Just because a host is capable of IPv6, doesn't mean it is INCAPABLE of IPv4. You can run both at the same time. I do on my workstations (FreeBSD and Solaris), and they speak IPv6 to each other and to the IPv6-capable hosts at work and on Ca*Net 3. The rest of the time, they speak IPv4 to the rest of the world. I usually don't know which, unless I explicitly check which protocol they're using. IPv6 is slipping in quietly. One day you'll just notice that all the stuff you have is capable of it, and perhaps is even running it already. It'll just be THERE. And this is a good thing! Far too many people assume that if people don't frenzy turning on a technology, and instantly converting all applications to it, that it's a failure. Its these shortsighted people that hold up the show more than any other factor. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Neighbor Discovery is enough to get your machine networkable, but DHCP is still useful for other things, like providing nameserver addresses, WINS servers, time servers, etc.
DHCP has always been capable of providing more than just your network address. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
FreeBSD 4 and up has integrated IPv6. Its not entirely transparent, but its there and it works. Solaris 8 has nice, functional IPv6. Its so well integrated that frequently I don't know that I'm running across IPv6 unless I explicitly check. OpenBSD 2.6 came up with IPv6 on the default install, I'd assume it is the same as FreeBSD, since both are based off the KAME project. Linux/Slackware has the weakest IPv6 support of the lot that I've used short of Windows. I mean in terms of the implementation... its just a button you push in the kernel, yes, but the userland was horrible trying to get going. Redhat or Debian might have better support. Windows NT/2000 IPv6 support, at this point, is a joke. You can ping, but not too much else. They haven't even updated the patch for IE to IE5. (But Microsoft is the innovators! REALLY!)
Other OSes that I've heard have integrated IPv6 support are BSDi and AIX.
For lots of information, check: http://www.ipv6.org/ http://www.freenet6.net/ -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Well, an excellent example of a technology article for the modern populace... light on technology, facts, or journalistic integrity. The bit about how there exists no real fix particularly amused me. I'm sure this will be interpreted as a challenge for some weiner out there with too much free time. Can you imagine the next iteration of the "Melissa"-type Windows virus, only this time with a DDoS slave daemon, instead of any boring and passe file-destroyer? -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
However, the one major drawback is that there is soooooooo much software being developed for Linux and sooooo very little for Solaris.
I thought that this was a major reason why open-source existed... so that a bit of software WOULDN'T hog-tie you into a platform.
Now I realize that this is the real world, and the majority of code I've seen put out for Linux has to be the least portable garbage I've laid eyes on, but if you have to recompile a program to go to sparc anyway (assuming the coder didn't make endianness assumptions... not a sure bet by any measure)... why not give it a go on Solaris? Or OpenBSD? Or NetBSD? -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
..although it might have been smarter for Sun to include more GNU productivity tools with Solaris...things like GNU compilers and desktops, for example...
Check www.sunhelp.org, the current rumors are that Sun WILL include a CD containing GCC and the like with the full Sol8 release. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
For small configurations, you buy x86, save a few bucks, and run whatever the hell you want on it.
For the REALLY HUGE operations, you buy Sun equipment, or a fearsome RS/6000 cluster, or whatever. Sure, its more expensive, but for the kind of operations that would buy such big machinery in the first place, its a drop in the bucket. In their cases, downtime, or even PERCEIVED downtime (given by overloaded hardware) would be far more expensive.
Anyways, I have to ask... what does ANY of this thread have to do with the SCSL, or even the Novell "opensource" play? -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
I certainly hope people recognize this as the troll it is, as these numbers are the most ludicrous fabrications I've ever seen. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Far be it from me to oppose the kneejerk "open the source" reaction from so many, but I'd like to point out that the commercial Unixes frequently contain large amounts of code that the vendor licensed from yet another vendor. So opensourcing (ugh, its a verb...) isn't always immediately viable, since there's huge chunks of the code which the vendor simply isn't ALLOWED to open up.
Let's remember the problems when Mozilla was first put out, with missing pieces of the JVM, the encryption libraries, and the like.
Not everyone takes "reinventing the wheel" to the level of most of the free Unixes. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Anyway... yes, there are GPL'd drivers in the FreeBSD source. They're carefully modular in case they need to be torn out in the event of conflict, but it hasn't happened yet.
