OTOH, you posted your comment from a (relatively) reliable and affordable internet connection that probably is able to do unrestricted web searches. Could be worse.
..................not that we should ever stop trying to make it better.
It's actually called reverse tunneling, and it works exceedingly well. In a typical reverse SSH tunnel, an outbound TCP connection is made to a server, which brings up a tunnel that the server is able to send traffic over back to the client. This removes the need for the client to allow any inbound-initiated traffic or any possible NATing.
Anyway, my idea probably would have greater backward compatibility with existing networks and software
Because older applications would still be able to generate routable traffic? Maybe... but this introduces additional problems, because you are still using ports for routing purposes *and* application traffic.
Also, how do 'legacy' applications access services on destination hosts that are on non-standard ports? A old web browser, for example, is going to make a connection to "http://www.example.com" using tcp/80. How is that browser able to connect to the webserver running on mail.example.com, if it's running on tcp/81? Manually entering "http://mail.example.com:81" may be an option with a browser, but what about an application that is hard coded to make a connection to a specific hostname and port?
And again... are you suggesting that all server applications should require their own unique DNS names?
While your idea is unique, I think it would too dramatically change the way modern networking works and would create too many other problems to be a viable solution.
IPv6 also requires a lot of changes, if it didn't, it would be easy to implement.
It does, yes, but IPv6 does not change the nature of how server/client applications function.
You realize the "http" portion of your example URL is what is determining the protocol and port at the application level, right? You do not ask a DNS server to resolve "http://example.com", you ask DNS to resolve "example.com" and then the *application* generates 'http' traffic to the resolved host. Essentially, you are proposing that port numbers be used for routing. How is that ultimately better than instituting a larger numbering system for IPs (IPv6) that is already widely supported and does not dramatically change how all modern applications work?
Hamachi uses a central server in addition to software on both 'client' networks. Connectivity between any two clients is pretty easy if you have an application in the middle to handle connections.
Erm, really? So, how does "example.com" resolve? Are you proposing different DNS names for *every* service offered?
Plus, you're going to need to upgrade a *lot* more than DNS, and you're giving it a purpose it's not supposed to have. The *client* is what decides what port/protocol to generate traffic on, not DNS. Also, what of applications that require multiple ports/protocols to communicate? Your change breaks the concept of servers listening, and clients generating the traffic.
Using NAT for security is not a great idea. If your perimeter is breached, NAT is not going to save you from someone (or someone's scripts) who is determined to break into your network.
most orgs are content to limp through with what applications and systems they have until things turn better.
...which, unfortunately, is partly a product of companies skimping on funding and planning for these systems when they are initially implemented. The mentality often is "get it working as cheap as possible ASAP", assuming it'll be fixed and improved it later on. This, in my experience, rarely occurs, due to (surprise!) funding and time constraints.
Seriously though, Steam's hardware survey is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this story. It's non-intrusive, it clearly asks you before sharing any information, and it keeps the summary information available for all to see. I probably wouldn't mind sharing technical information if it worked similarly to this.
The reason it's on most PCs is because most PCs come with it installed and most people don't install an OS
You pretty much answered your original question - iTunes comes with OS X (basically 100% of all Macs) and with every iPod (most popular DAP by far).
if iTunes was so bad millions of Windows users would not have downloaded and installed it on their PCs
No, iTunes being bad/good had little to do with how ubiquitous it is, as I was sarcastically mentioning with Windows and IE. Most iPod users probably do not know or care that their device will function with software other than iTunes, because iTunes is probably 'good enough' for most users.
It is frustrating for those of us who want more choices that the iPod doesn't seem to function like most other DAPs in file management.
And Linux developers would not have bothered to create software iTunes like for Linux.
I don't really understand that statement - do you mean people are attempting to copy iTunes for Linux? I would agree people have attempted to copy the functionality with iPods that iTunes has, but not much else. I use Amarok in Ubuntu, which works *better* with my iPod than any other program, and does not have any quirks of iTunes that annoy me. Heck, it even lets me copy music off of other iPods without requiring them to be tethered to my machine (is it possible to do this with iTunes? I honestly am not sure).
