I'll gladly put up with YouTube's implementation of ads over the alternative - they can be closed at any time. They are far more tolerable than most other video sites that force you to watch an ad before you can view the intended video clip, now THAT'S annoying!
It would, however, be a nice compromise if they used the ad overlays only on clips being embedded in 3rd party sites and placed ads elsewhere on their page when the videos are being viewed directly at youtube.com.
Unless I'm missing something, the article can be summarized: "Guess the person's email address, check if the md5 hash of the address you guessed matches the Gravatar. If it matches you guessed correctly."
Nothing to see here. Move along...
In other news, all password hashes can eventually be cracked by brute force... Oh noes!
The sweetest part about Vi and the like, is you've never really mastered it completely. I've been using it for probably 10 years and still find the odd new gem like this every once in a while.
Nice! I usually use straight vanilla Vi (nvi actually). Whenever I get stuck on a Linux machine with Vim it annoys me with everything staying highlighted... I usually end up doing another search for f*ck, sh*t or some other curse word that isn't in the current file to get rid of the highlight...
This:nohl solution you speak of is far more elegant.
It's especially annoying because I use the search command often in combination with the 'c' command to change a string from the courser to the first occurrence of a character...
This is useful for changing a string variable in your code (amongst many other things)...
ie) a perl string like so $mystring="This is my long strong"
Can be changed by moving the cursor just after the first " and entering c/"
In Vim this leaves every " in my code left as highlighted which makes my eyes bleed.
Where x.x.x.x is your remote SSH accessible host and 1024 is whatever random port number. Then set your browser to use the socks proxy localhost:1024 and you're all set.
You should actually test that sometime. That is the one thing they FINALLY did right with Vista. All Vista CDs are identical (other than 32-bit vs 64-bit). ie) I just today reloaded my Sony Vaio laptop with Vista Home Premium using a retail Vista Ultimate CD... I primarily use Ubuntu on the laptop, I mainly loaded Vista to see if it works as such. Surprise, surprise. It does! The installation disc installs the appropriate version based on the license key you enter.
The only weird quirk is it wouldn't let me activate over the internet. Instead I had to call their automated activation system, but five minutes later I was up and running, dual-booted Vista Home Premium, Ubuntu Hardy... No OEM bundled crapware.:)
More likely its because the RC3 and final release are identical. Hence no updates were required.
This is typical of past releases... The Mozilla team actually uses the term 'Release Candidate' to mean what would be expected 'This release is the final build if nothing else is discovered'.
The only thing I see in Silverlight is yet another attempt to create a platform that ties people to Windows. Sure there is currently an OS X port and a Linux port in the works, but how long will the non-Windows implementations be maintained once Silverlight is entrenched throughout the web?
It is no different then Microsoft discontinuing Windows Media Player for OS X. The ports are there now to entice us into accepting the platform. Once every one is dependent on it the ports for alternative platforms will fall behind and receive little maintenance. Once they've fallen sufficiently behind, to the point of incompatibility with the Windows implementation, they will be silently dropped.
Microsoft has a track record of this kind of behavior. I see no reason why Silverlight will be any different then any of their past endeavors. I for one don't trust them with the web. Silverlight will never be installed on any of my computers, period.
Sure, Flash support has been less then perfect on non-Windows platforms, but at least its not developed by a monopolistic operating system vendor with a hidden agenda and a long history of vendor lock-in technologies.
In the mean time, any site that requires Silverlight will soon be receiving hits from me at their competitors site.
I'm not sure what your instructor may have been referring to, possibly the hierarchal nature of IPv6's routing tables? In IPv6 things are a lot more organized, ie) given an IPv6 prefix one can generally determine the region and ISP that the prefix belongs to. This gives a slight improvement in terms of being able to determine the source of traffic at a glance, however there is nothing in IPv6 that eliminates the possibility of obscuring the source of something. Traditional encapsulation, tunneling and proxying methods are still very much workable without any real changes for one that wants to hide behind such methods.
