We're not changing to IPv6 on our internal network ever. Why would we bother with a forklift changeover of the entire internal network? It's a waste of time--nothing we need to do now requires "end to end" addressing, and frankly, if it does we don't want it. All the articles I've read seem to come down to "it's more convenient" for applications not to have to deal with NAT... Of course it is also more convenient for people who mean to do you harm, too, since we're back to connections to outside resources coming from the machine's actual IP address, a public NATing of the private one.
Once again, we're back to "convenience" vs. "can a competent admin secure it in a reasonable length of time or with a reasonable budget?"
(4) It's way too easy to be given, to hear or to type in the wrong bank account number and for businesses to say they never got the credit. You get one number wrong and you've just credited some random guy a lot of money which you may never see again.
I'm not sure how bank transfers work in the United Kingdom, but Americans can do bank-transfers (called an "ACH" or "Automated Clearinghouse" transaction) to pay expenses too. And we have a pretty straight-forward fail-safe in place to make sure the scenario you describe happens between "rarely" and "never."
When you link you your bank account to the merchant, the first thing they do is deposit xyz random cents (usually between $0.01 and $0.25) a few times and have you confirm those amounts by entering them into their web-application. Once you enter the matching value, you've confirmed ownership. And you only get one or two attempts to get it right before you have to "call customer service" to resolve it, which means you can't brute force it very easily. Once this is completed, you can pay your bills using an ACH transfer.
Surely UK merchants have access to something as simple that is similar...
How is it a cost for people who would own the devices anyway? I have an iPhone and and iPad on my own accord.
Wear-and-tear: There are only so many "taps" in a touch-screen's usable life. Do you want to use them getting laid with your girlfriend or deleting bullshit "forwards" from your idiot co-workers?
Consumable services: Your data plan is in the process of no longer being "unlimited." Every byte you burn for the company potentially puts you into an "overage" situation where you're paying through the nose for "extra" bandwidth. Will your employer reimburse for that? Or are you just "on your own" for the balance of the bill that month?
Spoken like someone who has never had to provide either one... Those policies exist so you can continue to have a job and paycheck when one of your less-educated coworkers downloads the latest malware because IT "got out of his way." And when that malware allows corporate spies from China to steal your company's advantage, or maybe even their entire reason for being in business, remember this conversation on the unemployment line.
I work for a largish healthcare firm. $6b fortune 500 company. We are doing it. The magic is Citrix, which insulates you from your end user's environment.
...Except for key-loggers and screen-scrapes, which Citrix will always by definition be vulnerable to because even though you're doing the "computing" remotely, you're still typing and clicking locally.
If rights can be blindly transferred from individuals to a collective, then the reverse should also true. The corporate veil should vanish and all members of the collective should be jointly and severally liable for any harm the collective causes.
The rights of a limited liability entity should be limited too.
They used to be much more limited. As late as the 1870s and 1880s, various states had laws on the books that amounted to a "corporate death penalty"--that is, companies that repeatedly broke the law or existed only for the purpose of breaking the law, could have their corporate charters' revoked and their assets seized to pay off any existing debts.
This is had the effect making corporate managers think long and hard about straddling the line between "lawful" and "unlawful." These laws were mostly gutted during the Gilded Age (or, perhaps, I need to start referring to the First Gilded Age since we seem to be in the early stages of a second one,) by robber-barons who wanted as few barriers as possible between their wealth and unlimited power....Sound familiar?
U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
Because they've attacked the "great firewall of China" publicly to their own political ends in the past, the public would recognize that as censorship. But somehow, (or perhaps, through planned half-assity in schools for decades) the public doesn't recognize this censorship for what it is.
Twitter: Yawn. It's millions of idiots blathering on senselessly. For every pithy, funny, legible tweet, there are half-million messages that are just dreck. I had some fun impersonating a politician on Twitter for a while... but he didn't run for President, and I let it die... Nobody offered me a book deal....Not yet, anyway.
