> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet?
*ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4, as far as today's applications, operating systems, and internet routers are concerned. Repeat... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks everything that relies on IPV4.
> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet? > For example, instead of using 8 bits, use x bits where x is specified at the > beginning of the address. For example, you can use x=10 and create an address > up to 1024.1024.1024.1024.
Because internet traffic would be painfully slow, that's why. Current routers (the hardware that the internet runs on, not the toy between your modem and your computers) are hard-coded in ROM/firmware to handle 32-bit addresses. They can handle 128 bits in software, but it's a lot slower. Think hardware acceleration versus software acceleration for video cards. New routers can be had which do 128 bits in hardware. Your suggestion breaks down because... a) the router would have to figure out dynamically how many bits constitutes a data packet. b) once it figures that out, it has to route it. Because there are endless possibilities, it has to be done in software, again slowing it down.
> Best of all, assume x=8 unless explicitly specified, and voila -- perfect > backwards compatibility with the existing IPv4 protocol.
Wring, wrang, wrung... wrong, wrong, wrong. At the hardware level, TCP/IP is a series of 8-bit bytes. Ain't gonna change without throwing out almost every computer currently in existence. That would make the switch from IPV4 to IPV6 look trivial.
Just in case you modify your proposal to say X=N bytes instead of X=N bits, there is still a problem. You would need a "flag byte" to signal how many bytes to use. IPV4-compliant software and hardware would choke on the extra bytes in the stream. I repeat what I said at the beginning... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4. Given that assumption, we may as well start from scratch, and go back to square 1 when designing IPV6.
If I was an IPV6-hater, I couldn't come up with a better put-down of IPV6... that it's so pitiful that the only way to get quick adoption is to artificially kill the competition. Sounds like a Microsoft tactic.
I'm neutral on IPV6; when it becomes necessary, I'll switch. I'm running linux, which is ready for IPV6. We will exhaust IPV4 adress space in a few years, unless ISPs go NWN (Nuts With NAT). Reclaiming/8's from the likes of GE and Compaq (Compaq has 2/8's; 16 million addresses) may buy another couple of years, but it only delays the inevitable.
The RIAA has a legal leg to stand on in its lawsuits, in that P2P networks are distributing works that are legally owned by the MAFIAA. Independant websites that solicit classifieds and ads are anologous to independant music labels that compete legally with the RIAA labels. Just like the independant labels sign artists and distribute their music via different channels, so do Craigslist and Monster solicit ads and distribute them through different channels. Nothing illegal about that.
Item #2 I am a big boy, and I can handle any problems NAT causes, up to and including a DMZ, or turning off NAT altogether.
I understand that when the IPV4 version of IPSEC was adopted, a NAT-compatable version was voted down specifically in order to "break NAT". The net result is that IPSEC adoption has been hobbled. Talk about cutting off your face to spite your nose.
And a note to all those aging pony-tailed hippies who remember "the good-ole-days of a fully-open internet". You're living in the same drug-induced twilight zone as the 20,000,000 aging baby-boomers who all remember having been at Woodstock in 1969. In the "good-ole-days", only sysadmins had real end-to-end connectivity. 99% of end-users sat in front of green-screen terminals like VT100's. And they toed the line, or got kicked off by a BOFH.
The real reason that corporations love NAT is that renumbering when moving between ISPs is relatively painless. Move to a different ISP, and you only have to re-number a few publically visible servers. The 500 desktops in each building don't have to be touched. What's that you say? A *SIDE-EFFECT* of NAT is that office workers can't run VOIP, P2P, or any servers? One... two... three... awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Take the anti-NAT fanbois and lock them up. Make IPV6 NAT-agnostic. Don't be assholes deliberately trying to break NAT. Use some diplomacy for a change, and you might find IPV6 adoption speeding up.
> No where does the GP mention anything about replacing equipment... > The GP was talking about devices facing the internet which isn't true > if you set to disallow incoming connections.
To achieve what you want, I'd have to throw away my consumer-grade router, and replace it with a multi-port firewall. Ever try pricing one of those out?
Replacing a NATing router/gateway with a firewall also means...
