Digital Anvil was going to die out completely without releasing if it were not for Microsoft. Similar situation with Nokia phones, except they would release and nobody would buy. I don't know anything about Rare's history.
Way to go Mircosoft, way to ruin another awesome brand with your shitty management practices
What are you talking about? Mojang's brand is ruined by themselves when they started sending lawyers after people and upsetting the community. Notch was the one who then offered to sell all his shares in public due to the outcry, Microsoft just happened to bite on that prospect.
This is Notch's management bringing it down, not Microsoft's.
I seem to remember device fragmentation was a gigantic problem that made Android impossible to develop for (and the main reason why many people chose Apple over Android). How will those poor developers adapt now that Apple has three phone sizes and two tablet sizes (or maybe more?)?
They'll make "HD" versions of apps you already bought, that you will have to buy again.
Define what 'heavy' is? Because the more I think about it, the harder time I have a problem differentiating between the amount of traffic used for general internet + windows updates + anti-virus + work network shares + work backups etc. (as normal for corporate VPNs) verses streaming usage.
I think about my streaming usage and if I was to do it over a VPN, I suspect it would be significantly less than what I currently do on my work laptop over a VPN.
It's not mandatory. Don't watch live TV? Don't have to pay.
Actually, as long as your equipment is not setup to receive BBC channels, you don't have to pay. Of course, this is difficult now that Sky recievers, Freeview both auto tune and provide BBC channels. Back in the analog days, it was sufficient to not tune the BBC channels on your television.
The question of whether the BBC does good is a separate issue: if a burglar donates to charity, does that make burglary OK?
No. A good chunk of charities waste a good chunk of the money (usually around 80% of it) before it gets to supporting something. Donating to a charity is wasteful, donating directly to a cause on the other hand is another thing.
See subject-line: You refused to answer a simple question & that IS the answer above... period.
It is not the answer and I provided reasons why.
There IS no "free lunch"
Then prove it! How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? It's a simple question, if you're correct, this can be measured and actually make some notable impact. It should be trivial for you to prove, but we both know why you aren't. After all, according to you, it impacts the electricity costs. So, it has to make enough of a difference to affect common units of usage.
P.S.=> Besides: You'll *HAVE* to concede that running more programs (DNS) means eating more power since it's a fact of life!
You have failed to provide yet again, actual evidence where we see more power being consumed to just run a DNS server.
1.) DNS is more complex/more of a learning curve/less simple to understand than hosts
Irrelevant.
2.) Hosts can fix &/or defend users of all kinds vs. DNS redirect poisoning AND crashing/downed DNS also... apk
And you conceded hosts files can break windows services and I've pointed out that DNS can do all of this too without downing a windows service.
Question: Does running a DNS mean adding more things running in a computer & IF SO, do those extra parts mean consuming more CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O too, as well as consuming MORE POWER to do those things?
This is irrelevant to answering if this makes a difference to the electricity costs!
If the differences make little difference to the power consumption (something that requires little resources may not require the system to draw any further power at all than what is already available).
Now, since you're so adamant this will increase the cost of electricity, show us. Clearly if you know this to be true, you must have observed this and you're not just merely guessing.
How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? What DNS servers did you run? What operating systems? What configurations? Come on APK, let's see the evidence to your claim!
Then, you know very little about how computers & programs work then: Clue - nothing is 'free', period.
You really don't like backing your claims, do you? You've been making this claim about additional electrical usage for a while now and whenever pressed, you fail to provide it. I can only assume that you don't really know and you're just making this up as you go along.
I really don't *have* to now by this point... NOT after THAT admission from you quoted just above.
If you read my post, I never admitted there was additional electrical usage. Sure, you can measure a DNS server is taking up resources, but is it impacting anything? I'm unconvinced there is a problem like you portray it to be.
I can instantly update my hosts file's "favorite sites" via those pings (only using what is native to the IP stack,
I can too with DNS, I'm a Linux user.
NOW you're telling us you're using YET ANOTHER PROGRAM do "help DNS"?
