So, routers running BGP need 1GB* of RAM to support IPv6? Considering that my phone has twice that much memory, it doesn't seem like that big a problem....
In routers it is special (associative) memory. Normally you look up values stored in your phones ram by asking the question "what data is located at 0x00001337" in routers you are asking a much higher level question "what interface should I send data packets going toward 1.3.3.7"
The routers have a kind of hardware key value store requiring a lot more money and power to operate vs. ram found in normal computers and phones.
It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics.
In the IPv6 case the projections for run out have been right on the money. The only people screaming "the world didn't end" are media people looking to whore hits to their sites. Addressing authorities and publicized events ( IPv6 Day) all included FAQs clarifying the end of the world does not happen at exhaustion.
Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction.
I have a feeling if you were head of state for some dinky island nation in the middle of nowhere and you looked at the projections for sea level rise vs land area of your country effectively consumed or endangered by conditions (tides, storms) you would not be so quick to sound the hyperbole alarm.
The same goes for small VM/hosting provider who runs out of IPs to assign to new customers... these things are a "big fucking deal" to them but for everyone else it is hyperbole or even beneficial. Climate change has winners and so does IPv4 exhaustion. CGN vendors, competitors who "planned ahead" hoarding more addresses than they were supposed to or those blessed with massive legacy allocations have market advantage with respect to IPv4 exhaustion the rest of us don't.
The IPv4 crisis was around when I got into IT back in the early 90s. So thats...over 20 years? That can't be right because, counting forward from...D'oh!
Looking back over the years it is surprisingly how well the projections for run out have fit with reality of address availability and how early belt tightening decades ago (CIDR, documentation requirements) have staved off the inevitable.
Number of routes that will fit in hardware associative memory.
As we continue to divide the internet into smaller routable blocks, this is requiring an exponential amount of memory in BGP routers.
Exhaustion is certainly not helping.
IPv6 makes this problem 4 times worse.
The minimum routable IPv4 prefix is 24 bits. On the IPv6 network it is 48 bits. So absolute worse case 2x. You can do much better in the real world.
While there will be some (small?) savings from increase in route aggregation it is also true it uses more memory than IPv4... for now until IPv4 route disaggregation from scarcity becomes dominant.
IPv6 is a failure, we don't actually _need_ everything to have a publicly routable address
A failure currently growing faster than the IPv4 network.
There were only two real problems with IPv4: wasted space on legacy headers nobody uses
The content of the IP layer header is not a real problem. The real problem is there are >2^32 humans on this planet. The problem is entirely ADDRESSING not formats of headers. Any solution to make the address bigger is functionally the same solution as IPv6 where it matters.
and NAT traversal. IETF thumbed their noses as NAT (not-invented-here syndrome) and instead of solving real problems using a pave-the-cowpaths-approach, they opted to design something that nobody has a real use for
In a world of youtube, netflix, facebook, and twitter it does not much matter what the network looks like...NAT it to hell and back it will all work just the same and nobody cares...well except for ISPs who have to shell out cash for CGNs and Media companies who have to put up with ISP CGN suckage.
In a world where humans see value of communicating with each other as peers over an IP network where everyone can talk to everyone else without having to obtain prior permission then it matters big time. Even if everyone is stuck behind IPv6 SPI they have the capability to allow communication or use a common service to prime NAT/SPI state machines for direct peer to peer communication. If both communicating partners are stuck behind a CGN using many to many or port range MAPping then even building a direct connection between peers becomes impossible and the carriers rather than users become gatekeepers on allowing incoming connections.
Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.
The only solution to pigeonhole problem is effective increase of address size (e.g. Area codes) if you do this you've already taken most of the hit in changing addressing scheme... only you've elected to do it using duct tape and bailing wire.
If you think hardware associative memory is a scarce expensive resource imagine how much more it must cost to manage NAT state at scale. Even partial deployment of IPv6 would reduce operational costs in a NAT dominated world.
Comcast brags (http://comcast6.net) that they are the largest ISP that supports ipv6. Oh wow, cool. I have a new modem that supports it as well as a home router.
