Yes, but when (not if) Mozilla's list of profiles gets lost, it is quite useful to know how to recover your stuff from your profile dir. (This is not hard, but you do have to understand about heirarchical filesystems and know which directory to look in, which varies from platform to platform.)
As an admin, I deploy Mozilla/Netscape because fixing the profile directory a couple of times a year is easier for me than cleaning out adware every month. We had MSIE on one PC for a while and it soaked up more of my time than all the ones with Mozilla (five or six of them) combined. Plus, Moz/NS allows to accept cookies but limit their max lifetime to the current session, which is rather important when you have a different person every hour using the computer. (This is a public library scenerio.)
The browser in Mozilla/Netscape is rock solid, featureful, and well decorated. I recommend it without reservation. The mail and news client has been improving but still needs some work.
> i would venture to say that the average user is even unaware > of netscape these days
I would venture to say that the average user not only doesn't know what Netscape is, he probably isn't sure precisely what Internet Explorer is, or what the difference is between an Internet Service Provider and a Web Browser. I know a lot of people who can't tell the difference between an email address and a web address, even when you explain it to them. ("So you can't use this one to send email to a website because it doesn't have an a in a circle?")
> Linux has exactly nothing to offer that wouldn't be available > on other platforms
What about Perl golf? Sure, you _can_ play it on Windows, but it's harder. You don't have as many tools at your disposal, especially when it comes to slinging around backticks with wild abandon.
Can we have this as multiplayer, where some players get to be the mosquitos and others get to be people? Can we have weapons, like swatters, zappers, netting, and deet?
> As long as gaming is concerned, Linux has exactly nothing to > offer that wouldn't be available on other platforms
Actually... I, though I had a dual-boot system and intended to switch eventually, didn't think I was ready yet and was still using Windows -- until I got hooked on a certain game. I found that the one Windows version (the "native" port) wouldn't run on my system for some reason, and the other one (the cygwin port) was slow, buggy, and crashed at apparently random intervals. Still, it was an addictive game, and I kept playing it, tollerating these problems... then one day I was booted into Linux for one reason or another, and I happened to fire up the Linux version of that game (which came with my distro), and... wow, was it ever better. A week later I got tired of booting into Windows to get my mail and figured out how to get Pegasus Mail to run in WINE. Then I got tired of how slow WINE was and switched mailreaders. At this point, I haven't booted Windows in months.
The game, incidentally, was freeciv.
Are there more Windows-only games than Linux-but-not-Windows ones? Yeah, there are. But I just happened to get hooked on a game that was better in Linux.
Re:So then what IS the point?
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
> pretend I just robbed a bank
If you robbed a bank, it's a _good_ thing if the police catch you. Let's use a different example and say you're fleeing religious persecution after the state declared your denomination illegal.
> THEN went driving in the country side, THEN broke down.
You wouldn't be able to get the car serviced probably, but you could just walk away from the car.
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
That's not the point. (If it were, we have GPS, which will tell you where you are, and you can call AAA on the cellphone and tell them.)
He's not saying that being smart enough to be in Mensa means you're at least smart enough to not be able to be in Mensa; he's saying that Mensa is not well-regarded by smart people (which is true, as a general rule), and so if you're really smart, you would probably not be interested in their endorsement. This assumes, of course, that all smart people have the same views in such matters, but I'll leave the refutation of that supposition as an exercise.
> Wouldn't it be simpler if humans only had 2 fingers instead > of 10. Hell, that's how many I type with anyway.
If we just didn't use our thumbs for counting, that would be octal. I personally think it would be interesting if we had two thumbs plus six other fingers on _each hand_, so then we could work in hex.
I do favour place value over two's complement for the representation of fractional parts, though. Either that or rational notation. I am not fond of two's complement.
> AOL's mail servers may reject connections from IP addresses > which have no reverse-DNS
That's to keep out the Asian crap. Try this some time: select ten pieces of Asian spam (the stuff with ideographic characters in the subject line) at random. Look at the headers, and pick out the IP address of the MTA that your ISP's mailserver received the message from. Try to traceroute these addresses, with reverse DNS lookups at every hop.
It's nothing if not consistent. You can watch the domain names go west to California, and then all of a sudden it hits the boundaryline between North America and Asia, and after that point exactly zero of the remaining hops have PTR records, so you get no further domain data.
I feel sorry for people living in Asia who need to send mail legitimately to people over here. I suppose they probably have to get accounts with ISPs in the US, or use Yahoo Mail.