I'm not. I'm telling you that some Linux distributions (particularly desktop ones) come with a DNS server (powerdns) configured out of the box. I was also pointing out in such a scenario, you're going to be hard pressed to even say there is even a recognizable difference in resource usage (after all, we can tell the difference between 200KiB use of memory verses 0, but 200KiB verses 200KiB ? not really)
but in the end, that quote of yours PROVES you do (realizing that running a DNS server with all of its parts that consume more electrical power, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O is indeed,
I am not convinced there is a notable difference in electrical power supply though and I don't really see how DNS would even be notable for system performance either.
Seriously, what's the difference APK? Are we expected to use 400watts more for running a DNS server? Why are you constantly avoiding answering this? Why won't you show actual proof that it will increase the cost of electricity?
That running a DNS server uses NO extra electrical power
I'm not aware of a notable difference, care to share your results? I would recommend a video recording of the system showing the wattage when using DNS server verses a large hosts file.
cpu cycles, RAM, & other types of I/O
is this tiny amount of usage really an issue on modern computers? Could you show your evidence on the notable differences? Additionally, on Linux distributions, often the system resolver (ie: powerdns) is already a full DNS server, it's just configured to do auto configuration and and forward dns resolution and caching by default. In such a scenario, I am skeptical that the difference in system resources can even be detected.
Caching on DNS *can* be inaccurate though
So can hosts files. An IP that once pointed to the correct server may no longer be the same server.
You can use PING to do what I do for my top portion of my hosts file to verify host-domain name to IP address translation,
I'd rather use dig, because then I can see all the IP addresses for anything using a round robin DNS.
That is, unless you can prove that running a DNS server
There is nothing for me to prove, you're the one making the claims it uses more electricity, you prove it.
See subject & the FACT you add on "more" = more power used/higher bills, cpu cycles/ram/+ other forms of I-O DNS servers use that hosts don't (especially *if* your local DNS is setup as a separate system): THIS IS NO "mere theory" - it's fact & common-sense!
If it's such a trivial fact. Please show me the power differences seen. A video showing wattage while running a DNS server verses your hosts file and doing DNS lookups will be sufficient.
2nd: Caching DNS can be INACCURATE (updates can happen when sites change hosting providers in the 24++ hr. period it can TAKE to propogate DNS changes thru the worldwide system for it (13 root to all dns on the planet takes time)).
That's really only an issue if the old DNS server returns bad records now as opposed to not responding at all.
By way of comparison: Updating my hosts favorites? Done in SECONDS!
(By reverse DNS ping, in the "Speedup Favorite Sites" tab of my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit program -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... (just 1 of the MANY great benefits it gives you for more speed, & reliability over DNS faults, along with more security + anonymity too)).
I can do this on my DNS server too.
(Which you are, yet again on this point + the one in my subject-line above, CONCEDING TO ME yet again - hosts are less complex & easier to understand than DNS in its entirety).
If a DNS server goes down (or exploited by redirect) can hosts hardcodes protect you? A simple YES or NO will do as the answer Ash-Fox
Yes.
Also, a DNS server can also be hardcoded to protect you. It can also be setup to have a longer caching period to provide resolutions while the DNS server is inaccessible.
Using "more" layering on more in DNS (above the IP stack, which hosts IS a native part of mind you & does the same as DNS can with less) DOES EAT MORE POWER, cpu cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O too (& create complexity + room for breakdown/exploit also).
That's a great theory, can you actually provide results that shows this has a notable affect?
Lastly - YOU *may* not care about useability - others, do (especially less technical end users, & hosts are less complex + techish than DNS setups, by far...)
I'm not interested in your 'moving goal posts' arguments. I also don't care about usability arguments at this point.