Good question: This sure smells like a bill of atainder, which is specifically forbidden under the constitution... It identifies a group of people and punishes them arbitrarily by stripping them of overtime because "why should those geeks get overtime?"
Want to see what happens when the people who make your iPhone "work," your electrical grid function, and your business applications process transactions get pissed off and band together? Thought not.
Yet it's horse-shit like this that leads to people in critical positions unionizing... Keep chiseling away, cutting salaries and outsourcing, and see what happens.
I'm a T-Mobile customer and fan, but I'm not under contract. And I've held off deciding what to do until the AT&T thing played out. Now that they won't become AT&T, I'm looking at a new phone and re-upping my contract. I absolutely positively wasn't willing to do business with AT&T and their craptastic, shitgasm network.
Plus they know any upgrades are pointless since AT&T's S.O.P. when they acquire a successful minor carrier is to trash the acquired network, shutting off any parts that might give them "excess" capacity in areas to further raise the profit profile from their new customers. It is essentially the entire point of a merger like this: Reduce operating cost per customer by merging, then eliminating excess "overhead," (like overlapping towers that might have alleviated congestion problems, if they weren't on the chopping block for shutdown.)
If this had gone through Apple would have solved the T-mobile "3G Problem" in short order, of that you can be sure.
Which is why Apple will shockingly buy them and then make them the only domestic iPhone carrier once their deals with other companies are over.
I think this is one of the few non AT&T options that makes any sense. T-Mobile's coverage isn't anywhere near as good as Verizon and AT&T... but they're better than both where I live, which is why I use them. I was very very hesitant to sign a new contract with T-Mobile, knowing they might get absorbed into AT&T next year, and I'm stuck with craptastic AT&T service for the next two years.
Risks? Yeah, there are a few. In some places, T-Mobile's coverage is for shit... Florida comes to mind, with Orlando having by a wide margin the most horrendous coverage... I was "roaming" most of the time at the convention center. But those issues are resolvable by locating and buying regional/local GSM carriers and rolling them into the T-Mobile network. AT&T's problem, of being in the "money printing" business instead of the "Communications" business, isn't really solvable anytime soon. Once a company gets too big you can't really "Fix" the parts that are broken because there are too many diverse interests pulling everyone in different directions, and too much money on the table for the executives to take any radical, non-obvious steps in operating the business.
I must say I'm very impressed by the evolution of v6 clue on slashdot esp in the Area of NAT vs SPI.
A few comments on this perspective. CPEs don't last forever. Eventually the power brick will fizzle out or get toasted in a lightning strike.. and you will buy a new better one. The new CPE will come standard with IPv6.
Except that not everybody will replace their device at the same time... Which means unless some "nobody ever got fired" type goes against all his instincts and is willing to just hard-cut-off revenue from customers with a hard IPv6 cut-over deadline, the providers will be providing IPv4 forever... Or a few decades, which in Internet time is the same as "forever."
But your point about large internal networks never EVER going to V6 is spot-on... It's just a pointless exercise. I genuinely think we'll eventually see the Internet on V6, gateway devices NAT'ing 4to6 and back again, and life simply "going on" as it always has inside--with IPv4 networks.
Converting all of the internet would require 40,000 man-years of labor to complete... Conservatively
Is that a lot? There must be hundreds of thousands of CCNA's out there. Plus hundreds of thousands more network professionals without a cert.
So when you have a few hundred thousand people to spread the work around to, 40,000 man-years doesn't seem like much work, it could easily be done in a few years.
Why wouldn't someone want end-to-end connectivity across the internet? I have 3 webcams at home, I'd love to just access them directly with a simple IP address instead of having to deal with PAT on my edge router. Granted, I don't necessarily need to connect to every device on the internet, but there are a few specific devices that I *do* want to connect to, and I want to connect to them no matter where I am whether at work, via mobile, or while traveling. When mom calls, I don't want her to have to install a private WAN link (which is rather expensive) or set up a VPN connection just to show her the cat sitting on the back deck.