So I go to figure out how to do it and find that they are only assigning/128s (single IPs) to only certain markets.
Who has a single computer hooked up to the Internet at home and nothing else?
A/128 is what you get when you don't request a delegated prefix via DHCP v6.
I feel compelled to write a paper to "take seriously" the question of number of advanced civilizations having destroyed themselves by exploiting flaws in the host simulation.
Secondly we should "take seriously" the number of such exploits having lead to cascading destruction of themselves and the simulation of host universe above them.
These questions and more are all knowable by application of hand waving test you could interpret to mean that which creates the most attention to yourself.
In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on atrazine and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."
If you want to solve this problem you might start with educating those who elect to move about care free in public advertising their expensive wares everywhere they go.
Way to go Turkey, information wants to be censored. We got yer back. Need filters or narc bots you call us. We'll hook you up with the ultimate post Slashpocalyptic beta software.
With third party doctrine relied upon almost exclusively to produce with little or no showing what everyone in modern society assumes and thinks to be their property as constitutional basis to legitimize what otherwise would be constitutionally illegitimate what really could one expect legal effect of the patriot act going away to be?
The linchpin seems to be the third party doctrine you pull that patriot act, stored communications act and all manner of accumulated doublespeak becomes unconstitutional overnight.
What is sad to me I personally don't object in principal to governments being allowed to access information or search you or your home as long as evidentiary standards are met and a non-puppet legal regime reviews and signs off on it.
By all the shenanigans and overreach (both real and imagined) where things are actually headed is a situation where governments lose that capability more than would ever be necessary had they simply behaved themselves.
I would be ok with the practice if everyone who does it went to jail along with the person they bust. Even if the suspect is ultimately found not guilty the parallel constructionist should still go to jail.
Problem is there is no such thing as "good code". It is only acceptable to measure quality of code in relative levels of suck. Anyone who thinks they write "good code" is delusional.
It is not possible for you to sit there and make blanket statements of this sort without any knowledge understanding of problem space. Like it or not things are interrelated and if you don't know what your doing your failure to understand dependencies can be the source of problems.
No, if you can't tell, then you are definitely not competent enough to judge good code from bad code.
You assume too much.
He did. Adding a feature broke other features. That's a red flag right away.
Clueless developer inherits code, changes a utility function used elsewhere to work with one subsystem he is "enhancing" and it does work but clueless developer failed to understand all other places utility function used and his tinkering has now screwed up the other systems where it is used. Is this the previous developers fault too? Blanket statements are worthless. Blanket statements made without any understanding of any context are even more worthless. It simply is not possible to establish fault based on effect alone. Either party can by their (in)actions lead to the same outcomes.
"You create a small new feature, and the app breaks down in unexpected ways. You fix a bug, and new bugs pop up all over the place."
When an app breaks because you fucked with it does all or even most of the blame for this rest on your predecessors shoulders?
I've seen this show many times before.. I would say it is a crapshoot as to who (old guy or new guy) was actually incompetent...usually some combination of both. A good simple *proxy* for reasoning about this is does the code handle all possible failure modes it is responsible? If shit just crashes or goes bonkers when it runs out of 'x' then you can normally expect that developer to be careless, lazy and incompetent this will manifest in all other aspects of system quality.
Otherwise it is very difficult to make any kind of determination without becoming intimately involved with the system. Sometimes you as developer just have to be more careful and suck it up as the problem space itself could be pretty gnarly to begin with and you as a nub may lack certain domain knowledge / experience.
To summarize if someone comes to me and tells me 'x' is shit and needs to be rewritten you should expect to come fully prepared to back up your claims. Introspection required.
I can live with this arrangement if TSA is relegated to "hands on" screening of high risk (actual high risk) passengers and letting the rest of us get to where we're going. The pre-check program is a step in the right direction,
I'm pretty sure this is exactly the response the government is banking on.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal unless a classified government algorithm determines otherwise"
From a security perspective the security of a system is only as good as its weakest link and the feedback channel afforded to potential adversaries in obtaining pre-check status is such an enormously ridiculous concept I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks groping + irradiation is necessary for security would have any difficulty with a conclusion that TSA is grossly negligent for implementation of pre-check.