P.S.=> "You don't see the problem"? of YOU LITERALLY DOUBLING OVERHEADS on a less efficient method in DNS (many moving parts & complexities + learning curve added) by your (mis)use TCP over the default UDP in DNS?? WTF??? LOL... apk
Arguments of efficiency are interesting, especially where DNSSEC is concerned. Servers that are up to date using DNSSEC, when receiving a request and they can't handle packet sizes beyond 512 (as is default on ISP networks for UDP), a response is given to use TCP to do the resolution. In other words, you're increasing the load and decreasing efficiency for people who don't run DNSSEC and decreasing load while increasing efficiency for people who do. This seems like a fair trade.
How much of a difference that load makes is another story however.
Hosts are also EASILY UNDERSTOOD & DIRECT USER CONTROLLED with notepad (any texteditor) vs. dns rulesets complexity + added moving parts complexity & room for breakdown + security issues (yes, DNS does go down QUITE A LOT)!
I don't care about usability of DNS. If I really did, I would make a GUI editor with rainbows.
DNS also = HIGHER electrical power consumed/higher utility bills using DNS locally
Then please upload a video or some other material of the differences being measured. I really do not believe it makes a notable difference on modern systems.
P.S.=> DNS (especially locally setup as a separate dedicated machine) = Inefficient
I have a Linux router that acts as DHCP, PPPoE, DNS, NAT and passive tunneling for getting around websites that do geoip blocking. It's fine for me. Sure, if I split up each service on a separate machine, it would be wasteful for a small network, I agree. But who does that?
you using TCP literally DOUBLING your overheads, again + moreso...
Slashdot Mirror
But it's happening because Notch offered to sell his shares after the lawyer drama Mojang created that upset the community.
Which is irrelevant, once the shares are out of his control, he has no control.
It does to me.
Yes, you need to obtain a ChronosMAX first though.
Digital Anvil was going to die out completely without releasing if it were not for Microsoft. Similar situation with Nokia phones, except they would release and nobody would buy. I don't know anything about Rare's history.
A reasonable person is not "dumb as fuck", so no, they wouldn't have believed him.
What are you talking about? Mojang's brand is ruined by themselves when they started sending lawyers after people and upsetting the community. Notch was the one who then offered to sell all his shares in public due to the outcry, Microsoft just happened to bite on that prospect.
This is Notch's management bringing it down, not Microsoft's.
No, it won't. The developers get to "redevelop" "HD" versions of their apps and require users to repurchase to get "HD".
They'll make "HD" versions of apps you already bought, that you will have to buy again.
Considering it's even banned in some countries, it's even illegal to use in some places. No permission necessary to break the law.
You don't, the TVLA (trade name of the BBC) is just confusing things.
The TV license only covers live television streams. The on-demand features of iPlayer is available to non-license holders in the UK.
Their criteria for detecting was 'heavy VPN' usage, not traffic patterns though.
I think the BBC could resolve this by requiring people enter their BBC TV License identifier as a sort of login.
Define what 'heavy' is? Because the more I think about it, the harder time I have a problem differentiating between the amount of traffic used for general internet + windows updates + anti-virus + work network shares + work backups etc. (as normal for corporate VPNs) verses streaming usage.
I think about my streaming usage and if I was to do it over a VPN, I suspect it would be significantly less than what I currently do on my work laptop over a VPN.
Wrong, see my other post: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Actually, as long as your equipment is not setup to receive BBC channels, you don't have to pay. Of course, this is difficult now that Sky recievers, Freeview both auto tune and provide BBC channels. Back in the analog days, it was sufficient to not tune the BBC channels on your television.
Wrong. The on-demand content from iPlayer in the United Kingdom does not require a license. Only live television.
No. A good chunk of charities waste a good chunk of the money (usually around 80% of it) before it gets to supporting something. Donating to a charity is wasteful, donating directly to a cause on the other hand is another thing.
Guess how they fixed the Red Ring of Death on the Xbox 360.
It is not the answer and I provided reasons why.
Then prove it! How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? It's a simple question, if you're correct, this can be measured and actually make some notable impact. It should be trivial for you to prove, but we both know why you aren't. After all, according to you, it impacts the electricity costs. So, it has to make enough of a difference to affect common units of usage.