> flawed MTAs [...] don't send a fully qualified domain name
Spam MTAs usually lie about their FQDN anyway. That's why you do what I said, to wit:
> If the IP addy of the sending MTA doesn't have a PTR record, > you send a failure response and close the connection.
I thought that was clear, but perhaps I should explain it: you're not looking up the FQDN the MTA gives you and finding an A record to match against the IP. You're doing it the other way: taking the IP address of the MTA on the other end (which it HAS to give you correctly in order to maintain a two-way conversation) and look that up. Say the MTA on the other end is 192.168.0.74. You look in DNS for 74.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa and see if there's a PTR record. If there is one, you log it, which gives you a real FQDN which, if it isn't the owner of the mail server, is their ISP. You can do a whois on that and get contact information.
If there's no PTR record, you respond with failure and terminate. Will you drop legit mail from a lot of mail servers this way? Yeah, but vanishingly close to 100% of them are in Asia.
> web servers are no longer about serving up static pages.
No, of course, not. (If it were, TUX would kick everything's tail.) But actually, while the ability to server dynamic content is vital, and speed of serving it is important, there is still also a *large* amount of static content serverd -- the majority of the bandwidth (on the web) is used by static images, if I am not gravely mistaken.
Still, dynamic content generation mechanisms are vital, of course.
I'm also puzzled by the "this is NOT CGI, it's better than CGI, CGI sucks and this is good" movement, lead by the PHP people and also the ASP fans. Fundamentally, dynamic pages generated by PHP and ASP do both use the CGI, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding; they just do it more efficiently than was generally done in 1996 (in principle, by linking the generator code into the webserver software in some way, much like mod_perl does (in theory; the implementations differ), or SSI (which IIUC does not use CGI since it doesn't need any input back from the browser), or what-have-you). Okay, so it's more efficient than 1996 technology; but it's still the same old interface.
Then there's client-side code (Java, ActiveX, ECMA Script, VBScript, whatever) that talks back to the server over a separate (possibly homebrew) interface. *That* isn't CGI. But it also doesn't rely on any specific support from the web server software.
> Yeah IIS just whips Apache in terms of performance.
There's more to enterprise computing than performance. IIS is on my "Not On My Network" list (along with sendmail, Outlook, and Bonzi Buddy). When I said I'd like to see an evaluation, I meant a thorough evaluation, not just benchmarks.
> I've been runnng multiple programs at once on Macs since System 7
I ran multiple programs at once under PC DOS 3.3, but that's task _swapping_, not at all the same thing as multitasking. Multitasking is when one program is busy and you can still use the system.
> I think that waht you meant to say is that they didn't have > pre-emptive multi-tasking.
As far as I'm concerned, "cooperative multitasking" is a misnomer. It may sound nice on paper, but in practice it is useless. (I said this first about Win3.1, before I saw Mac System 7 and OS 8 & 9.) Also, in theory, it is possible to have cooperative multitasking even on OSes that don't specifically support it (DOS, say), provided the apps are built for it (which is required whether the OS supports it or not). In fact, there were apps for DOS that did this (with specific other apps, by the same vendor generally). There were also TSRs that hopped on the timer interrupt and took short time slices out of the background. None of that is the same thing as the ability to run multiple applications (any applications, apps not designed specifically for this) at the same time and have all of them continue to work even if one of them gets busy or hangs.
> Or maybe you meant protected memory No, that's different. Win9x doesn't have that, either (at least, not properly -- I know it claims "memory protection fault" from time to time, but it is also entirely too common that one app makes another unstable); Unices were the only major OSes that did until about 2001 (when MS started really pushing NT as a replacement for Windows). (No, I don't consider BeOS to be a "major" OS, though it was interesting. VMS is arguable, but I guess I really don't consider it to be one of the major players.)
> I happen to like the "book" style cases that Dell has for the > towers, but I find that the desktop models can be a little cramped Oh, they have them in a desktop model? I've only seen the towers.
> I myself have always preferred to build my own. I got my first one prebuilt (albeit by a mom-and-pop), and dipped my toes in by upgrading components on it (more RAM, bigger HD, more RAM again, had to flash the BIOS to see all that RAM,...) for a while, before building my first system. But now that I have some kind of clue what I'm doing I definitely prefer to build my own, because that way I can get exactly the components I want. In particular, I like to hand-pick the motherboard.