- I will have to log in manually to my ISP
- ADSL users (there are a lot of us) will have to run a PPPOE driver as part of our networking stack
- many North American ISPs charge extra for additional IP addresses; some don't offer them period; sucks to be a large family in that case
> this, which is my point you can still do this with a firewall.
OK, so an expensive stateful multi-port firewall will sort of emulate a cheap consumer-grade NATing router, whilst allowing a family to log on to an ISP and pay extra for using multiple IP addresses. I am underwhelmed. It may make sense when the ISP offers IPV6 natively, but not before then.
Which was used by 90% of IO-interrupt-driven modem protocols ever since the early days of dialup modems
> the ability to watch while recording
At the command line of any decent linux distro or unix implementation, enter the command "man tee", without the quotes. It'll mention... "tee - read from standard input and write to standard output and files"
> pause without losing anything including audio\video synch
ever heard the word "stateful" in reference to computing?
> The judge chimed in saying that distribution to an investigator > such as MediaSentry still provides basis for claims. If they can > prove that then don't they essentially have the verdict?
But is Mediasentry a *LICENCED* investigator? oops.
Me too. In response to the question, I would recommend doing the basic stage 3 install, and not bother with X. Install vim/whatever and strip out anything that you don't require. If you really want fast booting, boot in single mode.
> I'm not sure what brand you use, but all of the HP notebooks > ***MY COMPANY*** purchase
The article is talking your parents buying 1 computer. They have no leverage whatsoever. A corporation that buys 1,000+ PC's at a time has leverage. In many cases, they'll blow off the OEM install, and put on their corporate custom-imaged install.
> come with both a Vista and an XP Pro Installation disk as well > as a HP-Specific "EZ-Install" driver disc.
I defy you to find a *RETAIL* computer (not a business computer bought in lots of at least 100) that comes with clean Vista or XP install media.
> If the tool doesn't allow you to meet your requirements, then you should change the tool.
If you want to invent a new internet protocol that lets the remote server take over your desktop, feel free to do so. The reason you run into so much backlash is that you want to ram *YOUR* singing/dancing Web2.0 "goodness" down the throats of people who merely want a lightweight browser that browses the web. Ever heard the joke about how an elephant is actually a mouse designed by a committee? That's the problem we're running into now. The same applies to assholes who want to turn email clients into singing/dancing Web2.0 "rich media experiences".
> Newer specs talk about using random bit strings for addresses. And varying > addresses over time. It is even possible to use different addresses for > different destinations.
Errr, uhmmmm, no. Not unless ISPs implement dynamic IP addresses on IPV6. (Watch the purists go stark raving berserk over that). In the new world order, your ISP hands you a *STATIC BLOCK* (usually/64) of IPV6 addresses. Regardless of how much you jump around inside that block, simple modulo arithmetic can tell an outsider whether it's the same household or not.
The powers-that-be have finally admitted that DJB is right, and interoperability is a problem and are looking at defining an IPV6 version of NAT. See http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-ipv6nat.html for details. It'll have 2 uses...
1) The many-devices-to-one-address-mapping that we all know and love with IPV4 NAT
2) Automatic translation between IPV4 and IPV6. If you use the analogue-TV-to-digital-TV analogy, this NATing function is like the cheap converter boxes that allow your old analogue TV to receive digital broadcasts. Joe Sixpack will be told to plug his computer into the box, and the box plugs into his modem *AND THINGS WILL AUTOMAGICALLY WORK JUST LIKE BEFORE*.
Item #2 is the biggie. If we can make the migration asynchronous (i.e. no "flag-day" when everybody must switch over at the same time) things become a lot easier. And when Joe's current computer, running Windows 98SE or WinME (don't laugh) dies, he'll buy a new one with Vista or WIndows 7, and it'll support IPV6 out of the box. Just like when your current analogue CRT TV dies, you'll buy a new one, and it'll natively tune in digital broadcasts. And you won't need the NAT box anymore, except as a security blanket.
> I think many have missed the point entirely. I in NO way advocate > allowing anyone to run ANY code they want to fling onto my machine.
I mis-interpreted your statement "The web browser needs to transform into a sand-boxed window manager. How is that again? A window manger, huh? The idea sits in front of ALL of you every day. The GUI desktop moves things around, arranges windows, covers them up allows them to be moved, adjusts for sizing, everything we desperately try to implement in CSS and DOM but pretty fail to do."