Are you serious? If so, I'd love to get a look at your bank statements... . Average hourly US Rate for CCNA is $34-38/hr depending on a number of factors. Let's say $35 for our calculation. But since that's what he's paid at the end, and doesn't factor in profit for the fatcat contractor, let's say it's closer to $90/hr when all is said and done billed to the Feds.
A year with two-weeks Vacation/PTO is 50 weeks, 5 days per week. Or 250 workdays. (250 Workdays) * (8 Hours) = 2,000 hours. So one "man-year" is 2,000 hours. 40,000 * 2,000 = 80,000,000 hours. (80 million.) 80 million * $90 = $7,200,000,000
So that's $7.2 billion... Just for the wages of the people executing the change. Then somebody has to "architect" the project and for consultants those fees are often 25+% of the project... so let's say: $7.2 billion * 1.25 = $9,000,000,000.
So let's say it is "only" $9 billion. This "isn't a lot" for a government, but it isn't the government who needs to pony up. It's billions of individuals and businesses who have exactly ZERO motivation to do so. Why should they? Their internet does everything they think it should....And if they go to IPv6 they have to take steps to access resources that "just work" today under IPv4... What's the motivation? Their staff has been cut to the bone... There's nobody left for "pie-in-the-sky this-is-how-it-should-be-done" these days: If it doesn't directly affect the bottom line, it ain't happenin.
This in no way affects the bottom line of any but a tiny smattering of businesses. Therefore, it ain't happenin.
Just like there weren't any IPv4-only services in the beginning? What kind of an argument is that?
A good one. It's your response that isn't a good argument... There were no IPv4 services prior to the Internet. But there ARE legacy services prior to the IPv6 internet. And the popularity of these legacy services mean implementing a forklift-upgrade to IPv6 is simply economically impossible for the reasons listed in the linked article, specifically:
Just Internet Infrastructure is 40,000 man-years of work to complete.
Internetal business networks could run into the trillions of man-years to complete.
Even if we did all of this, end-users still don't have a clue what we're talking about, and don't want to change their internal networks that they worked so hard to make work in the first place. Until you can get the end-users changed over, the infrastructure and business network changes will never happen.
The linked article echoes what I've been saying for years now: IPv6 is lab technology, cool, interesting but essentially pointless as anything other than a conversation piece in real life. Converting all of the internet would require 40,000 man-years of labor to complete... Conservatively. And that doesn't count even a second of work for changes to internal networks to get to an "All IPv6" network so we can actually have "end-to-end" connectivity. Honestly, who wants it? Who needs it? If I need end-to-end connectivity between two sites I use a VPN or use a private WAN service. Even if I could flip a switch instantly turning the entire internet into perfect IPv6 harmony, and every workstation/laptop/mobile device on earth instantly into perfect configuration, we still wouldn't have "end-to-end" connectivity because nobody in their right mind actually wants that.
Although it's true they raised the vRAM entitlements and this won't destroy 100% of the cost-advantage of VMware overnight, this may change when we get into future iterations of Windows, which will almost certainly will have memory requirements that could blot out the sun at high-noon.
But I'm glad they adjusted the vRAM thing... Of course, my first choice would have been to scrap it entirely and just raise the baseline price....But you can't have everything.
"Expensive" is relative to your needs. If you only need to host VMs on one or two hosts, don't need live guest migration, storage migration, high-availability, or the ability to manage a farm of VM hosts, then VMware's licensing will cost you exactly nothing.
Where you get into non-trivial costs is when you need guest-migration, HA, or some of their (quite awesome, by the way) power-saving features (i.e. DRS) because at that point you end up needing shared-storage and a license for vCenter and a license for vSphere (varies based on your needs.)