What exactly is simpler in your viewpoint about IPv4? I'd like to see just one single pointer from you. Remember, just because you lack understanding of a technology doesn't mean it is more complex. In fact, in many ways IPv6 is simpler to deploy and maintain than IPv4. How many people that have deployed a network fudge up a subnet mask? With the large address space of IPv6 it is no longer necessary to deal with subnet masks, every subnet is 64 bits. Isn't that easier then having subnets of length somewhere between 8 and 30 bits and requiring the administrator to calculate the required number of hosts and the subnet masks to go along with that? What happens when a large network that does require end to end connectivity (think hosting provider network or the like here) provisions their network for 254 hosts and later outgrows this limitation? They need to re-number. Is re-numbering your network every time it grows to exceed an arbitrary limitation imposed by an obsolete standard "simple?" Thats only a couple examples.
Also, what part the word firewall makes you think that the firewall has to run on the host that you are trying to protect? I agree 100% that would not be ideal. Your gateway in IPv6 would still handle all the firewalling needs of your subnet. It is still a single point of administration at the edge of your network, nothing changes here!
You could turn my argument around, but you'd be dead wrong. How many people wonder why transfers over IM networks are so painfully slow or don't work at all? With both endpoints being behind NAT the IM clients need to each establish a connection to a third outside host to relay the transfer for them. How many people wonder why their SIP phone doesn't work properly in their hotel room. How many people wonder why a given game won't work behind their NAT. The examples are damn near countless. A lot of things happen behind the scenes to alleviate these issues to an extent but these are all added complexities. Here I thought your goal was to simplify things.
Have a look some day at how many protocols and standards exist, each to find yet another way around the limitations of NAT for a particular service or protocol (STUN, UPNP, NAT-PMP, etc, etc).
The thing is, there is nothing in the IPv6 spec that breaks functionality that you are used to today. There are however a great many things that are simply impractical with IPv4 unless you are one of the lucky few that has a sufficiently sized chunk of globally routable IP space.
Perhaps when you've administered a network larger then your personal home network you'll have a better grasp of what some of these issues entail.
It is complex now only because there are no IPv6 capable routers for "average" users yet. When the time comes and such routers exist it will be just as simple for them to block all incoming connections by default and allow users to allow specific incoming connections through a simple GUI not all that dissimilar from the Port Forwarding GUI's of today, just without the limitations.
Agreed. Some people will still have a use for NAT in a post IPv4 world, however there is a big difference between having the flexibility to use NAT when appropriate vs NAT shoved down your throat because you're stuck with a single dynamic IPv4 address from your ISP.
People have different requirements for different networks. Surely I don't need to connect to his toaster, but there are many real world requirements that simply are not well addressed with IPv4+NAT.
What is so difficult about adding a default rule to your firewall that blocks all incoming connections to your subnet and then adding rules specifically for the devices and services that do require incoming connections?
ie) deny ip from any to 2610:78:ad::/48
With NAT you are eliminating the possibility of incoming connections, with IPv6 you can deny connections all you want but can allow incoming connections where required or desired. Sure you can setup a port forwarding rule to allow a service for a given machine, but what happens when you need the same service to go to more than one host? You know need to accommodate for that by changing the incoming port on your real IP.
Not to mention all the issues raised by protocols that embed IP's that are not routable within the protocol themselves (take the SIP protocol for example). Work-arounds need to be put in place for many protocols on an individual basis in a NAT'd environment. This is a pain in the ass that would be highly unnecessary in a post IPv4 world.
If you're so fond of the kludge that is NAT, nobody is stopping you from using NAT with IPv6 in combination with a non-routable unique-local prefix (fc00::/7).
Dragging your feet on adoption of a superior technology that works for every situation in favor of a broken setup that happens to meet YOUR rather limited requirements is delaying progress for the rest of us.;)
Generally speaking the consumer world isn't ready for IPv6 yet anyway (Too many Windows machines with limited IPv6 capabilities)... but I still get annoyed with all the anti-IPv6 commentary by those that have not fully investigated the specifics.
Just the personal pet peeve that is looking forward to moving behind the network design of choice for the 1980's.
That's odd, I can't seem to ping your toaster... Its almost like a route doesn't exist... Unfortunate!
You and your kind (those ignorant of IP networking and the concept of true end to end connectivity) may enjoy non-routeable addresses, but I happen to like the flexibility that incoming connections permit.
I could rant about all the things your lousy NAT setup breaks but arguing about this over and over again is just getting tiresome.