A window manager displays applications, and when you mentioned "sand-boxed", that fit right in. It appears that you were advocating a major re-write of HTML. A few points...
1) I agree with you that HTML was originally written to emulate static paper. Vint Cerf and co-workers were trying to share documents in read-only mode, and HTML does that quite well, thank you. HTML wass *NOT* written with major interactivity in mind, and that is glaringly obvious. Interactivity hacks on HTML are ugly hacks at best, and open up the end-user to attack (Active-X anyone?).
2) I think that rather than trying to extend HTML into interactivity, we should admit that it wasn't written with interactivity in mind, and trying to make a steamboat fly is a waste of time and resources.
3) The basic problem is that a browser won't accomplish a lot of what people want done. Since one-size-does-not-fit-all, there are multiple solutions to the many-faceted problem...
* a lot of today's form-filling "interactivity" would be done better on a GUI dumb-terminal, or even a VT-100 emulator.
* a lot of remote work could be done by an internet file system by abstracting it to look like another remote drive. Enable regular word-processossers and spreadsheets to... - open up a document on http://bad.example.com/my_docs/letter_to_aunt_jane.doc - edit it locally with your word-processor of choice - save back to the original file
* For "heavy-duty interactivity", I suggest inventing a new RIA "Rich Internet Application" API, assigning it a different port (i.e. not 80), and doing all your first-person-shooter-wannabee stuff on that
* Leave browsers alone to do what browsers do best, i.e display text and images and movies and audio.
> The web browser needs to transform into a sand-boxed window manager. > How is that again? A window manger, huh?
Every time you add power to a scripting language, you invite abuse. Considering how well MS has *NOT* sandboxed stuff inside IE, absolutely the *LAST* thing the web wants/needs is "more powerful" web apps.
The article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/webbased_clipboard_hijacking/ describes the latest Flash exploit. It appears to come in via Flash in 3rd-party banner ads. It causes Flash to rewrite the user's clipboard once a second, with a URL to a malware-laced website. The logic is that if you're doing a bunch of cut-n-paste, you may not notice that you've pasted something other than what you've intended. These malware URLs will end up being pasted into people's email messages and web postings.
This is an "equal opportunity attack". Because Schlockwave-Trash is so ubiquitous, the clipboard-hijacking is affecting all major OS's (Windows and Mac and Linux) and browsers (IE and Firefox and Safari).
The problem is that Flash is not a mere player. It's a programming environment complete with scripting language (Actionscript). This includes stuff like System.copyToClipboard() It's not a bug, it's a feature. Yet another reason to block Flash. I use the Flashblock extension for Firefox.
We should send a message loud and clear to web developers...
You may send *DATA* (including text/pictures/sound/movies etc) to my browser, but *YOU MAY NOT EXECUTE YOUR CODE ON MY MACHINE*!!! If I wanted the Russian Business Network to be able to execute their code on my machine, I'd run Windows and IE with ActiveX enabled.
Re:Establishing de facto (open source) standard ?
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> My opinion: I need a modern virtual machine ==> Java... check
> with capabilities comparable with Flash/Silverlight applets ==> Java... check
> and level of integration comparable with javascript engines shipped with browsers. ==> Java... check
> Compatible across browsers. ==> Java... check
> maybe with some kind of intermediate representation (bytecode?). ==> Java... check
> Capable to run bigger, non-trivial apps. ==> Java... check
> Open sourced and not patent encumbered. ==> Java... check
> Currently there is nothing satisfying my wishes. Errrr uhmmm, ever heard of Java?
> And one reason the 808x has memory segments instead of a simple flat memory > space is to provide a memory model that works with old 8-bit code; you pointers > just refer to an address within a 64K segment instead of a flat 64K address space.