Dynamics on this are changing, though... Except for the recent price spike, the cost of storage has been on downward trend for some time. And the availability of tools like FreeNAS and OpenFiler mean even a small company can afford to stand up a relatively robust shared-storage platform for not a lot more than the cost of the hardware and the time required to set it up. If you married this, (or even a simple EqualLogics device, which are also darn competitive anymore) to VMware vSphere for Small Business, you're into a solution where you've spent under $1,000 to license everything you need from VMware, $0 to license the storage product, and your only other costs are hardware and licensing for Guest OS, which would also be $0 if you're running all Open Source.
Of course, there are exceptions... There are plenty of $100 million companies that are 24x7 operations and need a tighter RTO than VMware Small Biz can provide. For them a simple SAN unit without two, three or four-way mirroring is an unacceptable risk. But I've worked with companies at the $100 million level where they're so buried in server bloat and ad hoc purchasing that the thought of a VMware environment that lets the shut-off 80% of their hardware sounds fantastic.
Wrong! No cigar. I don't have an iPhone, but I've used SIri on somebody else's. First impression? You only need it if your phone is a locked-down/walled-garden and you can't re-arrange the GUI to make the apps you need to accomplish your goals accessible on the first page. Or you're too painfully stupid to google "Locksmiths" in your own zip-code. Other than that, who needs this? Besides fanbois who want to show off their superiority by lowering themselves to preach to the unwashed masses, I mean?
Also you seem to be claiming you never have to be face-down in your phone to make effective use of Siri. Okay. Riddle me this, Boy Wonder: You tell Siri to change your next appointment. Did you look at your calendar to see what the appointment was before you issued the voice-command to move it? Did you look at your phone to confirm it got moved where you expecetd it to? Unless your iPhone has the long-promised vaporware "holographic floating calendar" feature, you looked at the screen.
When you did, you were face-down in your phone, using Siri. So while it might be possible to just randomly tell Siri to move meetings around without looking at your screen, doing so would seem to be exceedingly stupid.
You are a very angry person, you should figure out what you hate about yourself and work on it.
Right back at you. And I'll tack on that you're a condescending fanboi-ass who appears to have wasted the better part of his morning making fanboi attacks on anybody that doesn't toe-the-line on Siri. Maybe look in the mirror to find out why other people's rejection of a toy (Siri, that clearly happens to get your fanboi nips hard) damages your ego to the point of lashing out. I read through the thread, and after the 5th or 6th message from your whining, condescending-self launching personal attack after personal attack on anybody who disagreed with you. Don't like people being rude to you online? Maybe treat others a little more nicely and they'll treat you with respect. Or just keep doing what you're doing and somebody will eventually ban you.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do while running?
Didn't tell you that you "couldn't", but that you "shouldn't" if you have an ounce of self-preservation and sense. Looking at your phone when you should be driving, maybe you run over a jogger. Looking at your phone while running, maybe you GET run over by a driver looking at his phone. Bottom-line, your eyes should be on the road, not on texting, adjusting your calendar, or anything else, if you want to survive the journey. If you don't? At least you'll go with your girl Siri in your arms. Texting and driving is like nominating yourself for the Darwin awards. So is "adjusting your calendar while jogging."
Also, I trust that you will never carry another person in your vehicle at any time. You will also never take public transit wherein the driver is not completely separated from the passengers.
Strawman: "Talking to a person" and "interacting with your phone" are two different things, and I did not say that "having a conversation" was equivalent to "interacting with your phone." Hands free conversations (i.e. you're not holding a device to your ear) seem completely safe to me. What doesn't seem completely safe to me is interacting, face-down, with your phone while you're piloting a 3,000 lb killing machine through traffic, or jogging through a swarm of 3,000 lb killing machines.
The only label that comes to mind for people that do this is "galactically stupid"--as in only the stupidest person in the galaxy would think it a good idea to do these things while running or driving, because whether you know it or not, driving and running are potentially life-ending activities, and it seems utterly stupid to engage in a potentially life-ending activity while distracted.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?