> my vote for worst cases [...] is COMPAQ. I can go along with that. Packard Bell was pretty bad too, but I haven't seen one of those in some while now; I think they must've merged with somebody or something.
> presario mini-towers Haven't seen those. The Deskpro cases[1] weren't too bad, except that they didn't specify *anywhere* what model it was, so if you ever have to help anybody (say, your employer, who has several of them deployed from various years) with an old one, and you have to reinstall the OS, and you have to download drivers... heh, heh, heh, good luck figuring out which ones to get.
The worst Compaq cases I've seen are the iPAQ cases. (The iPAQ model is not to be confused with the iPAQ handheld device, which I think is produced by the same company. I'm talking about the small towerish model that looks a lot like a cutey-pie film projector, that was discontinued when the Evo came out, I think.) We have two at work, which we got because of the price and the desk space they don't take up (my subwoofer is bigger...), but the cases are horrible. Note that I'm not complaining about crampedness; that's expected in a SFF system. And I'm not complaining about the looks; they're cheesy, but I don't care about that. But if you have for any reason to get inside the case... Ooooh, it's no fun, trying to open those things.
> I really wanted an Opteron [desktop] - but no good workstation > boards are out yet
Yeah, me too. I thought about waiting for it, but I ended up going with a 32-bit system this time around. _Next_ time maybe I'll get 64-bit. Unfortunately, this means next time will be sooner than I wanted, because I like to keep a motherboard for five plus years (because I hate migrating all my stuff to a totally new system; I do upgrade components), but I don't think I'll be able to stay under the 4MB barrier on RAM for that much longer. Maybe three years or so, and I'm gonna hafta spring for a 64-bit system. Bummer. If the Opterons had just come out six months or a year sooner...
That is a mistake. A common mistake, but a mistake.
Looking forward, rewriting a tool from a VHLL to C/C++ is going to improve performance yes, but at the expense of everything else, including stability.
Developing better optimising compiler technology for the VHLLs would take longer, but it would be more worth doing.
IPs? What are IPs? [whack] Oh, those things. Hummm. [whack] I suppose I see some of the, yes. How many? Oh, several. [whack] Four[whack], five? Perhaps. What's the difference? [whack] There are five, you say? I suppose I'll take your word for it. I seem to have forgotten how many "five" is. [whack] It doesn't matter, you know. [whack] Four and five are pretty similar, in the scheme of things. [whack] It's more than one, but less than infinity, so it's pretty much just an arbitrary quantity. [whack] Say, have you ever read, "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid"? [whackwhackwhackwhack]
Either that, or you can always tell your interrogator "There... are... FOUR... lights", but I tend to prefer the evasive approach. It may not mean any less pain for you, but it's more unnerving for the interrogator. Especially if you can manage a cheerful tone of voice.
> I dont like IPv6 either though, too many numbers to make it > managable. The new network admins are going to have to carry > around a phone book just to know where all the ip addresses > are in their network.
Don't be silly. You'll have just as many node numbers to hold in your head as before. The only thing that's longer is your subnet, which is such a small percentage of what you know about your network that it's no big deal.
For example, just for the small network at work, I have to know the following (some of the names are genericised to conceal the specific function of the system, but you get the idea): subnet: 66.213.116.0/28 router.1 galaxy.4 cgi.5 foo.6 tsadok.7 indigo.13 infodesk.17 bar.19 jeilla.22 gumdrop.23 baz.25 cripaq.27 qa.28 ipaqone.29 broadcast.31 With IPv6, the subnet might be more along the lines of something like 18327.2506.47124.1792/60, but the rest could be the same. In other words, no big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Emacs. And that other editor too, seven or whatever it's called ;-)
Yes, but when (not if) Mozilla's list of profiles gets lost, it is
quite useful to know how to recover your stuff from your profile dir.
(This is not hard, but you do have to understand about heirarchical
filesystems and know which directory to look in, which varies from
platform to platform.)
As an admin, I deploy Mozilla/Netscape because fixing the profile
directory a couple of times a year is easier for me than cleaning
out adware every month. We had MSIE on one PC for a while and it
soaked up more of my time than all the ones with Mozilla (five or
six of them) combined. Plus, Moz/NS allows to accept cookies but
limit their max lifetime to the current session, which is rather
important when you have a different person every hour using the
computer. (This is a public library scenerio.)
The browser in Mozilla/Netscape is rock solid, featureful, and
well decorated. I recommend it without reservation. The mail
and news client has been improving but still needs some work.