If you conduct a financial transaction in the USA it is not private in any way.
Irrelevant. The US government is not allowed to aggregate data and compile dossiers on every citizen. There is a difference between an "expectation of privacy" and being stalked or having automated fishing expeditions..etc being run against people for any reason where there is no specific cause or reason to suspect.
Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.
Yep totally... prosecute Snowden...after...
Clapper is prosecuted for lying to congress.
Top people in the previous administration are punished (If I were prosecutor I would push for death penalty) for lying to the world about reasons for starting an elective war with Iraq that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and counting.
And every lawyer and TLA official who knowingly subverts the constitution every time they pull a new stellar wind out of their assholes. Collecting is not collecting unless we looked at what we collected.... And top officials actually did go in front of congress spewing such utter nonsense thinking they were being clever.
The "rule of law" only holds meaning in the context of legitimacy of the state which has been severely strained not by any action of Snowden but by series of ongoing illegal actions of the state.
Yep, I'm sure everyone who a machine deems to be undesirable is just going to sit quietly on the sidelines and take no further action like any self respecting fraudster/scammer/spammer always does.
Unless algorithms are smarter than humans and you have a monopoly on such algorithms expect humans to adopt and continue with their bullshit only now they will be much harder to systematically "classify". All the while during this unwinnable evolution of war real people continue to be flagged and collateral damage accrues... but don't take my word for it... try to send an email and have any assurance if it being delivered and not silently ignored by a "machine learning" algorithm answerable to nobody.
Throughout the years I have seen instances of precisely this kind of arrogance in various forms.
Everything always "seems easy" at first glance on the surface. This is more often than not a reflection of gaps in ones understanding or failure to consider the problem space with sufficient detail.
The other major issue is failure to understand the sometimes monumental difference between building something that "works for me" vs "works for everyone".
Anyone can hack together an arduino that flips a relay when temperature sensor reads outside of a certain threshold and package it up to look like a cheap version of the nest. This proves precisely NOTHING in my estimation.
Actually he's correct and you're the one with no clue. Modern attack vectors are not the OS holes - they are browser holes, email software holes, PDF reader holes and so on. In fact, essentially all OS holes that can be exploited directly without third party are secured by a solid third party firewall.
I've noticed a number of GDI and Font type patches drop over the last years... these can get thru firewalls and exploit OS specific issues from any number of browsers or document rendering technology. Coupled with a few privilege escalation vulns of which there are infinite numbers and the result is you can still get owned pretty quickly hiding behind your firewalls.
I'm sitting here now, virtualizing applications in App-V for an XP --> 7 migration project. Most people have no idea the scope of applications used by any sufficiently large company, the sort of resources it takes to locate, acquire, and upgrade existing products, or the skill necessary to shoe-horn old applications business can't move quickly away from into an operating system they were never intended for.
You can lose days in finding keys for "critical" one-off licensed software for a machine swap. God forbid you're moving to 64-bit and dealing with old.NET apps that nobody's going to ever re-write. It's not just walking around and swapping out some PCs.
I never really understood... I mean what is so different about win32 environment in XP vs Win7? If your writing drivers or doing some particularly funky low level foo, interfacing with hardware without windows 7 support... sure I get it...but beyond that I don't understand the problem for your typical business apps and the application space they operate.
What version of any.NET app won't work on Windows 7? What breaks for win32 apps when run on 64-bit operating systems? I'm sure there are quite a lot of answers... I am willfully ignorant...I don't get what the big deal is... Win7 has with some exceptions all the same APIs as XP did. Could someone list specific issues??
Except energy use requires energy production. Energy production typically requires the creation of at least some pollution, which effects us all. We live in a society and have to consider what's best for the society as a whole.
Every year during the UN general assembly superpowers summarize all the wars they are fighting, Macedonians threaten to wipe Greece off the face of the map, third world countries blame the gross mismanagement of their own lands on climate change and all the worlds tiny island nations throw a fit over how their countries are literally sinking into the sea from cumulative effects of everyone else's pollution.