Is this your first day? I understand "Blindingly stupid and ignorant" was the second-choice slogan to "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
"Con carne" communications laws.
Yum! Make mine with cheddar and onions, please!
We're not changing to IPv6 on our internal network ever. Why would we bother with a forklift changeover of the entire internal network? It's a waste of time--nothing we need to do now requires "end to end" addressing, and frankly, if it does we don't want it. All the articles I've read seem to come down to "it's more convenient" for applications not to have to deal with NAT... Of course it is also more convenient for people who mean to do you harm, too, since we're back to connections to outside resources coming from the machine's actual IP address, a public NATing of the private one.
Once again, we're back to "convenience" vs. "can a competent admin secure it in a reasonable length of time or with a reasonable budget?"
(4) It's way too easy to be given, to hear or to type in the wrong bank account number and for businesses to say they never got the credit. You get one number wrong and you've just credited some random guy a lot of money which you may never see again.
I'm not sure how bank transfers work in the United Kingdom, but Americans can do bank-transfers (called an "ACH" or "Automated Clearinghouse" transaction) to pay expenses too. And we have a pretty straight-forward fail-safe in place to make sure the scenario you describe happens between "rarely" and "never."
When you link you your bank account to the merchant, the first thing they do is deposit xyz random cents (usually between $0.01 and $0.25) a few times and have you confirm those amounts by entering them into their web-application. Once you enter the matching value, you've confirmed ownership. And you only get one or two attempts to get it right before you have to "call customer service" to resolve it, which means you can't brute force it very easily. Once this is completed, you can pay your bills using an ACH transfer.
Surely UK merchants have access to something as simple that is similar...
How is it a cost for people who would own the devices anyway? I have an iPhone and and iPad on my own accord.
Wear-and-tear: There are only so many "taps" in a touch-screen's usable life. Do you want to use them getting laid with your girlfriend or deleting bullshit "forwards" from your idiot co-workers?
Consumable services: Your data plan is in the process of no longer being "unlimited." Every byte you burn for the company potentially puts you into an "overage" situation where you're paying through the nose for "extra" bandwidth. Will your employer reimburse for that? Or are you just "on your own" for the balance of the bill that month?
Good IT and security is invisible to the user.
Spoken like someone who has never had to provide either one... Those policies exist so you can continue to have a job and paycheck when one of your less-educated coworkers downloads the latest malware because IT "got out of his way." And when that malware allows corporate spies from China to steal your company's advantage, or maybe even their entire reason for being in business, remember this conversation on the unemployment line.
I work for a largish healthcare firm. $6b fortune 500 company. We are doing it. The magic is Citrix, which insulates you from your end user's environment.
...Except for key-loggers and screen-scrapes, which Citrix will always by definition be vulnerable to because even though you're doing the "computing" remotely, you're still typing and clicking locally.
If rights can be blindly transferred from individuals to a collective, then the reverse should also true. The corporate veil should vanish and all members of the collective should be jointly and severally liable for any harm the collective causes.
The rights of a limited liability entity should be limited too.
They used to be much more limited. As late as the 1870s and 1880s, various states had laws on the books that amounted to a "corporate death penalty"--that is, companies that repeatedly broke the law or existed only for the purpose of breaking the law, could have their corporate charters' revoked and their assets seized to pay off any existing debts.
This is had the effect making corporate managers think long and hard about straddling the line between "lawful" and "unlawful." These laws were mostly gutted during the Gilded Age (or, perhaps, I need to start referring to the First Gilded Age since we seem to be in the early stages of a second one,) by robber-barons who wanted as few barriers as possible between their wealth and unlimited power. ...Sound familiar?
Is the goal to flood the Tor network with so much traffic that the feds might not be able to catch your bittorrent downloads?
U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
Because they've attacked the "great firewall of China" publicly to their own political ends in the past, the public would recognize that as censorship. But somehow, (or perhaps, through planned half-assity in schools for decades) the public doesn't recognize this censorship for what it is.
This.