The GPL and BSD licenses aren't THAT incompatible. I'm pretty sure its only when someone decides to take a source fork commercial that problems occur. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Let's try to remember that Linux isn't the only OS that will gain from this step by Creative. The *BSDs, Solaris, and more will all win. And not just x86 architectures... PCI-based SPARCs, Alphas, and PowerPCs, which Creative never considered "cost effective" to develop drivers for, will finally have an option aside from the horrid on-board sound.
I'm endlessly pleased by this. Now, to work on them to release specs for their DXR decoders and the like. (Give an inch, take a mile.:) ) -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
The origional poster was correct about the 3:1 cost delta. Your response is so utterly untrue that it casts doubt on everything else you might say.
I'm looking for a counterargument in there, and I can't find one...
So, you maintain that PCs DON'T fail three times as much as the average sparc? Why?
My SS2... three years old when I first got it... experienced ONE hardware-related downtime in its three years of 24/7/365 service, when its 1G disk blew. A 1G disk which was given to me in a plastic bag coated inside with vinegar.
My PCs... and I LOVE my PCs... have had power supplies go, the CPU fans have worn out, and an ethernet card toasted.
People can say what they like about the Ultra5... its a poor man's sparc, its too expensive compared to a PC, its too slow compared to a real Ultra... I can't rightfully deny those statements. But I CAN honestly say that when Sun puts something together, they put it together to LAST. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
PCs have about a 3:1 price performance advantage over Ultra 5s and 10s.
PCs have roughly the same failure rate, too.
No command line editing.
What are you talking about? I edit my command lines on my Solaris box all the time.
X runs like a dog with two legs at 1024x768x8 bits
Install X11R6. Sun doesn't score high in the graphical department, I can't deny that.
No Gnu tools.
So install them. Sometimes people seem to have problems with the simpliest solutions...
Standard tools like `ping' which core dump all the time.
I haven't had ping core on me in years. It was a problem caused by some kind of filtering, I forget the details. Other than that, I haven't had a single inbuilt "standard" tool barf on me in recent memory. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Suns have a 'hostid' embedded on the motherboard in NVRAM. The MAC address of the onboard NIC is generated from this value. The value can be altered. The CPU has nothing to do with it.
I don't really want to buy hardware from a company like that at any price.
Live in the woods. Everything from your car to your toaster has a number attached to it. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
I read the article, yes. Nice assumption. Let's also include the rest of the paragraph you quoted, shall we?
I think Theo reads slashdot, so whats you beef with linux theo?
If you don't think that statement is adversarial, then perhaps you'd do well as a public relationist for the LAPD.
Now, for MY point, let's see your final statement:
Seems to me like you anti-linux people are a little defensive and quick to take everything as a personal attack.
Since when am I "anti-Linux"? I said I don't like Linux. The absence of "like" is not concurrent to the presence of "dislike". I don't CARE enough about Linux to be "anti-Linux". I don't like cashews either... am I anti-cashew?
This whole "if you're not FOR us you're AGAINST us" thing gets old fast. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Again, we have many posts from people speculating about Sun's motives. I really have to wonder what kind of effect Oliver Stone has had on people.
Can we at least ACKNOWLEDGE some things here?
1) Sun is going to be opening up the source to their *FLAGSHIP PRODUCT*. Does anyone grasp what kind of step that IS? People are getting pissy about it NOT being a GPL, or Sun controlling the modifications that get added back into it. So WHAT? Would people rather they not do any of this? What would people gain?
2) Sometimes, centralized control is a GOOD thing. Linus keeps control of what goes into the Linux kernel (to generalize a bit), and this is a good thing- because who better than Linus to judge what modifications are good and what are going to break things, or what mods are just plain stupid? What is the difference between one person and an organization doing so? Is it actually so wrong for Sun to want to try to avoid some keener rewriting a piece of the kernel using MMX asm? Fine, every monkey who knows how to 'gcc hello.c' has the right to alter things the way he likes it, but does that same person have an automatic right to influence the executables that *I* run on *MY* system?
3) Not being accepted into the main source tree does not necessarily stop you from publishing your own mods. Fine, you didn't make it into the real tree. Publish a patch on your website. Let the public decide how useful the thing is.