Actually, 64K is 16 bits of address space. Looking back, there was one thing I wish Intel had done differently. Their X86 addressing scheme consisted of two 16-bit registers. To get the absolute address you... * took the base register and multiplied by 16 * added the value in the offset register
The net result was 20 bits of address space, i.e. one megabyte. The top 384 K was reserved for BIOS and video card, so you were left with 640K of RAM available for DOS and programs. You could express most addresses in 4096 ways. This was horribly wasteful. Think how different things would've been if it was was something like 4096 * base register, then add the offset. That would've allowed DOS to address 256 megs of RAM. Or go all out and use base_register * 64K plus add the offset. DOS with 4 gigs of address space! We'd still be running DOS today, but it would be a multitasking DOS. And none of this Extended/Expanded memory crapola. Sigh.
> In section 960.3: "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing > space systems." So it's perfectly legal to take pictures from space with a conventional > camera without any license whatsoever.
You can tell the law was passed in 1992. Nowadays, "a small, hand-held camera" can be a multi-megapixel unit with internal stabiliser. If you're enough of a geek, remove the IR filter (warning... voids the warranty) and you get decent night-time photos.
> (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to > obtain or furnish, information > related to:
> (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or > injury to a person or to property;
> (b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information > includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and > the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Somebody loses data on their hard drive. They take it to the local geek-squad/whatever guy. He has to "obtain... information related to:"... "the cause or reponsibility for" that (data) loss simply in order to decide which parts to replace. Specifically...
- did the hard-drive fail
- did a lightning strike fry the computer
- is the BIOS ROM corrupted
Notice that none of this would normally require a court appearance, but it is covered by the law. Do *YOU* feel foolish yet?
If the law specifically said that it only applied to collecting information for legal cases, it might make sense. What you would really need in that case is a computer tech working under the direction of a PI.
> I'd like to be able to read pdf files confortably directly in the browser. AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH NNNNNOOOOO!!!!
PDFs are a separate standard. Rendering PDFs *PROPERLY* is a complex task requiring a full blown PDF-reader (Foxit and xpdf don't make the cut). Rendering PDFs properly requires something equivalent to Adobe Acrobat plus a metric buttload of fonts hard-coded into the browser. No thank you. If I want to render PDF I'll use xpdf or Adobe Acrobat or whatever.
> So come up with a transparent method of installing applications from websites.
This is Comrade Boris at Russian Business Network. We are havink method "of installing applications from websites" for many years. For a small fee, we sellink the install code to you.
> What they really should do, is require that any service offered to the > outside world be available with both ipv6 and ipv4 connectivity, starting > with any new deployments/upgrades and gradually rolling out to existing sites.
You'll know that IPV6 has arrived, when hurricane victims will only be able to apply online for aid via an IPV6 connection
> NAT breaks networks horribly by its very nature, and voids > the original Internet ideal of a collection of peers.
You are so wrong. Next thing you're going to tell me is that Al Gore invented the internet.
> While governments might love the idea of forcing you to funnel traffic > through a central, easily-tappable server, it sucks for end users.
I'm in my late fifties, old enough to remember the early days of the internet. I am not part of the 90% of North American baby boomers who remember being at Woodstock. Neither am I part of the 90% of North American baby boomers who remember the imaginary "good old days of the internet". The early internet consisted of a bunch of mainframes operated by a bunch of BOFH (Bastard Operators From Hell). The only guys (usually male) allowed to log on were military types or civilian employees of defense contractors, who had a whack of security clearances. One reason that many internet protocols have no security built-in from day 1 was the assumption that everybody ausing them was an upper-middle-class white guy with security clearance.
Later on, spare capacity allowed university students to be given accounts. These local users (aka "lusers") usually sat in front of "green-screen" character-based dumb terminals like VT100 or VC52 (Volker-Craig). The lusers' data and email was all kept on the central server. The luser had much fewer rights than the average ISP customer in North America has today.
> Not only is it bad for privacy, but for reliability: now you can't > talk to your friend's machine if the helper server is down or out > of bandwidth. That's not acceptable!
In which alternate reality did you grow up? The "original internet" was not what you seem to think it was.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet?
*ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4, as far as today's applications, operating systems, and internet routers are concerned. Repeat... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks everything that relies on IPV4.
> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet?
> For example, instead of using 8 bits, use x bits where x is specified at the
> beginning of the address. For example, you can use x=10 and create an address
> up to 1024.1024.1024.1024.