Twitter: Yawn. It's millions of idiots blathering on senselessly. For every pithy, funny, legible tweet, there are half-million messages that are just dreck. I had some fun impersonating a politician on Twitter for a while... but he didn't run for President, and I let it die... Nobody offered me a book deal. ...Not yet, anyway.
Mod parent UP. +1 Draper-esque.
"How is this legal"
Good question: This sure smells like a bill of atainder, which is specifically forbidden under the constitution... It identifies a group of people and punishes them arbitrarily by stripping them of overtime because "why should those geeks get overtime?"
Want to see what happens when the people who make your iPhone "work," your electrical grid function, and your business applications process transactions get pissed off and band together? Thought not.
Yet it's horse-shit like this that leads to people in critical positions unionizing... Keep chiseling away, cutting salaries and outsourcing, and see what happens.
I'm a T-Mobile customer and fan, but I'm not under contract. And I've held off deciding what to do until the AT&T thing played out. Now that they won't become AT&T, I'm looking at a new phone and re-upping my contract. I absolutely positively wasn't willing to do business with AT&T and their craptastic, shitgasm network.
Plus they know any upgrades are pointless since AT&T's S.O.P. when they acquire a successful minor carrier is to trash the acquired network, shutting off any parts that might give them "excess" capacity in areas to further raise the profit profile from their new customers. It is essentially the entire point of a merger like this: Reduce operating cost per customer by merging, then eliminating excess "overhead," (like overlapping towers that might have alleviated congestion problems, if they weren't on the chopping block for shutdown.)
If this had gone through Apple would have solved the T-mobile "3G Problem" in short order, of that you can be sure.
Which is why Apple will shockingly buy them and then make them the only domestic iPhone carrier once their deals with other companies are over.
I think this is one of the few non AT&T options that makes any sense. T-Mobile's coverage isn't anywhere near as good as Verizon and AT&T... but they're better than both where I live, which is why I use them. I was very very hesitant to sign a new contract with T-Mobile, knowing they might get absorbed into AT&T next year, and I'm stuck with craptastic AT&T service for the next two years.
Risks? Yeah, there are a few. In some places, T-Mobile's coverage is for shit... Florida comes to mind, with Orlando having by a wide margin the most horrendous coverage... I was "roaming" most of the time at the convention center. But those issues are resolvable by locating and buying regional/local GSM carriers and rolling them into the T-Mobile network. AT&T's problem, of being in the "money printing" business instead of the "Communications" business, isn't really solvable anytime soon. Once a company gets too big you can't really "Fix" the parts that are broken because there are too many diverse interests pulling everyone in different directions, and too much money on the table for the executives to take any radical, non-obvious steps in operating the business.
I must say I'm very impressed by the evolution of v6 clue on slashdot esp in the Area of NAT vs SPI.
A few comments on this perspective. CPEs don't last forever. Eventually the power brick will fizzle out or get toasted in a lightning strike.. and you will buy a new better one. The new CPE will come standard with IPv6.
Except that not everybody will replace their device at the same time... Which means unless some "nobody ever got fired" type goes against all his instincts and is willing to just hard-cut-off revenue from customers with a hard IPv6 cut-over deadline, the providers will be providing IPv4 forever... Or a few decades, which in Internet time is the same as "forever."
But your point about large internal networks never EVER going to V6 is spot-on... It's just a pointless exercise. I genuinely think we'll eventually see the Internet on V6, gateway devices NAT'ing 4to6 and back again, and life simply "going on" as it always has inside--with IPv4 networks.
Converting all of the internet would require 40,000 man-years of labor to complete... Conservatively
Is that a lot? There must be hundreds of thousands of CCNA's out there. Plus hundreds of thousands more network professionals without a cert.
So when you have a few hundred thousand people to spread the work around to, 40,000 man-years doesn't seem like much work, it could easily be done in a few years.