4) Sun may be releasing the source to Solaris because... wait for it!... they think letting the public at the source is a GOOD idea! Whoa! No diabolical plans toward world domination. No teams of assassins waiting to "retire" RMS or ESR as soon as the public's attention is diverted. Can't something just be what it seems to be? Are there always secret plots behind everything? Scott McNealy has usually been vocal and forthright, sometimes even to his own detriment.
5) This whole source thing MAY NOT HAPPEN. There's a lot of stuff in Solaris which Sun doesn't personally own, and they might not have the right to open the guts of those items to the world.
There's more to say, but I don't think it would matter. Sun is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'll leave people to return to their regularly-scheduled evil plot weaving. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Before you fall off that high horse of yours, try re-reading your own original comment. You HEARD (rumors) that Theo has been critical of Linux. So you basically demanded that he come forward and defend himself.
Is it that shocking that some people might NOT like Linux? Does any person who has anything non-glowing about Linux automatically have to justify their opinion to you? I dislike Linux, will you expect me to explain why?
And just so you know, Theo has been critical of just about EVERY OS that isn't OpenBSD. He isn't exactly a person who holds back his opinion on things. He's even critiqued MY favorite OS, Solaris, but I haven't asked him to stand forward and defend himself yet. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Having adminned Solaris 2.3 and 2.4 machines, I am pretty sure they did not. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Well, first thing... 128 - 64 - 48 is not 32, its 16.
Secondly, MAC addresses may be 48 bits now, but there's rumblings about making them 64 bits. There's a specific process to make a 48 bit MAC address into a 64 bit link-local address (split on the 24 bit boundary, insert 0xfffe, add 0x02 to the first byte). So 16 bits are NOT being "thrown away".
So that top 64 bits is everything, including subnet id, and the bottom 64 bits are GUARENTEED to be unique within that subnet. And believe it or not, but your IP changes depending on which upstream you go through to get to the destination. That top 64 bits varies all over the place.
I also have no doubt that IPv6 addresses CAN be assigned manually, having nothing to do with the ethernet address, if you choose not to do Neighbor Discovery. But otherwise, who cares? Guess what, my MAC address is 08:00:20:77:88:d1. What are you going to do to me with that? If you use authentication, the other end ALREADY knows who you are. If not, how does that differ from IPv4? You track me down via my upstreams, which anybody can do via IPv4 ANYWAY. And how do you know whether I've moved location, or I'm simply going out a different link to get to the end station? How do you know its me sitting at the station? How do you know that I haven't given/sold my laptop NIC to someone else? How do you know I'm using in.ndpd or an ethernet card at ALL?
If you're going to get worked up over something, get pissy over online phonebooks which give out your home address, or websites which publish your email address to spammers. Worry about that stuff associated with your name, rather than someone writing down 3ffe:b00:1802:1:a00:20ff:fe77:88d1 every time they see it. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Typed like a person who has never ported anything between "just another Unix" and another.
Grab the source to any multi-Unix program. GCC is a very good example in this instance, since the JVM acts very much like a compiler. Check all the #ifdefs and the configure script and all the special cases in the code.
Between Solaris boxes you might be able to assume things are the same, but when you go from Solaris to AIX or Solaris to HP/UX, include files change, IP headers change, byte orders changes, etc etc etc. And, as much as people don't like to hear this, porting to/from Linux can be one of the worst cases, since Linux Does Its Own Thing so often.
Your thesis is bogus and only servers to demonstration how absurd your position really is. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Re:too much misinformation...
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 2
In any case, I see NAT as a highly desirable way for me to control what is talking on my subnet to stuff outside the subnet, regardless of whether you're talking IPv4 or IPv6.
Wrong, a firewall is the means to do that. You're relying on obscurity to protect you, which, as we all know, is no security at all.
You're relying on the upper layer protocols to make assumptions about the lower levels of network. This isn't proper. The network should be the network. The applications shouldn't have to know and shouldn't have to care what boxes they travel through to get to the end station. NAT breaks that.
NAT, most frequently, tends to break low traffic datagram protocols. I'm pretty sure what you envision is a network using nothing but TCP, and proxy upon proxy upon proxy to pick up the slack. Sorry, but I find that a bit shortsighted. It may be great for you, but your situation is just that... yours.