Have a look at your IPv6 addresses on either machine, if they begin with fe80:: they are link local addresses (similar to 169.254/16 addresses in IPv4 world). In order to be able to communicate between LAN segments you need global IPv6 addresses. Your current options in lieu of native IPv6 connectivity from your ISP is to use a tunnel provider or use 6to4 at your gateway to automatically tunnel IPv6 through your IPv4 address.
Linux and FreeBSD as a gateway has the ability to do this.
Having a functional IPv6 stack is different that having all their services updated to actually use the IPv6 stack properly (which is the issue the parent post was pointing out)
Wi-LAN WAS a real company. I've used some of their backhauls in the past, they were great.
They failed to maintain a significant market share and are now a gutted litigation machine with no products to speak of.
They are in the same category as SCO, once a significant player, now a miserable failure of an organization that is resorting to patent trash to try and make a buck.
Just a heads up. As a Canadian I've also been perplexed by the exact same thing. I've seen this most often at this site and actually attempted to look up the distinction at some point to see if I was the only one who thought it was odd.
Didn't manage to actually narrow down if it was an American thing... Glad to have that cleared up...:)
I'm curious as to what you cite as competitors? Might be just different for my needs but Evolution has broken IMAP support last I used it. Outlook chokes the minute your mailbox begins to get large. Apple Mail is quirky and not cross platform.
I guess that's the just of it, what other mail clients are there that are cross platform (Mac, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) and have IMAP support that isn't broken?
Then again, 90% of the world probably couldn't care less if their mail app of choice wasn't cross platform... ie) the same people that run to Incredimail for the purdy colors.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll gladly put up with YouTube's implementation of ads over the alternative - they can be closed at any time. They are far more tolerable than most other video sites that force you to watch an ad before you can view the intended video clip, now THAT'S annoying!
It would, however, be a nice compromise if they used the ad overlays only on clips being embedded in 3rd party sites and placed ads elsewhere on their page when the videos are being viewed directly at youtube.com.
Unless I'm missing something, the article can be summarized: "Guess the person's email address, check if the md5 hash of the address you guessed matches the Gravatar. If it matches you guessed correctly."
Nothing to see here. Move along...
In other news, all password hashes can eventually be cracked by brute force... Oh noes!
Apple's Airport Extreme supports IPv6 beautifully. :)
The double colon syntax for addresses with contiguous zeros makes this a lot simpler... ie) My home gateway is 2610:78:ad:1::1
Not too hard to memorize at all.
That rocks! Thanks!
The sweetest part about Vi and the like, is you've never really mastered it completely. I've been using it for probably 10 years and still find the odd new gem like this every once in a while.
Nice! I usually use straight vanilla Vi (nvi actually). Whenever I get stuck on a Linux machine with Vim it annoys me with everything staying highlighted... I usually end up doing another search for f*ck, sh*t or some other curse word that isn't in the current file to get rid of the highlight...
This :nohl solution you speak of is far more elegant.
It's especially annoying because I use the search command often in combination with the 'c' command to change a string from the courser to the first occurrence of a character...
This is useful for changing a string variable in your code (amongst many other things)...
ie) a perl string like so $mystring="This is my long strong"
Can be changed by moving the cursor just after the first " and entering c/"
In Vim this leaves every " in my code left as highlighted which makes my eyes bleed.
You don't even need the HTTP proxy, only OpenSSH.
SSH has a builtin SOCKS proxy you can use...
ie) ssh -D 1024 x.x.x.x
Where x.x.x.x is your remote SSH accessible host and 1024 is whatever random port number. Then set your browser to use the socks proxy localhost:1024 and you're all set.
You should actually test that sometime. That is the one thing they FINALLY did right with Vista. All Vista CDs are identical (other than 32-bit vs 64-bit). ie) I just today reloaded my Sony Vaio laptop with Vista Home Premium using a retail Vista Ultimate CD... I primarily use Ubuntu on the laptop, I mainly loaded Vista to see if it works as such. Surprise, surprise. It does! The installation disc installs the appropriate version based on the license key you enter.
The only weird quirk is it wouldn't let me activate over the internet. Instead I had to call their automated activation system, but five minutes later I was up and running, dual-booted Vista Home Premium, Ubuntu Hardy... No OEM bundled crapware. :)
More likely its because the RC3 and final release are identical. Hence no updates were required.