Because internet traffic would be painfully slow, that's why. Current routers (the hardware that the internet runs on, not the toy between your modem and your computers) are hard-coded in ROM/firmware to handle 32-bit addresses. They can handle 128 bits in software, but it's a lot slower. Think hardware acceleration versus software acceleration for video cards. New routers can be had which do 128 bits in hardware. Your suggestion breaks down because...
a) the router would have to figure out dynamically how many bits constitutes a data packet.
b) once it figures that out, it has to route it. Because there are endless possibilities, it has to be done in software, again slowing it down.
> Best of all, assume x=8 unless explicitly specified, and voila -- perfect
> backwards compatibility with the existing IPv4 protocol.
Wring, wrang, wrung... wrong, wrong, wrong. At the hardware level, TCP/IP is a series of 8-bit bytes. Ain't gonna change without throwing out almost every computer currently in existence. That would make the switch from IPV4 to IPV6 look trivial.
Just in case you modify your proposal to say X=N bytes instead of X=N bits, there is still a problem. You would need a "flag byte" to signal how many bytes to use. IPV4-compliant software and hardware would choke on the extra bytes in the stream. I repeat what I said at the beginning... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4. Given that assumption, we may as well start from scratch, and go back to square 1 when designing IPV6.
If I was an IPV6-hater, I couldn't come up with a better put-down of IPV6... that it's so pitiful that the only way to get quick adoption is to artificially kill the competition. Sounds like a Microsoft tactic.
I'm neutral on IPV6; when it becomes necessary, I'll switch. I'm running linux, which is ready for IPV6. We will exhaust IPV4 adress space in a few years, unless ISPs go NWN (Nuts With NAT). Reclaiming /8's from the likes of GE and Compaq (Compaq has 2 /8's; 16 million addresses) may buy another couple of years, but it only delays the inevitable.
The RIAA has a legal leg to stand on in its lawsuits, in that P2P networks are distributing works that are legally owned by the MAFIAA. Independant websites that solicit classifieds and ads are anologous to independant music labels that compete legally with the RIAA labels. Just like the independant labels sign artists and distribute their music via different channels, so do Craigslist and Monster solicit ads and distribute them through different channels. Nothing illegal about that.
Item #1 IPV6 is a good idea in principle
Item #2 I am a big boy, and I can handle any problems NAT causes, up to and including a DMZ, or turning off NAT altogether.
I understand that when the IPV4 version of IPSEC was adopted, a NAT-compatable version was voted down specifically in order to "break NAT". The net result is that IPSEC adoption has been hobbled. Talk about cutting off your face to spite your nose.
And a note to all those aging pony-tailed hippies who remember "the good-ole-days of a fully-open internet". You're living in the same drug-induced twilight zone as the 20,000,000 aging baby-boomers who all remember having been at Woodstock in 1969. In the "good-ole-days", only sysadmins had real end-to-end connectivity. 99% of end-users sat in front of green-screen terminals like VT100's. And they toed the line, or got kicked off by a BOFH.
The real reason that corporations love NAT is that renumbering when moving between ISPs is relatively painless. Move to a different ISP, and you only have to re-number a few publically visible servers. The 500 desktops in each building don't have to be touched. What's that you say? A *SIDE-EFFECT* of NAT is that office workers can't run VOIP, P2P, or any servers? One... two... three... awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Take the anti-NAT fanbois and lock them up. Make IPV6 NAT-agnostic. Don't be assholes deliberately trying to break NAT. Use some diplomacy for a change, and you might find IPV6 adoption speeding up.
> No where does the GP mention anything about replacing equipment...
> The GP was talking about devices facing the internet which isn't true
> if you set to disallow incoming connections.
To achieve what you want, I'd have to throw away my consumer-grade router, and replace it with a multi-port firewall. Ever try pricing one of those out?
Replacing a NATing router/gateway with a firewall also means...
- I will have to log in manually to my ISP
- ADSL users (there are a lot of us) will have to run a PPPOE driver as part of our networking stack
- many North American ISPs charge extra for additional IP addresses; some don't offer them period; sucks to be a large family in that case
> this, which is my point you can still do this with a firewall.