> i would venture to say that the average user is even unaware
> of netscape these days
I would venture to say that the average user not only doesn't know
what Netscape is, he probably isn't sure precisely what Internet
Explorer is, or what the difference is between an Internet Service
Provider and a Web Browser. I know a lot of people who can't tell
the difference between an email address and a web address, even
when you explain it to them. ("So you can't use this one to send
email to a website because it doesn't have an a in a circle?")
> Macs and X11 were usable in the 80s
Eighties? Macs weren't even usable for most of the nineties.
They're getting pretty decent now, though.
> Linux has exactly nothing to offer that wouldn't be available
> on other platforms
What about Perl golf? Sure, you _can_ play it on Windows, but it's
harder. You don't have as many tools at your disposal, especially
when it comes to slinging around backticks with wild abandon.
Can we have this as multiplayer, where some players get to be the
mosquitos and others get to be people? Can we have weapons, like
swatters, zappers, netting, and deet?
> As long as gaming is concerned, Linux has exactly nothing to
> offer that wouldn't be available on other platforms
Actually... I, though I had a dual-boot system and intended to
switch eventually, didn't think I was ready yet and was still
using Windows -- until I got hooked on a certain game. I found
that the one Windows version (the "native" port) wouldn't run on
my system for some reason, and the other one (the cygwin port)
was slow, buggy, and crashed at apparently random intervals. Still,
it was an addictive game, and I kept playing it, tollerating these
problems... then one day I was booted into Linux for one reason
or another, and I happened to fire up the Linux version of that
game (which came with my distro), and... wow, was it ever better.
A week later I got tired of booting into Windows to get my mail and
figured out how to get Pegasus Mail to run in WINE. Then I got
tired of how slow WINE was and switched mailreaders. At this point,
I haven't booted Windows in months.
The game, incidentally, was freeciv.
Are there more Windows-only games than Linux-but-not-Windows ones?
Yeah, there are. But I just happened to get hooked on a game that
was better in Linux.
> pretend I just robbed a bank
If you robbed a bank, it's a _good_ thing if the police catch you.
Let's use a different example and say you're fleeing religious
persecution after the state declared your denomination illegal.
> THEN went driving in the country side, THEN broke down.
You wouldn't be able to get the car serviced probably, but you
could just walk away from the car.
That's not the point. (If it were, we have GPS,
which will tell you where you are, and you can
call AAA on the cellphone and tell them.)
He's not saying that being smart enough to be in Mensa means you're
at least smart enough to not be able to be in Mensa; he's saying
that Mensa is not well-regarded by smart people (which is true, as
a general rule), and so if you're really smart, you would probably
not be interested in their endorsement. This assumes, of course,
that all smart people have the same views in such matters, but I'll
leave the refutation of that supposition as an exercise.
> Wouldn't it be simpler if humans only had 2 fingers instead
> of 10. Hell, that's how many I type with anyway.
If we just didn't use our thumbs for counting, that would be octal.
I personally think it would be interesting if we had two thumbs
plus six other fingers on _each hand_, so then we could work in hex.
I do favour place value over two's complement for the representation
of fractional parts, though. Either that or rational notation. I
am not fond of two's complement.
> AOL's mail servers may reject connections from IP addresses
> which have no reverse-DNS
That's to keep out the Asian crap. Try this some time: select
ten pieces of Asian spam (the stuff with ideographic characters
in the subject line) at random. Look at the headers, and pick
out the IP address of the MTA that your ISP's mailserver received
the message from. Try to traceroute these addresses, with reverse
DNS lookups at every hop.
It's nothing if not consistent. You can watch the domain names
go west to California, and then all of a sudden it hits the
boundaryline between North America and Asia, and after that
point exactly zero of the remaining hops have PTR records, so
you get no further domain data.
I feel sorry for people living in Asia who need to send mail
legitimately to people over here. I suppose they probably have
to get accounts with ISPs in the US, or use Yahoo Mail.
> > it wouldn't surprise me if AOL started blocking addresses with ;) Lee -- 'I love spam. Come get me.'
> > the '@' symbol...
> Dosen't affect me.
Oooh, you have an old-fashioned bangpath address?
> flawed MTAs [...] don't send a fully qualified domain name
Spam MTAs usually lie about their FQDN anyway. That's why you
do what I said, to wit:
> If the IP addy of the sending MTA doesn't have a PTR record,
> you send a failure response and close the connection.