The problem with "considering what's best for the society as a whole" is that in actual reality nobody gives a flying fuck. Tree huggers never accomplished anything, attempts at changing behaviors with sticks offers only a slightly better outcomes. The only way to solve pollution and supply problems is to provide or work to provide consensus for solutions the market is willing to accept. Anything short of this is a fairy tail the world will ignore.
If you can source it within budget run twisted romex everywhere and get a whole house surge suppressor. Just might keep yer gear from gettin crispified via "inductive coupling" from nearby lightning strikes:(
Since we all live on a planet with finite resources, overconsumption of limited resources is everyone's business.
Unless you live in a clay hut without a motorized vehicle, electricity, fruit loops or Internet access moral relativism necessary to keep from being branded a hypocrite would be funny if it were not so outrageously sad. Don't judge least ye be judged. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...etc. ad nauseam.
Slashdot Mirror
So, routers running BGP need 1GB* of RAM to support IPv6? Considering that my phone has twice that much memory, it doesn't seem like that big a problem....
In routers it is special (associative) memory. Normally you look up values stored in your phones ram by asking the question "what data is located at 0x00001337" in routers you are asking a much higher level question "what interface should I send data packets going toward 1.3.3.7"
The routers have a kind of hardware key value store requiring a lot more money and power to operate vs. ram found in normal computers and phones.
The human tendency for hyperbole happened.
Or more accurately "does not effect me"
It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics.
In the IPv6 case the projections for run out have been right on the money. The only people screaming "the world didn't end" are media people looking to whore hits to their sites. Addressing authorities and publicized events ( IPv6 Day) all included FAQs clarifying the end of the world does not happen at exhaustion.
Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction.
I have a feeling if you were head of state for some dinky island nation in the middle of nowhere and you looked at the projections for sea level rise vs land area of your country effectively consumed or endangered by conditions (tides, storms) you would not be so quick to sound the hyperbole alarm.
The same goes for small VM/hosting provider who runs out of IPs to assign to new customers... these things are a "big fucking deal" to them but for everyone else it is hyperbole or even beneficial. Climate change has winners and so does IPv4 exhaustion. CGN vendors, competitors who "planned ahead" hoarding more addresses than they were supposed to or those blessed with massive legacy allocations have market advantage with respect to IPv4 exhaustion the rest of us don't.
The IPv4 crisis was around when I got into IT back in the early 90s. So thats...over 20 years? That can't be right because, counting forward from...D'oh!
Looking back over the years it is surprisingly how well the projections for run out have fit with reality of address availability and how early belt tightening decades ago (CIDR, documentation requirements) have staved off the inevitable.
I guess enough people finally got around to reading it.
Show of hands who here prefers an RFC 1918 address handed down by their ISP with no choice or a real IP address they can do whatever they want with?
Now what is the worlds population?
The real problem is routing table size with BGP
Number of routes that will fit in hardware associative memory.
As we continue to divide the internet into smaller routable blocks, this is requiring an exponential amount of memory in BGP routers.
Exhaustion is certainly not helping.
IPv6 makes this problem 4 times worse.
The minimum routable IPv4 prefix is 24 bits. On the IPv6 network it is 48 bits. So absolute worse case 2x. You can do much better in the real world.
While there will be some (small?) savings from increase in route aggregation it is also true it uses more memory than IPv4 ... for now until IPv4 route disaggregation from scarcity becomes dominant.
IPv6 is a failure, we don't actually _need_ everything to have a publicly routable address
A failure currently growing faster than the IPv4 network.
There were only two real problems with IPv4: wasted space on legacy headers nobody uses
The content of the IP layer header is not a real problem. The real problem is there are >2^32 humans on this planet. The problem is entirely ADDRESSING not formats of headers. Any solution to make the address bigger is functionally the same solution as IPv6 where it matters.
and NAT traversal. IETF thumbed their noses as NAT (not-invented-here syndrome) and instead of solving real problems using a pave-the-cowpaths-approach, they opted to design something that nobody has a real use for
In a world of youtube, netflix, facebook, and twitter it does not much matter what the network looks like...NAT it to hell and back it will all work just the same and nobody cares...well except for ISPs who have to shell out cash for CGNs and Media companies who have to put up with ISP CGN suckage.