OK, so an expensive stateful multi-port firewall will sort of emulate a cheap consumer-grade NATing router, whilst allowing a family to log on to an ISP and pay extra for using multiple IP addresses. I am underwhelmed. It may make sense when the ISP offers IPV6 natively, but not before then.
Actually, there's 3 kinds of UNIX admins...
- those who can count
- and those who can't
The magic incantation is...
mplayer -playlist http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx
*WITHOUT* the "[cnn.com]" in brackets at the end (damn you Slashdot). I'm running it on linux, and watching CNN right now.
> Instead they patented their circular buffer
Which was used by 90% of IO-interrupt-driven modem protocols ever since the early days of dialup modems
> the ability to watch while recording
At the command line of any decent linux distro or unix implementation, enter the command "man tee", without the quotes. It'll mention...
"tee - read from standard input and write to standard output and files"
> pause without losing anything including audio\video synch
ever heard the word "stateful" in reference to computing?
> The judge chimed in saying that distribution to an investigator
> such as MediaSentry still provides basis for claims. If they can
> prove that then don't they essentially have the verdict?
But is Mediasentry a *LICENCED* investigator? oops.
> Yeah, I'm a gentoober
Me too. In response to the question, I would recommend doing the basic stage 3 install, and not bother with X. Install vim/whatever and strip out anything that you don't require. If you really want fast booting, boot in single mode.
> I'm not sure what brand you use, but all of the HP notebooks
> ***MY COMPANY*** purchase
The article is talking your parents buying 1 computer. They have no leverage whatsoever. A corporation that buys 1,000+ PC's at a time has leverage. In many cases, they'll blow off the OEM install, and put on their corporate custom-imaged install.
> come with both a Vista and an XP Pro Installation disk as well
> as a HP-Specific "EZ-Install" driver disc.
I defy you to find a *RETAIL* computer (not a business computer bought in lots of at least 100) that comes with clean Vista or XP install media.
> If the tool doesn't allow you to meet your requirements, then you should change the tool.
If you want to invent a new internet protocol that lets the remote server take over your desktop, feel free to do so. The reason you run into so much backlash is that you want to ram *YOUR* singing/dancing Web2.0 "goodness" down the throats of people who merely want a lightweight browser that browses the web. Ever heard the joke about how an elephant is actually a mouse designed by a committee? That's the problem we're running into now. The same applies to assholes who want to turn email clients into singing/dancing Web2.0 "rich media experiences".
> Newer specs talk about using random bit strings for addresses. And varying
> addresses over time. It is even possible to use different addresses for
> different destinations.
Errr, uhmmmm, no. Not unless ISPs implement dynamic IP addresses on IPV6. (Watch the purists go stark raving berserk over that). In the new world order, your ISP hands you a *STATIC BLOCK* (usually /64) of IPV6 addresses. Regardless of how much you jump around inside that block, simple modulo arithmetic can tell an outsider whether it's the same household or not.
The powers-that-be have finally admitted that DJB is right, and interoperability is a problem and are looking at defining an IPV6 version of NAT. See http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-ipv6nat.html for details. It'll have 2 uses...
1) The many-devices-to-one-address-mapping that we all know and love with IPV4 NAT
2) Automatic translation between IPV4 and IPV6. If you use the analogue-TV-to-digital-TV analogy, this NATing function is like the cheap converter boxes that allow your old analogue TV to receive digital broadcasts. Joe Sixpack will be told to plug his computer into the box, and the box plugs into his modem *AND THINGS WILL AUTOMAGICALLY WORK JUST LIKE BEFORE*.
Item #2 is the biggie. If we can make the migration asynchronous (i.e. no "flag-day" when everybody must switch over at the same time) things become a lot easier. And when Joe's current computer, running Windows 98SE or WinME (don't laugh) dies, he'll buy a new one with Vista or WIndows 7, and it'll support IPV6 out of the box. Just like when your current analogue CRT TV dies, you'll buy a new one, and it'll natively tune in digital broadcasts. And you won't need the NAT box anymore, except as a security blanket.
> I think many have missed the point entirely. I in NO way advocate
> allowing anyone to run ANY code they want to fling onto my machine.