Why wouldn't someone want end-to-end connectivity across the internet? I have 3 webcams at home, I'd love to just access them directly with a simple IP address instead of having to deal with PAT on my edge router. Granted, I don't necessarily need to connect to every device on the internet, but there are a few specific devices that I *do* want to connect to, and I want to connect to them no matter where I am whether at work, via mobile, or while traveling. When mom calls, I don't want her to have to install a private WAN link (which is rather expensive) or set up a VPN connection just to show her the cat sitting on the back deck.
Are you serious? If so, I'd love to get a look at your bank statements...
.
Average hourly US Rate for CCNA is $34-38/hr depending on a number of factors. Let's say $35 for our calculation. But since that's what he's paid at the end, and doesn't factor in profit for the fatcat contractor, let's say it's closer to $90/hr when all is said and done billed to the Feds.
A year with two-weeks Vacation/PTO is 50 weeks, 5 days per week. Or 250 workdays.
(250 Workdays) * (8 Hours) = 2,000 hours.
So one "man-year" is 2,000 hours.
40,000 * 2,000 = 80,000,000 hours. (80 million.)
80 million * $90 = $7,200,000,000
So that's $7.2 billion... Just for the wages of the people executing the change. Then somebody has to "architect" the project and for consultants those fees are often 25+% of the project... so let's say:
$7.2 billion * 1.25 = $9,000,000,000.
So let's say it is "only" $9 billion. This "isn't a lot" for a government, but it isn't the government who needs to pony up. It's billions of individuals and businesses who have exactly ZERO motivation to do so. Why should they? Their internet does everything they think it should. ...And if they go to IPv6 they have to take steps to access resources that "just work" today under IPv4... What's the motivation? Their staff has been cut to the bone... There's nobody left for "pie-in-the-sky this-is-how-it-should-be-done" these days: If it doesn't directly affect the bottom line, it ain't happenin.
This in no way affects the bottom line of any but a tiny smattering of businesses. Therefore, it ain't happenin.
Just like there weren't any IPv4-only services in the beginning? What kind of an argument is that?
A good one. It's your response that isn't a good argument... There were no IPv4 services prior to the Internet. But there ARE legacy services prior to the IPv6 internet. And the popularity of these legacy services mean implementing a forklift-upgrade to IPv6 is simply economically impossible for the reasons listed in the linked article, specifically:
The linked article echoes what I've been saying for years now: IPv6 is lab technology, cool, interesting but essentially pointless as anything other than a conversation piece in real life. Converting all of the internet would require 40,000 man-years of labor to complete... Conservatively. And that doesn't count even a second of work for changes to internal networks to get to an "All IPv6" network so we can actually have "end-to-end" connectivity. Honestly, who wants it? Who needs it? If I need end-to-end connectivity between two sites I use a VPN or use a private WAN service. Even if I could flip a switch instantly turning the entire internet into perfect IPv6 harmony, and every workstation/laptop/mobile device on earth instantly into perfect configuration, we still wouldn't have "end-to-end" connectivity because nobody in their right mind actually wants that.
Even better, you can have a pile of v6 addresses on a single interface, instead of the paltry one v4 address.
Who told you an interface could only have one ipv4 address? This is just flat-out incorrect.
Although it's true they raised the vRAM entitlements and this won't destroy 100% of the cost-advantage of VMware overnight, this may change when we get into future iterations of Windows, which will almost certainly will have memory requirements that could blot out the sun at high-noon.
But I'm glad they adjusted the vRAM thing... Of course, my first choice would have been to scrap it entirely and just raise the baseline price. ...But you can't have everything.
The problem is that they VMWare is too expensive.
"Expensive" is relative to your needs. If you only need to host VMs on one or two hosts, don't need live guest migration, storage migration, high-availability, or the ability to manage a farm of VM hosts, then VMware's licensing will cost you exactly nothing.
Where you get into non-trivial costs is when you need guest-migration, HA, or some of their (quite awesome, by the way) power-saving features (i.e. DRS) because at that point you end up needing shared-storage and a license for vCenter and a license for vSphere (varies based on your needs.)