Just as an example, a local ADSL provider in my area used to do just that... running their entire ISP behind a single NAT-overloaded IPv4 address. It was a dismal failure. Users couldn't play games like Diablo. One person would piss off an IRCOp, and the k-line would ban EVERYBODY. The NAT box would get overloaded and crash, and suddenly nobody had connectivity.
A NAT'd IP can never provide the full, unrestricted functionality of a real IP address. End of story. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
In most cases, the lower 64 bits of the IPv6 address will actually be the MAC address (for ethernet cards, that is) of the end station - the link local address. So, in a very general sense, its the top 64 bits that will be thrown around by ISPs. Your link local address will travel with you.
As for your other concerns... remember to take your lithium. IPv6 was implemented on Linux long before Cisco got serious into it. IPv6 isn't a "Cisco" thing. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Yes, you can map through the 65535 ports available for NAT'ing connections. However, did you think to remember that most machines run multiple services on multiple ports? And, that each connection has a sending AND receiving socket? And beyond that, most applications open multiple connections... your web browser probably fired up at least four just to load the webpage you're viewing this on. All those sockets get eaten up pretty damned fast.
IPv6 isn't hard to upgrade to. Its a software upgrade. And machines can run both stacks simultaneously. Pick up R. Stevens' network programming text, volume two, he gets heavily into coexisting IPv4 and IPv6 stacks. 10.0.0.1 is::ffff:10.0.0.1. Boom, easy, no fuss, no muss. This stuff about "everything will break when we upgrade!" is a pure fairy tale.
And IPv6 isn't near as complex as it looks. Sure, perhaps if you're implementing a stack, but for the most part its plug in and go. Neighbor Discovery is a Good Thing. And for the programmer, the library functions are cleaner and more direct. -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Re:It's all about widespread acceptance
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Solaris 8 should contain IPv6 support. Its been in the experimental stages with Solaris 7 and before that, Solaris 2.5.
Check the rumors on http://www.sunhelp.org/ -- Brandon Hume hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Slashdot Mirror
This is so simplistic as to be borderline FUD.
i pngwg-addrconf-privacy-01.txt.
Try checking out:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Just because a host is capable of IPv6, doesn't mean it is INCAPABLE of IPv4. You can run both at the same time. I do on my workstations (FreeBSD and Solaris), and they speak IPv6 to each other and to the IPv6-capable hosts at work and on Ca*Net 3. The rest of the time, they speak IPv4 to the rest of the world. I usually don't know which, unless I explicitly check which protocol they're using. IPv6 is slipping in quietly. One day you'll just notice that all the stuff you have is capable of it, and perhaps is even running it already. It'll just be THERE. And this is a good thing! Far too many people assume that if people don't frenzy turning on a technology, and instantly converting all applications to it, that it's a failure. Its these shortsighted people that hold up the show more than any other factor.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Neighbor Discovery is enough to get your machine
networkable, but DHCP is still useful for other things, like providing nameserver addresses, WINS servers, time servers, etc.
DHCP has always been capable of providing more than just your network address.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
In my playing around:
FreeBSD 4 and up has integrated IPv6. Its not
entirely transparent, but its there and it works.
Solaris 8 has nice, functional IPv6. Its so
well integrated that frequently I don't know that
I'm running across IPv6 unless I explicitly check.
OpenBSD 2.6 came up with IPv6 on the default
install, I'd assume it is the same as FreeBSD, since both are based off the KAME project.
Linux/Slackware has the weakest IPv6 support
of the lot that I've used short of Windows. I mean in terms of the implementation... its just a
button you push in the kernel, yes, but the
userland was horrible trying to get going. Redhat
or Debian might have better support.
Windows NT/2000 IPv6 support, at this point,
is a joke. You can ping, but not too much else.
They haven't even updated the patch for IE to IE5.
(But Microsoft is the innovators! REALLY!)
Other OSes that I've heard have integrated IPv6
support are BSDi and AIX.
For lots of information, check:
http://www.ipv6.org/
http://www.freenet6.net/
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Well, an excellent example of a technology article for the modern populace... light on technology, facts, or journalistic integrity. The bit about how there exists no real fix particularly amused me. I'm sure this will be interpreted as a challenge for some weiner out there with too much free time. Can you imagine the next iteration of the "Melissa"-type Windows virus, only this time with a DDoS slave daemon, instead of any boring and passe file-destroyer?
