The German government might have an indirect interest in seeing SuSE succeed. Venture capitalist investments are in many cases insured by the German government at a very cheap rate (KfW etc). When the company fails, the losses from VC-type investments are essentially covered by German taxpayers.
i disagree. specific rule (license attached to specific files on their website) overrides the general rule (usage terms for their website as a whole) in this case
imho it was extremely stupid to not embed the ipv4 into the ipv6 address space.
the way ipv6 was designed it requires _simultaneous_ upgrades on both ends, which is very unlikely to happen.
if ipv4 was simply part of the ipv6 address space and namespace, one could use an ipv6 client to connect to "legacy" (non-ipv6) hosts, without all the quirkiness and error-proneness of bolted-on ipv4.
what's now happening is that servers are supposed to get upgraded first. guess what, it doesnt happen. now if microsoft made ipv6 the default protocol in their next OS release and their users could *still* connect to all ipv4 servers that would be an entirely different story!
i was invited by microsoft to participate in a rather detailed and lengthy online survey that seemed to be geared towards sysadmin requirements with regards to automating repetitive tasks with scripting.
got me a free copy of office xp, though those bastards have still not shipped it @%&@@!
Slashdot Mirror
The German government might have an indirect interest in seeing SuSE succeed. Venture capitalist investments are in many cases insured by the German government at a very cheap rate (KfW etc). When the company fails, the losses from VC-type investments are essentially covered by German taxpayers.
i disagree. specific rule (license attached to specific files on their website) overrides the general rule (usage terms for their website as a whole) in this case
IP != trade secrets, which is what you probably meant
you are welcome.
imho it was extremely stupid to not embed the ipv4 into the ipv6 address space.
the way ipv6 was designed it requires _simultaneous_ upgrades on both ends, which is very unlikely to happen.
if ipv4 was simply part of the ipv6 address space and namespace, one could use an ipv6 client to connect to "legacy" (non-ipv6) hosts, without all the quirkiness and error-proneness of bolted-on ipv4.
what's now happening is that servers are supposed to get upgraded first. guess what, it doesnt happen. now if microsoft made ipv6 the default protocol in their next OS release and their users could *still* connect to all ipv4 servers that would be an entirely different story!
--florian
i was invited by microsoft to participate in a rather detailed and lengthy online survey that seemed to be geared towards sysadmin requirements with regards to automating repetitive tasks with scripting. got me a free copy of office xp, though those bastards have still not shipped it @%&@@!