In a world where humans see value of communicating with each other as peers over an IP network where everyone can talk to everyone else without having to obtain prior permission then it matters big time. Even if everyone is stuck behind IPv6 SPI they have the capability to allow communication or use a common service to prime NAT/SPI state machines for direct peer to peer communication. If both communicating partners are stuck behind a CGN using many to many or port range MAPping then even building a direct connection between peers becomes impossible and the carriers rather than users become gatekeepers on allowing incoming connections.
Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.
The only solution to pigeonhole problem is effective increase of address size (e.g. Area codes) if you do this you've already taken most of the hit in changing addressing scheme... only you've elected to do it using duct tape and bailing wire.
If you think hardware associative memory is a scarce expensive resource imagine how much more it must cost to manage NAT state at scale. Even partial deployment of IPv6 would reduce operational costs in a NAT dominated world.
Comcast brags (http://comcast6.net) that they are the largest ISP that supports ipv6. Oh wow, cool. I have a new modem that supports it as well as a home router.
So I go to figure out how to do it and find that they are only assigning /128s (single IPs) to only certain markets.
Who has a single computer hooked up to the Internet at home and nothing else?
A /128 is what you get when you don't request a delegated prefix via DHCP v6.
I feel compelled to write a paper to "take seriously" the question of number of advanced civilizations having destroyed themselves by exploiting flaws in the host simulation.
Secondly we should "take seriously" the number of such exploits having lead to cascading destruction of themselves and the simulation of host universe above them.
These questions and more are all knowable by application of hand waving test you could interpret to mean that which creates the most attention to yourself.
In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on atrazine and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."
It's called regulatory capture motha f**kers.
If you want to solve this problem you might start with educating those who elect to move about care free in public advertising their expensive wares everywhere they go.
Way to go Turkey, information wants to be censored. We got yer back. Need filters or narc bots you call us. We'll hook you up with the ultimate post Slashpocalyptic beta software.
With third party doctrine relied upon almost exclusively to produce with little or no showing what everyone in modern society assumes and thinks to be their property as constitutional basis to legitimize what otherwise would be constitutionally illegitimate what really could one expect legal effect of the patriot act going away to be?
The linchpin seems to be the third party doctrine you pull that patriot act, stored communications act and all manner of accumulated doublespeak becomes unconstitutional overnight.
What is sad to me I personally don't object in principal to governments being allowed to access information or search you or your home as long as evidentiary standards are met and a non-puppet legal regime reviews and signs off on it.
By all the shenanigans and overreach (both real and imagined) where things are actually headed is a situation where governments lose that capability more than would ever be necessary had they simply behaved themselves.
No sense defending the indefensible jquery syntax IS offensive and unnecessary.
I would be ok with the practice if everyone who does it went to jail along with the person they bust. Even if the suspect is ultimately found not guilty the parallel constructionist should still go to jail.
Because good code doesn't do that.
Problem is there is no such thing as "good code". It is only acceptable to measure quality of code in relative levels of suck. Anyone who thinks they write "good code" is delusional.
It is not possible for you to sit there and make blanket statements of this sort without any knowledge understanding of problem space. Like it or not things are interrelated and if you don't know what your doing your failure to understand dependencies can be the source of problems.
No, if you can't tell, then you are definitely not competent enough to judge good code from bad code.
You assume too much.
He did. Adding a feature broke other features. That's a red flag right away.
Clueless developer inherits code, changes a utility function used elsewhere to work with one subsystem he is "enhancing" and it does work but clueless developer failed to understand all other places utility function used and his tinkering has now screwed up the other systems where it is used. Is this the previous developers fault too? Blanket statements are worthless. Blanket statements made without any understanding of any context are even more worthless. It simply is not possible to establish fault based on effect alone. Either party can by their (in)actions lead to the same outcomes.
"You create a small new feature, and the app breaks down in unexpected ways. You fix a bug, and new bugs pop up all over the place."
When an app breaks because you fucked with it does all or even most of the blame for this rest on your predecessors shoulders?