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
However, the one major drawback is that there is soooooooo much software being developed for Linux and sooooo very little for Solaris.
... why not give it a go on Solaris? Or OpenBSD? Or NetBSD?
I thought that this was a major reason why open-source existed... so that a bit of software WOULDN'T hog-tie you into a platform.
Now I realize that this is the real world, and the majority of code I've seen put out for Linux has to be the least portable garbage I've laid eyes on, but if you have to recompile a program to go to sparc anyway (assuming the coder didn't make endianness assumptions... not a sure bet by any measure)
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
..although it might have been smarter for Sun to include more GNU productivity tools with Solaris ...things like GNU compilers and desktops, for example...
Check www.sunhelp.org, the current rumors are that Sun WILL include a CD containing GCC and the like with the full Sol8 release.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
But scalability != performance
Right.
Scalability = performance + load
For small configurations, you buy x86, save a few bucks, and run whatever the hell you want on it.
For the REALLY HUGE operations, you buy Sun equipment, or a fearsome RS/6000 cluster, or whatever. Sure, its more expensive, but for the kind of operations that would buy such big machinery in the first place, its a drop in the bucket. In their cases, downtime, or even PERCEIVED downtime (given by overloaded hardware) would be far more expensive.
Anyways, I have to ask... what does ANY of this thread have to do with the SCSL, or even the Novell "opensource" play?
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
I certainly hope people recognize this as the troll it is, as these numbers are the most ludicrous fabrications I've ever seen.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Far be it from me to oppose the kneejerk "open the source" reaction from so many, but I'd like to point out that the commercial Unixes frequently contain large amounts of code that the vendor licensed from yet another vendor. So opensourcing (ugh, its a verb...) isn't always immediately viable, since there's huge chunks of the code which the vendor simply isn't ALLOWED to open up.
Let's remember the problems when Mozilla was first put out, with missing pieces of the JVM, the encryption libraries, and the like.
Not everyone takes "reinventing the wheel" to the level of most of the free Unixes.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Hrm... my response disappeared.
Anyway... yes, there are GPL'd drivers in the FreeBSD source. They're carefully modular in case they need to be torn out in the event of conflict, but it hasn't happened yet.
The GPL and BSD licenses aren't THAT incompatible. I'm pretty sure its only when someone decides to take a source fork commercial that problems occur.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Let's try to remember that Linux isn't the only OS that will gain from this step by Creative. The *BSDs, Solaris, and more will all win. And not just x86 architectures... PCI-based SPARCs, Alphas, and PowerPCs, which Creative never considered "cost effective" to develop drivers for, will finally have an option aside from the horrid on-board sound.
:) )
I'm endlessly pleased by this. Now, to work on them to release specs for their DXR decoders and the like. (Give an inch, take a mile.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
The origional poster was correct about the 3:1 cost delta. Your response is so utterly untrue that it casts doubt on everything else you might say.
I'm looking for a counterargument in there, and I can't find one...
So, you maintain that PCs DON'T fail three times as much as the average sparc? Why?
My SS2... three years old when I first got it... experienced ONE hardware-related downtime in its three years of 24/7/365 service, when its 1G disk blew. A 1G disk which was given to me in a plastic bag coated inside with vinegar.
My PCs... and I LOVE my PCs... have had power supplies go, the CPU fans have worn out, and an ethernet card toasted.
People can say what they like about the Ultra5... its a poor man's sparc, its too expensive compared to a PC, its too slow compared to a real Ultra... I can't rightfully deny those statements. But I CAN honestly say that when Sun puts something together, they put it together to LAST.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
PCs have about a 3:1 price performance advantage over Ultra 5s and 10s.
PCs have roughly the same failure rate, too.
No command line editing.
What are you talking about? I edit my command lines on my Solaris box all the time.
X runs like a dog with two legs at 1024x768x8 bits
Install X11R6. Sun doesn't score high in the graphical department, I can't deny that.
No Gnu tools.
So install them. Sometimes people seem to have problems with the simpliest solutions...
Standard tools like `ping' which core dump all the time.
