been enough of an issue to worry about it.
Usable? 8kbps in each direction is enough for GSM-quality voice. 256kbps is enough to get four full-POTS-quality voice channels; in fact, it's exactly how much of a T1 would be provisioned for that purpose.
I'm not up on all the developments, but I was in the US last month (Feb 2011), staying at a place with Comcast, and I was able to saturate the 12mbps downlink with BitTorrent any time of day or night.
This rant might make sense if you completely ignore the context of the discussion, which is about how IPv6 would make it easy for ISPs to see how many different devices people were using and charge accordingly.
Nobody is trying to take things outside of that context except for you, and you are seemingly only doing it for the purpose of justifying a rant.
You can make a fine hardware firewall out of an Asus RT-N10 which costs about $25 at the store. How much cheaper do you want?
I live in a backwater country with limited international connectivity, and despite your apparently rising dander, I'm not intending to pass judgment on places for happening to be small. I'm just explaining how it works.
I'm tracerouting from Comcast now.
I can get to Netflix, Facebook, Google, and a variety of other content providers without any intermediate hops which are not on either Comcast or the respective providers' network, and with no more than 1ms of increased RTT where they meet (ruling out long journeys at a lower layer that traceroute doesn't show).
Very clearly they are meeting.
The costs don't work the way you seem to think they do. Maybe if you're in a backwater country with a single pipe that everyone has to share, but that's not the case for ATT, Comcast, and the like.
They peer with content providers at POPs all over the country. Often their own content servers are in the same building as the "outside" content providers'. The marginal costs are next to nothing.
Aren't those limits for PC-to-Phone calling? I can't imagine why they'd want to set a limit on PC-to-PC. And many people use way more than 6 hours a day of PC-to-PC.
Hm. I have something like this: If I am persistently disturbed while I am trying to sleep (for example, by construction noise or loud music nearby), I will often fall into a super-deep sleep that lasts a minimum of 3 or 4 hours.
So the noise will wake me up a few times, but then my brain seems to switch off outside stimuli and go into hibernation.
This plus snooze-alarm is a very bad combination.
Yeah! Superb argument. Why get fire insurance when someone could just break into your home and steal your shit?
Amen to that. One of the most expensive decisions I ever made in my life was to sit passively by while my mother got railroaded into buying a Windows PC. Dealing with the endless virus, uninstall, driver, and other stupid issues over the years has cost me enough time to put a downpayment on a house.