This is typical of past releases... The Mozilla team actually uses the term 'Release Candidate' to mean what would be expected 'This release is the final build if nothing else is discovered'.
The only thing I see in Silverlight is yet another attempt to create a platform that ties people to Windows. Sure there is currently an OS X port and a Linux port in the works, but how long will the non-Windows implementations be maintained once Silverlight is entrenched throughout the web?
It is no different then Microsoft discontinuing Windows Media Player for OS X. The ports are there now to entice us into accepting the platform. Once every one is dependent on it the ports for alternative platforms will fall behind and receive little maintenance. Once they've fallen sufficiently behind, to the point of incompatibility with the Windows implementation, they will be silently dropped.
Microsoft has a track record of this kind of behavior. I see no reason why Silverlight will be any different then any of their past endeavors. I for one don't trust them with the web. Silverlight will never be installed on any of my computers, period.
Sure, Flash support has been less then perfect on non-Windows platforms, but at least its not developed by a monopolistic operating system vendor with a hidden agenda and a long history of vendor lock-in technologies.
In the mean time, any site that requires Silverlight will soon be receiving hits from me at their competitors site.
I'm not sure what your instructor may have been referring to, possibly the hierarchal nature of IPv6's routing tables? In IPv6 things are a lot more organized, ie) given an IPv6 prefix one can generally determine the region and ISP that the prefix belongs to. This gives a slight improvement in terms of being able to determine the source of traffic at a glance, however there is nothing in IPv6 that eliminates the possibility of obscuring the source of something. Traditional encapsulation, tunneling and proxying methods are still very much workable without any real changes for one that wants to hide behind such methods.
What exactly is simpler in your viewpoint about IPv4? I'd like to see just one single pointer from you. Remember, just because you lack understanding of a technology doesn't mean it is more complex. In fact, in many ways IPv6 is simpler to deploy and maintain than IPv4. How many people that have deployed a network fudge up a subnet mask? With the large address space of IPv6 it is no longer necessary to deal with subnet masks, every subnet is 64 bits. Isn't that easier then having subnets of length somewhere between 8 and 30 bits and requiring the administrator to calculate the required number of hosts and the subnet masks to go along with that? What happens when a large network that does require end to end connectivity (think hosting provider network or the like here) provisions their network for 254 hosts and later outgrows this limitation? They need to re-number. Is re-numbering your network every time it grows to exceed an arbitrary limitation imposed by an obsolete standard "simple?" Thats only a couple examples.
Also, what part the word firewall makes you think that the firewall has to run on the host that you are trying to protect? I agree 100% that would not be ideal. Your gateway in IPv6 would still handle all the firewalling needs of your subnet. It is still a single point of administration at the edge of your network, nothing changes here!
You could turn my argument around, but you'd be dead wrong. How many people wonder why transfers over IM networks are so painfully slow or don't work at all? With both endpoints being behind NAT the IM clients need to each establish a connection to a third outside host to relay the transfer for them. How many people wonder why their SIP phone doesn't work properly in their hotel room. How many people wonder why a given game won't work behind their NAT. The examples are damn near countless. A lot of things happen behind the scenes to alleviate these issues to an extent but these are all added complexities. Here I thought your goal was to simplify things.
Have a look some day at how many protocols and standards exist, each to find yet another way around the limitations of NAT for a particular service or protocol (STUN, UPNP, NAT-PMP, etc, etc).
The thing is, there is nothing in the IPv6 spec that breaks functionality that you are used to today. There are however a great many things that are simply impractical with IPv4 unless you are one of the lucky few that has a sufficiently sized chunk of globally routable IP space.
Perhaps when you've administered a network larger then your personal home network you'll have a better grasp of what some of these issues entail.
It is complex now only because there are no IPv6 capable routers for "average" users yet. When the time comes and such routers exist it will be just as simple for them to block all incoming connections by default and allow users to allow specific incoming connections through a simple GUI not all that dissimilar from the Port Forwarding GUI's of today, just without the limitations.