I haven't had ping core on me in years. It was a problem caused by some kind of filtering, I forget the details. Other than that, I haven't had a single inbuilt "standard" tool barf on me in recent memory.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Don't SUN CPUs have something like that?
Suns have a 'hostid' embedded on the motherboard
in NVRAM. The MAC address of the onboard NIC
is generated from this value. The value can be
altered. The CPU has nothing to do with it.
I don't really want to buy hardware from a company like that at any price.
Live in the woods. Everything from your car to your toaster has a number attached to it.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
I read the article, yes. Nice assumption. Let's also include the rest of the paragraph you quoted, shall we?
I think Theo reads slashdot, so whats you beef with linux theo?
If you don't think that statement is adversarial, then perhaps you'd do well as a public relationist for the LAPD.
Now, for MY point, let's see your final statement:
Seems to me like you anti-linux people are a little defensive and quick to take everything as a personal attack.
Since when am I "anti-Linux"? I said I don't like Linux. The absence of "like" is not concurrent to the presence of "dislike". I don't CARE enough about Linux to be "anti-Linux". I don't like cashews either... am I anti-cashew?
This whole "if you're not FOR us you're AGAINST us" thing gets old fast.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Again, we have many posts from people speculating about Sun's motives. I really have to wonder what kind of effect Oliver Stone has had on people.
Can we at least ACKNOWLEDGE some things here?
1) Sun is going to be opening up the source to their *FLAGSHIP PRODUCT*. Does anyone grasp what kind of step that IS? People are getting pissy about it NOT being a GPL, or Sun controlling the modifications that get added back into it. So WHAT? Would people rather they not do any of this? What would people gain?
2) Sometimes, centralized control is a GOOD thing. Linus keeps control of what goes into the Linux kernel (to generalize a bit), and this is a good thing- because who better than Linus to judge what modifications are good and what are going to break things, or what mods are just plain stupid? What is the difference between one person and an organization doing so? Is it actually so wrong for Sun to want to try to avoid some keener rewriting a piece of the kernel using MMX asm? Fine, every monkey who knows how to 'gcc hello.c' has the right to alter things the way he likes it, but does that same person have an automatic right to influence the executables that *I* run on *MY* system?
3) Not being accepted into the main source tree does not necessarily stop you from publishing your own mods. Fine, you didn't make it into the real tree. Publish a patch on your website. Let the public decide how useful the thing is.
4) Sun may be releasing the source to Solaris because... wait for it!... they think letting the public at the source is a GOOD idea! Whoa! No diabolical plans toward world domination. No teams of assassins waiting to "retire" RMS or ESR as soon as the public's attention is diverted. Can't something just be what it seems to be? Are there always secret plots behind everything? Scott McNealy has usually been vocal and forthright, sometimes even to his own detriment.
5) This whole source thing MAY NOT HAPPEN. There's a lot of stuff in Solaris which Sun doesn't personally own, and they might not have the right to open the guts of those items to the world.
There's more to say, but I don't think it would matter. Sun is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'll leave people to return to their regularly-scheduled evil plot weaving.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Before you fall off that high horse of yours, try re-reading your own original comment. You HEARD (rumors) that Theo has been critical of Linux. So you basically demanded that he come forward and defend himself.
Is it that shocking that some people might NOT like Linux? Does any person who has anything non-glowing about Linux automatically have to justify their opinion to you? I dislike Linux, will you expect me to explain why?
And just so you know, Theo has been critical of just about EVERY OS that isn't OpenBSD. He isn't exactly a person who holds back his opinion on things. He's even critiqued MY favorite OS, Solaris, but I haven't asked him to stand forward and defend himself yet.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Having adminned Solaris 2.3 and 2.4 machines, I am pretty sure they did not.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Well, first thing... 128 - 64 - 48 is not 32, its 16.
Secondly, MAC addresses may be 48 bits now, but there's rumblings about making them 64 bits. There's a specific process to make a 48 bit MAC address into a 64 bit link-local address (split on the 24 bit boundary, insert 0xfffe, add 0x02 to the first byte). So 16 bits are NOT being "thrown away".
So that top 64 bits is everything, including subnet id, and the bottom 64 bits are GUARENTEED to be unique within that subnet. And believe it or not, but your IP changes depending on which upstream you go through to get to the destination.