Dynamics on this are changing, though... Except for the recent price spike, the cost of storage has been on downward trend for some time. And the availability of tools like FreeNAS and OpenFiler mean even a small company can afford to stand up a relatively robust shared-storage platform for not a lot more than the cost of the hardware and the time required to set it up. If you married this, (or even a simple EqualLogics device, which are also darn competitive anymore) to VMware vSphere for Small Business, you're into a solution where you've spent under $1,000 to license everything you need from VMware, $0 to license the storage product, and your only other costs are hardware and licensing for Guest OS, which would also be $0 if you're running all Open Source.
Of course, there are exceptions... There are plenty of $100 million companies that are 24x7 operations and need a tighter RTO than VMware Small Biz can provide. For them a simple SAN unit without two, three or four-way mirroring is an unacceptable risk. But I've worked with companies at the $100 million level where they're so buried in server bloat and ad hoc purchasing that the thought of a VMware environment that lets the shut-off 80% of their hardware sounds fantastic.
Since you've clearly never used Siri
Wrong! No cigar. I don't have an iPhone, but I've used SIri on somebody else's. First impression? You only need it if your phone is a locked-down/walled-garden and you can't re-arrange the GUI to make the apps you need to accomplish your goals accessible on the first page. Or you're too painfully stupid to google "Locksmiths" in your own zip-code. Other than that, who needs this? Besides fanbois who want to show off their superiority by lowering themselves to preach to the unwashed masses, I mean?
Also you seem to be claiming you never have to be face-down in your phone to make effective use of Siri. Okay. Riddle me this, Boy Wonder: You tell Siri to change your next appointment. Did you look at your calendar to see what the appointment was before you issued the voice-command to move it? Did you look at your phone to confirm it got moved where you expecetd it to? Unless your iPhone has the long-promised vaporware "holographic floating calendar" feature, you looked at the screen.
When you did, you were face-down in your phone, using Siri. So while it might be possible to just randomly tell Siri to move meetings around without looking at your screen, doing so would seem to be exceedingly stupid.
Right back at you. And I'll tack on that you're a condescending fanboi-ass who appears to have wasted the better part of his morning making fanboi attacks on anybody that doesn't toe-the-line on Siri. Maybe look in the mirror to find out why other people's rejection of a toy (Siri, that clearly happens to get your fanboi nips hard) damages your ego to the point of lashing out. I read through the thread, and after the 5th or 6th message from your whining, condescending-self launching personal attack after personal attack on anybody who disagreed with you. Don't like people being rude to you online? Maybe treat others a little more nicely and they'll treat you with respect. Or just keep doing what you're doing and somebody will eventually ban you.
Didn't tell you that you "couldn't", but that you "shouldn't" if you have an ounce of self-preservation and sense. Looking at your phone when you should be driving, maybe you run over a jogger. Looking at your phone while running, maybe you GET run over by a driver looking at his phone. Bottom-line, your eyes should be on the road, not on texting, adjusting your calendar, or anything else, if you want to survive the journey. If you don't? At least you'll go with your girl Siri in your arms. Texting and driving is like nominating yourself for the Darwin awards. So is "adjusting your calendar while jogging."
Strawman: "Talking to a person" and "interacting with your phone" are two different things, and I did not say that "having a conversation" was equivalent to "interacting with your phone." Hands free conversations (i.e. you're not holding a device to your ear) seem completely safe to me. What doesn't seem completely safe to me is interacting, face-down, with your phone while you're piloting a 3,000 lb killing machine through traffic, or jogging through a swarm of 3,000 lb killing machines.
The only label that comes to mind for people that do this is "galactically stupid"--as in only the stupidest person in the galaxy would think it a good idea to do these things while running or driving, because whether you know it or not, driving and running are potentially life-ending activities, and it seems utterly stupid to engage in a potentially life-ending activity while distracted.