Not only that but up until Apple came out with Safari and switched to Intel CPUs Macs came with IE as well.
FYI, the switch from IE to Safari on Macs did not correlate with the switch to Intel CPUs - IE was discontinued and Safari was released in mid 2003, while Intel chips were not seen in Macs until 2006.
Yes it can set them back, but there are warnings when you enter unsafe areas.
I think this is a very good point - you better expect a dangerous area to be dangerous. I would almost argue this isn't griefing, primarily because the act of destroying someone smaller/weaker than you in these areas is explicitly allowed with the many warnings.
...which is pretty much what you say two paragraphs later;)
The reason people dislike griefers stems from the fact that it's essentially an infringement on their ability to enjoy the game. It's not necessarily an emotional attachment that causes others to be unhappy with you.
- first, getting killed in that fashion is frustrating, as it's often impossible to have a fighting chance against a griefer (they're high enough level to safely grief others).
- second, it can render a large amount of time to be completely wasted - in Eve, losing your ship is a huge deal for a new player, and can set them back hours or days.
- third, it can go against the spirit of the game - when you grief someone in WoW or Eve or any other similar MMO, you're not doing it primarily for experience, money, honor, etc, you're doing it because it's cheap and easy entertainment for you at the expense of someone else.
You're not the only one - I had the original DS when they first came out, then picked up one a DS lite later on. The DS lite fits in a pocket a little easier, and now I've had the older DS to play around with Linux on.
International Morse code today is most popular among amateur radio operators, where it is used as the pattern to key a transmitter on and off in the radio communications mode
commonly referred to as "continuous wave" or "CW".
No, if they really wanted to block outbound connections on port 80, they could do so by blocking on the destination port (which would be whatever port the remote webserver is running on, generally 80) of the traffic, not the ephemeral source port. It's not like they can't see you're making a request on port 80 - if they couldn't, neither could the destination webserver.
Slashdot Mirror
There is another means: https://www.facebook.com/settings Click "Download a copy of your Facebook data." and follow the instructions.
OTOH, you posted your comment from a (relatively) reliable and affordable internet connection that probably is able to do unrestricted web searches. Could be worse.
..................not that we should ever stop trying to make it better.
Well, I never close the bathroom door to take a leak, but that's an entirely different issue...
my windows 3 box is ridiculously secure; no one's been able to turn it on for years :(
It's actually called reverse tunneling, and it works exceedingly well. In a typical reverse SSH tunnel, an outbound TCP connection is made to a server, which brings up a tunnel that the server is able to send traffic over back to the client. This removes the need for the client to allow any inbound-initiated traffic or any possible NATing.
Because older applications would still be able to generate routable traffic? Maybe... but this introduces additional problems, because you are still using ports for routing purposes *and* application traffic.
Also, how do 'legacy' applications access services on destination hosts that are on non-standard ports? A old web browser, for example, is going to make a connection to "http://www.example.com" using tcp/80. How is that browser able to connect to the webserver running on mail.example.com, if it's running on tcp/81? Manually entering "http://mail.example.com:81" may be an option with a browser, but what about an application that is hard coded to make a connection to a specific hostname and port?
And again... are you suggesting that all server applications should require their own unique DNS names?
While your idea is unique, I think it would too dramatically change the way modern networking works and would create too many other problems to be a viable solution.
It does, yes, but IPv6 does not change the nature of how server/client applications function.
You realize the "http" portion of your example URL is what is determining the protocol and port at the application level, right? You do not ask a DNS server to resolve "http://example.com", you ask DNS to resolve "example.com" and then the *application* generates 'http' traffic to the resolved host. Essentially, you are proposing that port numbers be used for routing. How is that ultimately better than instituting a larger numbering system for IPs (IPv6) that is already widely supported and does not dramatically change how all modern applications work?