That top 64 bits varies all over the place.
I also have no doubt that IPv6 addresses CAN be assigned manually, having nothing to do with the ethernet address, if you choose not to do Neighbor Discovery. But otherwise, who cares? Guess what, my MAC address is 08:00:20:77:88:d1. What are you going to do to me with that? If you use authentication, the other end ALREADY knows who you are. If not, how does that differ from IPv4? You track me down via my upstreams, which anybody can do via IPv4 ANYWAY. And how do you know whether I've moved location, or I'm simply going out a different link to get to the end station? How do you know its me sitting at the station? How do you know that I haven't given/sold my laptop NIC to someone else? How do you know I'm using in.ndpd or an ethernet card at ALL?
If you're going to get worked up over something, get pissy over online phonebooks which give out your home address, or websites which publish your email address to spammers. Worry about that stuff associated with your name, rather than someone writing down 3ffe:b00:1802:1:a00:20ff:fe77:88d1 every time they see it.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Typed like a person who has never ported anything between "just another Unix" and another.
Grab the source to any multi-Unix program. GCC is a very good example in this instance, since the JVM acts very much like a compiler. Check all the #ifdefs and the configure script and all the special cases in the code.
Between Solaris boxes you might be able to assume things are the same, but when you go from Solaris to AIX or Solaris to HP/UX, include files change, IP headers change, byte orders changes, etc etc etc. And, as much as people don't like to hear this, porting to/from Linux can be one of the worst cases, since Linux Does Its Own Thing so often.
Your thesis is bogus and only servers to demonstration how absurd your position really is.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
In any case, I see NAT as a highly desirable way for me to control what is talking on my subnet to stuff outside the subnet, regardless of whether you're talking IPv4 or IPv6.
Wrong, a firewall is the means to do that. You're relying on obscurity to protect you, which, as we all know, is no security at all.
You're relying on the upper layer protocols to make assumptions about the lower levels of network. This isn't proper. The network should be the network. The applications shouldn't have to know and shouldn't have to care what boxes they travel through to get to the end station. NAT breaks that.
NAT, most frequently, tends to break low traffic datagram protocols. I'm pretty sure what you envision is a network using nothing but TCP, and proxy upon proxy upon proxy to pick up the slack. Sorry, but I find that a bit shortsighted. It may be great for you, but your situation is just that... yours.
Just as an example, a local ADSL provider in my area used to do just that... running their entire ISP behind a single NAT-overloaded IPv4 address. It was a dismal failure. Users couldn't play games like Diablo. One person would piss off an IRCOp, and the k-line would ban EVERYBODY. The NAT box would get overloaded and crash, and suddenly nobody had connectivity.
A NAT'd IP can never provide the full, unrestricted functionality of a real IP address. End of story.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
In most cases, the lower 64 bits of the IPv6 address will actually be the MAC address (for ethernet cards, that is) of the end station - the link local address. So, in a very general sense, its the top 64 bits that will be thrown around by ISPs. Your link local address will travel with you.
As for your other concerns... remember to take your lithium. IPv6 was implemented on Linux long before Cisco got serious into it. IPv6 isn't a "Cisco" thing.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Yes, you can map through the 65535 ports available for NAT'ing connections. However, did you think to remember that most machines run multiple services on multiple ports? And, that each connection has a sending AND receiving socket? And beyond that, most applications open multiple connections... your web browser probably fired up at least four just to load the webpage you're viewing this on. All those sockets get eaten up pretty damned fast.
::ffff:10.0.0.1. Boom, easy, no fuss, no muss. This stuff about "everything will break when we upgrade!" is a pure fairy tale.
IPv6 isn't hard to upgrade to. Its a software upgrade. And machines can run both stacks simultaneously. Pick up R. Stevens' network programming text, volume two, he gets heavily into coexisting IPv4 and IPv6 stacks. 10.0.0.1 is
And IPv6 isn't near as complex as it looks. Sure, perhaps if you're implementing a stack, but for the most part its plug in and go. Neighbor Discovery is a Good Thing. And for the programmer, the library functions are cleaner and more direct.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Solaris 8 should contain IPv6 support. Its been in the experimental stages with Solaris 7 and before that, Solaris 2.5.
Check the rumors on http://www.sunhelp.org/
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/