I thought that was clear, but perhaps I should explain it: you're
not looking up the FQDN the MTA gives you and finding an A record
to match against the IP. You're doing it the other way: taking
the IP address of the MTA on the other end (which it HAS to give
you correctly in order to maintain a two-way conversation) and look
that up. Say the MTA on the other end is 192.168.0.74. You look
in DNS for 74.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa and see if there's a PTR
record. If there is one, you log it, which gives you a real FQDN
which, if it isn't the owner of the mail server, is their ISP.
You can do a whois on that and get contact information.
If there's no PTR record, you respond with failure and terminate.
Will you drop legit mail from a lot of mail servers this way?
Yeah, but vanishingly close to 100% of them are in Asia.
> web servers are no longer about serving up static pages.
No, of course, not. (If it were, TUX would kick everything's
tail.) But actually, while the ability to server dynamic
content is vital, and speed of serving it is important, there
is still also a *large* amount of static content serverd -- the
majority of the bandwidth (on the web) is used by static images,
if I am not gravely mistaken.
Still, dynamic content generation mechanisms are vital, of course.
I'm also puzzled by the "this is NOT CGI, it's better than CGI,
CGI sucks and this is good" movement, lead by the PHP people and
also the ASP fans. Fundamentally, dynamic pages generated by
PHP and ASP do both use the CGI, protestations to the contrary
notwithstanding; they just do it more efficiently than was
generally done in 1996 (in principle, by linking the generator
code into the webserver software in some way, much like mod_perl
does (in theory; the implementations differ), or SSI (which IIUC
does not use CGI since it doesn't need any input back from the
browser), or what-have-you). Okay, so it's more efficient than
1996 technology; but it's still the same old interface.
Then there's client-side code (Java, ActiveX, ECMA Script, VBScript,
whatever) that talks back to the server over a separate (possibly
homebrew) interface. *That* isn't CGI. But it also doesn't rely
on any specific support from the web server software.
> Yeah IIS just whips Apache in terms of performance.
There's more to enterprise computing than performance. IIS is
on my "Not On My Network" list (along with sendmail, Outlook,
and Bonzi Buddy). When I said I'd like to see an evaluation,
I meant a thorough evaluation, not just benchmarks.
> You seriously think Linux is better as a web server than Windows?
Yeah, I do. And I'm giving Windows the benefit of the doubt and
assuming it's running Apache.
> That's because Win9x is worth criticizing.
All current OSes are worth criticizing.
> Now you understand when we're going to compare web servers it will
> be running on Windows server, not Win95, right?
Of course. Nobody (well, nobody sane) would use Win95 as a server.
> Unfortunately you seem to believe that web server claim.
Yeah, but not because I read it on slashdot.
> Who told you they didn't have multitasking?
<voice id="Number 5">I told me.</voice>
> I've been runnng multiple programs at once on Macs since System 7
I ran multiple programs at once under PC DOS 3.3, but that's task
_swapping_, not at all the same thing as multitasking. Multitasking
is when one program is busy and you can still use the system.
> I think that waht you meant to say is that they didn't have
> pre-emptive multi-tasking.
As far as I'm concerned, "cooperative multitasking" is a misnomer.
It may sound nice on paper, but in practice it is useless. (I said
this first about Win3.1, before I saw Mac System 7 and OS 8 & 9.)
Also, in theory, it is possible to have cooperative multitasking
even on OSes that don't specifically support it (DOS, say), provided
the apps are built for it (which is required whether the OS supports
it or not). In fact, there were apps for DOS that did this (with
specific other apps, by the same vendor generally). There were
also TSRs that hopped on the timer interrupt and took short time
slices out of the background. None of that is the same thing as
the ability to run multiple applications (any applications, apps
not designed specifically for this) at the same time and have all
of them continue to work even if one of them gets busy or hangs.
> Or maybe you meant protected memory
No, that's different. Win9x doesn't have that, either (at least,
not properly -- I know it claims "memory protection fault" from
time to time, but it is also entirely too common that one app
makes another unstable); Unices were the only major OSes that
did until about 2001 (when MS started really pushing NT as a
replacement for Windows). (No, I don't consider BeOS to be a
"major" OS, though it was interesting. VMS is arguable, but I
guess I really don't consider it to be one of the major players.)
> I happen to like the "book" style cases that Dell has for the
...)
> towers, but I find that the desktop models can be a little cramped
Oh, they have them in a desktop model? I've only seen the towers.
> I myself have always preferred to build my own.