You have failed to provide yet again, actual evidence where we see more power being consumed to just run a DNS server.
Irrelevant.
And you conceded hosts files can break windows services and I've pointed out that DNS can do all of this too without downing a windows service.
This is irrelevant to answering if this makes a difference to the electricity costs!
If the differences make little difference to the power consumption (something that requires little resources may not require the system to draw any further power at all than what is already available).
Now, since you're so adamant this will increase the cost of electricity, show us. Clearly if you know this to be true, you must have observed this and you're not just merely guessing.
How many more watts does it take to run a DNS server? What DNS servers did you run? What operating systems? What configurations? Come on APK, let's see the evidence to your claim!
You really don't like backing your claims, do you? You've been making this claim about additional electrical usage for a while now and whenever pressed, you fail to provide it. I can only assume that you don't really know and you're just making this up as you go along.
If you read my post, I never admitted there was additional electrical usage. Sure, you can measure a DNS server is taking up resources, but is it impacting anything? I'm unconvinced there is a problem like you portray it to be.
I can too with DNS, I'm a Linux user.
I'm not. I'm telling you that some Linux distributions (particularly desktop ones) come with a DNS server (powerdns) configured out of the box. I was also pointing out in such a scenario, you're going to be hard pressed to even say there is even a recognizable difference in resource usage (after all, we can tell the difference between 200KiB use of memory verses 0, but 200KiB verses 200KiB ? not really)
I am not convinced there is a notable difference in electrical power supply though and I don't really see how DNS would even be notable for system performance either.
Seriously, what's the difference APK? Are we expected to use 400watts more for running a DNS server? Why are you constantly avoiding answering this? Why won't you show actual proof that it will increase the cost of electricity?
I'm not aware of a notable difference, care to share your results? I would recommend a video recording of the system showing the wattage when using DNS server verses a large hosts file.
is this tiny amount of usage really an issue on modern computers? Could you show your evidence on the notable differences? Additionally, on Linux distributions, often the system resolver (ie: powerdns) is already a full DNS server, it's just configured to do auto configuration and and forward dns resolution and caching by default. In such a scenario, I am skeptical that the difference in system resources can even be detected.
So can hosts files. An IP that once pointed to the correct server may no longer be the same server.
I'd rather use dig, because then I can see all the IP addresses for anything using a round robin DNS.
There is nothing for me to prove, you're the one making the claims it uses more electricity, you prove it.
If it's such a trivial fact. Please show me the power differences seen. A video showing wattage while running a DNS server verses your hosts file and doing DNS lookups will be sufficient.
That's really only an issue if the old DNS server returns bad records now as opposed to not responding at all.
I can do this on my DNS server too.
Irrelevant.
Yes.
Also, a DNS server can also be hardcoded to protect you. It can also be setup to have a longer caching period to provide resolutions while the DNS server is inaccessible.
That's a great theory, can you actually provide results that shows this has a notable affect?
I'm not interested in your 'moving goal posts' arguments. I also don't care about usability arguments at this point.
Arguments of efficiency are interesting, especially where DNSSEC is concerned. Servers that are up to date using DNSSEC, when receiving a request and they can't handle packet sizes beyond 512 (as is default on ISP networks for UDP), a response is given to use TCP to do the resolution. In other words, you're increasing the load and decreasing efficiency for people who don't run DNSSEC and decreasing load while increasing efficiency for people who do. This seems like a fair trade.
How much of a difference that load makes is another story however.
I don't care about usability of DNS. If I really did, I would make a GUI editor with rainbows.
Then please upload a video or some other material of the differences being measured. I really do not believe it makes a notable difference on modern systems.
I have a Linux router that acts as DHCP, PPPoE, DNS, NAT and passive tunneling for getting around websites that do geoip blocking. It's fine for me. Sure, if I split up each service on a separate machine, it would be wasteful for a small network, I agree. But who does that?
I don't see the problem? I doubled it, so what?