I mis-interpreted your statement "The web browser needs to transform into a sand-boxed window manager. How is that again? A window manger, huh? The idea sits in front of ALL of you every day. The GUI desktop moves things around, arranges windows, covers them up allows them to be moved, adjusts for sizing, everything we desperately try to implement in CSS and DOM but pretty fail to do."
A window manager displays applications, and when you mentioned "sand-boxed", that fit right in. It appears that you were advocating a major re-write of HTML. A few points...
1) I agree with you that HTML was originally written to emulate static paper. Vint Cerf and co-workers were trying to share documents in read-only mode, and HTML does that quite well, thank you. HTML wass *NOT* written with major interactivity in mind, and that is glaringly obvious. Interactivity hacks on HTML are ugly hacks at best, and open up the end-user to attack (Active-X anyone?).
2) I think that rather than trying to extend HTML into interactivity, we should admit that it wasn't written with interactivity in mind, and trying to make a steamboat fly is a waste of time and resources.
3) The basic problem is that a browser won't accomplish a lot of what people want done. Since one-size-does-not-fit-all, there are multiple solutions to the many-faceted problem...
* a lot of today's form-filling "interactivity" would be done better on a GUI dumb-terminal, or even a VT-100 emulator.
* a lot of remote work could be done by an internet file system by abstracting it to look like another remote drive. Enable regular word-processossers and spreadsheets to...
- open up a document on http://bad.example.com/my_docs/letter_to_aunt_jane.doc
- edit it locally with your word-processor of choice
- save back to the original file
* For "heavy-duty interactivity", I suggest inventing a new RIA "Rich Internet Application" API, assigning it a different port (i.e. not 80), and doing all your first-person-shooter-wannabee stuff on that
* Leave browsers alone to do what browsers do best, i.e display text and images and movies and audio.
> The web browser needs to transform into a sand-boxed window manager.
> How is that again? A window manger, huh?
Every time you add power to a scripting language, you invite abuse. Considering how well MS has *NOT* sandboxed stuff inside IE, absolutely the *LAST* thing the web wants/needs is "more powerful" web apps.
The article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/webbased_clipboard_hijacking/ describes the latest Flash exploit. It appears to come in via Flash in 3rd-party banner ads. It causes Flash to rewrite the user's clipboard once a second, with a URL to a malware-laced website. The logic is that if you're doing a bunch of cut-n-paste, you may not notice that you've pasted something other than what you've intended. These malware URLs will end up being pasted into people's email messages and web postings.
This is an "equal opportunity attack". Because Schlockwave-Trash is so ubiquitous, the clipboard-hijacking is affecting all major OS's (Windows and Mac and Linux) and browsers (IE and Firefox and Safari).
The problem is that Flash is not a mere player. It's a programming environment complete with scripting language (Actionscript). This includes stuff like System.copyToClipboard() It's not a bug, it's a feature. Yet another reason to block Flash. I use the Flashblock extension for Firefox.
We should send a message loud and clear to web developers...
You may send *DATA* (including text/pictures/sound/movies etc) to my browser, but *YOU MAY NOT EXECUTE YOUR CODE ON MY MACHINE*!!! If I wanted the Russian Business Network to be able to execute their code on my machine, I'd run Windows and IE with ActiveX enabled.
> My opinion: I need a modern virtual machine ==> Java ... check
> with capabilities comparable with Flash/Silverlight applets ==> Java ... check
> and level of integration comparable with javascript engines shipped with browsers. ==> Java ... check
> Compatible across browsers. ==> Java ... check
> maybe with some kind of intermediate representation (bytecode?). ==> Java ... check
> Capable to run bigger, non-trivial apps. ==> Java ... check
> Open sourced and not patent encumbered. ==> Java ... check
> Currently there is nothing satisfying my wishes.
Errrr uhmmm, ever heard of Java?
> And one reason the 808x has memory segments instead of a simple flat memory
> space is to provide a memory model that works with old 8-bit code; you pointers
> just refer to an address within a 64K segment instead of a flat 64K address space.
Actually, 64K is 16 bits of address space. Looking back, there was one thing I wish Intel had done differently. Their X86 addressing scheme consisted of two 16-bit registers. To get the absolute address you...