I got my first one prebuilt (albeit by a mom-and-pop), and dipped
my toes in by upgrading components on it (more RAM, bigger HD,
more RAM again, had to flash the BIOS to see all that RAM,
for a while, before building my first system. But now that I have
some kind of clue what I'm doing I definitely prefer to build my
own, because that way I can get exactly the components I want.
In particular, I like to hand-pick the motherboard.
> my vote for worst cases [...] is COMPAQ.
I can go along with that. Packard Bell was pretty bad too,
but I haven't seen one of those in some while now; I think
they must've merged with somebody or something.
> presario mini-towers
Haven't seen those. The Deskpro cases[1] weren't too bad, except
that they didn't specify *anywhere* what model it was, so if you
ever have to help anybody (say, your employer, who has several of
them deployed from various years) with an old one, and you have to
reinstall the OS, and you have to download drivers... heh, heh,
heh, good luck figuring out which ones to get.
The worst Compaq cases I've seen are the iPAQ cases. (The iPAQ model
is not to be confused with the iPAQ handheld device, which I think is
produced by the same company. I'm talking about the small towerish
model that looks a lot like a cutey-pie film projector, that was
discontinued when the Evo came out, I think.) We have two at work,
which we got because of the price and the desk space they don't take
up (my subwoofer is bigger...), but the cases are horrible. Note
that I'm not complaining about crampedness; that's expected in a SFF
system. And I'm not complaining about the looks; they're cheesy,
but I don't care about that. But if you have for any reason to get
inside the case... Ooooh, it's no fun, trying to open those things.
[1] Note here that I am talking only about cases.
Nah, Solaris sounds cooler than all of those together.
Not that I've actually ever _used_ Solaris or anything...
but the name sounds cool.
> I really wanted an Opteron [desktop] - but no good workstation
> boards are out yet
Yeah, me too. I thought about waiting for it, but I ended up
going with a 32-bit system this time around. _Next_ time maybe
I'll get 64-bit. Unfortunately, this means next time will be
sooner than I wanted, because I like to keep a motherboard for
five plus years (because I hate migrating all my stuff to a
totally new system; I do upgrade components), but I don't think
I'll be able to stay under the 4MB barrier on RAM for that much
longer. Maybe three years or so, and I'm gonna hafta spring
for a 64-bit system. Bummer. If the Opterons had just come
out six months or a year sooner...
> > the first 64-bit PPC processor
> Actually, no.
In a desktop system, I meant. Sorry for any confusion.
That is a mistake. A common mistake, but a mistake.
Looking forward, rewriting a tool from a VHLL to C/C++ is going
to improve performance yes, but at the expense of everything else,
including stability.
Developing better optimising compiler technology for the VHLLs
would take longer, but it would be more worth doing.
IPs? What are IPs? [whack] Oh, those things. Hummm. [whack]
I suppose I see some of the, yes. How many? Oh, several. [whack]
Four[whack], five? Perhaps. What's the difference? [whack] There
are five, you say? I suppose I'll take your word for it. I seem to
have forgotten how many "five" is. [whack] It doesn't matter, you
know. [whack] Four and five are pretty similar, in the scheme of
things. [whack] It's more than one, but less than infinity, so
it's pretty much just an arbitrary quantity. [whack] Say, have
you ever read, "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid"?
[whackwhackwhackwhack]
Either that, or you can always tell your interrogator "There...
are... FOUR... lights", but I tend to prefer the evasive approach.
It may not mean any less pain for you, but it's more unnerving
for the interrogator. Especially if you can manage a cheerful
tone of voice.
> I dont like IPv6 either though, too many numbers to make it
.1 galaxy .4 cgi .5 foo .6 tsadok .7 .13 infodesk .17 bar .19 jeilla .22 gumdrop .23 .25 cripaq .27 qa .28 ipaqone .29 broadcast .31
> managable. The new network admins are going to have to carry
> around a phone book just to know where all the ip addresses
> are in their network.
Don't be silly. You'll have just as many node numbers to hold in
your head as before. The only thing that's longer is your subnet,
which is such a small percentage of what you know about your network
that it's no big deal.
For example, just for the small network at work, I have to know
the following (some of the names are genericised to conceal
the specific function of the system, but you get the idea):
subnet: 66.213.116.0/28
router
indigo
baz
With IPv6, the subnet might be more along the lines of something
like 18327.2506.47124.1792/60, but the rest could be the same.
In other words, no big deal.