Hamachi uses a central server in addition to software on both 'client' networks. Connectivity between any two clients is pretty easy if you have an application in the middle to handle connections.
Erm, really? So, how does "example.com" resolve? Are you proposing different DNS names for *every* service offered?
Plus, you're going to need to upgrade a *lot* more than DNS, and you're giving it a purpose it's not supposed to have. The *client* is what decides what port/protocol to generate traffic on, not DNS. Also, what of applications that require multiple ports/protocols to communicate? Your change breaks the concept of servers listening, and clients generating the traffic.
Ugh... could be worse; I've seen some corporate networks use public IP space for their private network.
Plaid.
Using NAT for security is not a great idea. If your perimeter is breached, NAT is not going to save you from someone (or someone's scripts) who is determined to break into your network.
In Perl there are modules for everything.
...which, unfortunately, is partly a product of companies skimping on funding and planning for these systems when they are initially implemented. The mentality often is "get it working as cheap as possible ASAP", assuming it'll be fixed and improved it later on. This, in my experience, rarely occurs, due to (surprise!) funding and time constraints.
Is data from over a million and a half samples not useful?
Seriously though, Steam's hardware survey is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this story. It's non-intrusive, it clearly asks you before sharing any information, and it keeps the summary information available for all to see. I probably wouldn't mind sharing technical information if it worked similarly to this.
You pretty much answered your original question - iTunes comes with OS X (basically 100% of all Macs) and with every iPod (most popular DAP by far).
No, iTunes being bad/good had little to do with how ubiquitous it is, as I was sarcastically mentioning with Windows and IE. Most iPod users probably do not know or care that their device will function with software other than iTunes, because iTunes is probably 'good enough' for most users.
It is frustrating for those of us who want more choices that the iPod doesn't seem to function like most other DAPs in file management.
I don't really understand that statement - do you mean people are attempting to copy iTunes for Linux? I would agree people have attempted to copy the functionality with iPods that iTunes has, but not much else. I use Amarok in Ubuntu, which works *better* with my iPod than any other program, and does not have any quirks of iTunes that annoy me. Heck, it even lets me copy music off of other iPods without requiring them to be tethered to my machine (is it possible to do this with iTunes? I honestly am not sure).
FYI, the switch from IE to Safari on Macs did not correlate with the switch to Intel CPUs - IE was discontinued and Safari was released in mid 2003, while Intel chips were not seen in Macs until 2006.I *believe* that Quicktime (the framework) is actually required by iTunes to function. Quicktime != Quicktime player.
I think this is a very good point - you better expect a dangerous area to be dangerous. I would almost argue this isn't griefing, primarily because the act of destroying someone smaller/weaker than you in these areas is explicitly allowed with the many warnings.
...which is pretty much what you say two paragraphs later ;)
The reason people dislike griefers stems from the fact that it's essentially an infringement on their ability to enjoy the game. It's not necessarily an emotional attachment that causes others to be unhappy with you.
- first, getting killed in that fashion is frustrating, as it's often impossible to have a fighting chance against a griefer (they're high enough level to safely grief others).
- second, it can render a large amount of time to be completely wasted - in Eve, losing your ship is a huge deal for a new player, and can set them back hours or days.
- third, it can go against the spirit of the game - when you grief someone in WoW or Eve or any other similar MMO, you're not doing it primarily for experience, money, honor, etc, you're doing it because it's cheap and easy entertainment for you at the expense of someone else.
You're not the only one - I had the original DS when they first came out, then picked up one a DS lite later on. The DS lite fits in a pocket a little easier, and now I've had the older DS to play around with Linux on.
It helps they're (relatively!) cheap.
Well, sometimes it can be useful to rocket jump away from your knife-wielding assailant, so a rocket launcher would work well in those situations.
No, if they really wanted to block outbound connections on port 80, they could do so by blocking on the destination port (which would be whatever port the remote webserver is running on, generally 80) of the traffic, not the ephemeral source port. It's not like they can't see you're making a request on port 80 - if they couldn't, neither could the destination webserver.