* took the base register and multiplied by 16
* added the value in the offset register
The net result was 20 bits of address space, i.e. one megabyte. The top 384 K was reserved for BIOS and video card, so you were left with 640K of RAM available for DOS and programs. You could express most addresses in 4096 ways. This was horribly wasteful. Think how different things would've been if it was was something like 4096 * base register, then add the offset. That would've allowed DOS to address 256 megs of RAM. Or go all out and use base_register * 64K plus add the offset. DOS with 4 gigs of address space! We'd still be running DOS today, but it would be a multitasking DOS. And none of this Extended/Expanded memory crapola. Sigh.
Plan a) Convince Dubya that there are weapons of mass destruction on Mars, and he'll get 100,000 soldiers out there no time flat
Plan b) If a Democrat gets elected in 2008, convince them that Mars is an excellent place to sequester earth's excess CO2.
> In section 960.3: "Small, hand-held cameras shall not be considered remote sensing
> space systems." So it's perfectly legal to take pictures from space with a conventional
> camera without any license whatsoever.
You can tell the law was passed in 1992. Nowadays, "a small, hand-held camera" can be a multi-megapixel unit with internal stabiliser. If you're enough of a geek, remove the IR filter (warning... voids the warranty) and you get decent night-time photos.
> (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to
> obtain or furnish, information
> related to:
> (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or
> injury to a person or to property;
> (b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information
> includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and
> the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
Somebody loses data on their hard drive. They take it to the local geek-squad/whatever guy. He has to "obtain... information related to:"... "the cause or reponsibility for" that (data) loss simply in order to decide which parts to replace. Specifically...
- did the hard-drive fail
- did a lightning strike fry the computer
- is the BIOS ROM corrupted
Notice that none of this would normally require a court appearance, but it is covered by the law. Do *YOU* feel foolish yet?
If the law specifically said that it only applied to collecting information for legal cases, it might make sense. What you would really need in that case is a computer tech working under the direction of a PI.
> I'd like to be able to read pdf files confortably directly in the browser.
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH NNNNNOOOOO!!!!
PDFs are a separate standard. Rendering PDFs *PROPERLY* is a complex task requiring a full blown PDF-reader (Foxit and xpdf don't make the cut). Rendering PDFs properly requires something equivalent to Adobe Acrobat plus a metric buttload of fonts hard-coded into the browser. No thank you. If I want to render PDF I'll use xpdf or Adobe Acrobat or whatever.
> So come up with a transparent method of installing applications from websites.
This is Comrade Boris at Russian Business Network. We are havink method "of installing applications from websites" for many years. For a small fee, we sellink the install code to you.
> What they really should do, is require that any service offered to the
> outside world be available with both ipv6 and ipv4 connectivity, starting
> with any new deployments/upgrades and gradually rolling out to existing sites.
You'll know that IPV6 has arrived, when hurricane victims will only be able to apply online for aid via an IPV6 connection
> NAT breaks networks horribly by its very nature, and voids
> the original Internet ideal of a collection of peers.
You are so wrong. Next thing you're going to tell me is that Al Gore invented the internet.
> While governments might love the idea of forcing you to funnel traffic
> through a central, easily-tappable server, it sucks for end users.
I'm in my late fifties, old enough to remember the early days of the internet. I am not part of the 90% of North American baby boomers who remember being at Woodstock. Neither am I part of the 90% of North American baby boomers who remember the imaginary "good old days of the internet". The early internet consisted of a bunch of mainframes operated by a bunch of BOFH (Bastard Operators From Hell). The only guys (usually male) allowed to log on were military types or civilian employees of defense contractors, who had a whack of security clearances. One reason that many internet protocols have no security built-in from day 1 was the assumption that everybody ausing them was an upper-middle-class white guy with security clearance.
Later on, spare capacity allowed university students to be given accounts. These local users (aka "lusers") usually sat in front of "green-screen" character-based dumb terminals like VT100 or VC52 (Volker-Craig). The lusers' data and email was all kept on the central server. The luser had much fewer rights than the average ISP customer in North America has today.
> Not only is it bad for privacy, but for reliability: now you can't
> talk to your friend's machine if the helper server is down or out
> of bandwidth. That's not acceptable!
In which alternate reality did you grow up? The "original internet" was not what you seem to think it was.