Agreed. Some people will still have a use for NAT in a post IPv4 world, however there is a big difference between having the flexibility to use NAT when appropriate vs NAT shoved down your throat because you're stuck with a single dynamic IPv4 address from your ISP.
People have different requirements for different networks. Surely I don't need to connect to his toaster, but there are many real world requirements that simply are not well addressed with IPv4+NAT.
What is so difficult about adding a default rule to your firewall that blocks all incoming connections to your subnet and then adding rules specifically for the devices and services that do require incoming connections?
;)
ie) deny ip from any to 2610:78:ad::/48
With NAT you are eliminating the possibility of incoming connections, with IPv6 you can deny connections all you want but can allow incoming connections where required or desired. Sure you can setup a port forwarding rule to allow a service for a given machine, but what happens when you need the same service to go to more than one host? You know need to accommodate for that by changing the incoming port on your real IP.
Not to mention all the issues raised by protocols that embed IP's that are not routable within the protocol themselves (take the SIP protocol for example). Work-arounds need to be put in place for many protocols on an individual basis in a NAT'd environment. This is a pain in the ass that would be highly unnecessary in a post IPv4 world.
If you're so fond of the kludge that is NAT, nobody is stopping you from using NAT with IPv6 in combination with a non-routable unique-local prefix (fc00::/7).
Dragging your feet on adoption of a superior technology that works for every situation in favor of a broken setup that happens to meet YOUR rather limited requirements is delaying progress for the rest of us.
Generally speaking the consumer world isn't ready for IPv6 yet anyway (Too many Windows machines with limited IPv6 capabilities)... but I still get annoyed with all the anti-IPv6 commentary by those that have not fully investigated the specifics.
Just the personal pet peeve that is looking forward to moving behind the network design of choice for the 1980's.
Sorry, thats not a valid IPv6 unicast address. The unicast block is 2000::/3 so 2000: - 3FFF. ;)
Also IPv6 addresses can be compressed if they contain contiguous 0's.
ie) 2610:0078:00ad:0001:0000:0000:0000:0001 -> 2610:78:ad:1::1.
Worry not though, this is what DNS is for... Humans need not memorize IP addresses.
That's odd, I can't seem to ping your toaster... Its almost like a route doesn't exist... Unfortunate!
You and your kind (those ignorant of IP networking and the concept of true end to end connectivity) may enjoy non-routeable addresses, but I happen to like the flexibility that incoming connections permit.
I could rant about all the things your lousy NAT setup breaks but arguing about this over and over again is just getting tiresome.
Have a look at your IPv6 addresses on either machine, if they begin with fe80:: they are link local addresses (similar to 169.254/16 addresses in IPv4 world). In order to be able to communicate between LAN segments you need global IPv6 addresses. Your current options in lieu of native IPv6 connectivity from your ISP is to use a tunnel provider or use 6to4 at your gateway to automatically tunnel IPv6 through your IPv4 address.
Linux and FreeBSD as a gateway has the ability to do this.
Having a functional IPv6 stack is different that having all their services updated to actually use the IPv6 stack properly (which is the issue the parent post was pointing out)
At the very least, in IPv6 you'll get your own /64 prefix - the equivalent of 72,057,594,037,927,936 /24's.
Windows 3.1 had regedit.
I can't view it either... Good to know I'm not the only one.
Wi-LAN WAS a real company. I've used some of their backhauls in the past, they were great.
They failed to maintain a significant market share and are now a gutted litigation machine with no products to speak of.
They are in the same category as SCO, once a significant player, now a miserable failure of an organization that is resorting to patent trash to try and make a buck.
Just a heads up. As a Canadian I've also been perplexed by the exact same thing. I've seen this most often at this site and actually attempted to look up the distinction at some point to see if I was the only one who thought it was odd.
:)
Didn't manage to actually narrow down if it was an American thing... Glad to have that cleared up...
I'm curious as to what you cite as competitors? Might be just different for my needs but Evolution has broken IMAP support last I used it. Outlook chokes the minute your mailbox begins to get large. Apple Mail is quirky and not cross platform.
I guess that's the just of it, what other mail clients are there that are cross platform (Mac, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) and have IMAP support that isn't broken?
Then again, 90% of the world probably couldn't care less if their mail app of choice wasn't cross platform... ie) the same people that run to Incredimail for the purdy colors.