I've seen this show many times before.. I would say it is a crapshoot as to who (old guy or new guy) was actually incompetent...usually some combination of both. A good simple *proxy* for reasoning about this is does the code handle all possible failure modes it is responsible? If shit just crashes or goes bonkers when it runs out of 'x' then you can normally expect that developer to be careless, lazy and incompetent this will manifest in all other aspects of system quality.
Otherwise it is very difficult to make any kind of determination without becoming intimately involved with the system. Sometimes you as developer just have to be more careful and suck it up as the problem space itself could be pretty gnarly to begin with and you as a nub may lack certain domain knowledge / experience.
To summarize if someone comes to me and tells me 'x' is shit and needs to be rewritten you should expect to come fully prepared to back up your claims. Introspection required.
I can live with this arrangement if TSA is relegated to "hands on" screening of high risk (actual high risk) passengers and letting the rest of us get to where we're going. The pre-check program is a step in the right direction,
I'm pretty sure this is exactly the response the government is banking on.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal unless a classified government algorithm determines otherwise"
From a security perspective the security of a system is only as good as its weakest link and the feedback channel afforded to potential adversaries in obtaining pre-check status is such an enormously ridiculous concept I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks groping + irradiation is necessary for security would have any difficulty with a conclusion that TSA is grossly negligent for implementation of pre-check.
If you conduct a financial transaction in the USA it is not private in any way.
Irrelevant. The US government is not allowed to aggregate data and compile dossiers on every citizen. There is a difference between an "expectation of privacy" and being stalked or having automated fishing expeditions..etc being run against people for any reason where there is no specific cause or reason to suspect.
Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.
Yep totally... prosecute Snowden...after...
Clapper is prosecuted for lying to congress.
Top people in the previous administration are punished (If I were prosecutor I would push for death penalty) for lying to the world about reasons for starting an elective war with Iraq that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and counting.
And every lawyer and TLA official who knowingly subverts the constitution every time they pull a new stellar wind out of their assholes. Collecting is not collecting unless we looked at what we collected.... And top officials actually did go in front of congress spewing such utter nonsense thinking they were being clever.
The "rule of law" only holds meaning in the context of legitimacy of the state which has been severely strained not by any action of Snowden but by series of ongoing illegal actions of the state.
Yep, I'm sure everyone who a machine deems to be undesirable is just going to sit quietly on the sidelines and take no further action like any self respecting fraudster/scammer/spammer always does.
Unless algorithms are smarter than humans and you have a monopoly on such algorithms expect humans to adopt and continue with their bullshit only now they will be much harder to systematically "classify". All the while during this unwinnable evolution of war real people continue to be flagged and collateral damage accrues... but don't take my word for it ... try to send an email and have any assurance if it being delivered and not silently ignored by a "machine learning" algorithm answerable to nobody.
Throughout the years I have seen instances of precisely this kind of arrogance in various forms.
Everything always "seems easy" at first glance on the surface. This is more often than not a reflection of gaps in ones understanding or failure to consider the problem space with sufficient detail.
The other major issue is failure to understand the sometimes monumental difference between building something that "works for me" vs "works for everyone".
Anyone can hack together an arduino that flips a relay when temperature sensor reads outside of a certain threshold and package it up to look like a cheap version of the nest. This proves precisely NOTHING in my estimation.
Actually he's correct and you're the one with no clue. Modern attack vectors are not the OS holes - they are browser holes, email software holes, PDF reader holes and so on. In fact, essentially all OS holes that can be exploited directly without third party are secured by a solid third party firewall.
I've noticed a number of GDI and Font type patches drop over the last years... these can get thru firewalls and exploit OS specific issues from any number of browsers or document rendering technology. Coupled with a few privilege escalation vulns of which there are infinite numbers and the result is you can still get owned pretty quickly hiding behind your firewalls.
I'm sitting here now, virtualizing applications in App-V for an XP --> 7 migration project. Most people have no idea the scope of applications used by any sufficiently large company, the sort of resources it takes to locate, acquire, and upgrade existing products, or the skill necessary to shoe-horn old applications business can't move quickly away from into an operating system they were never intended for.
You can lose days in finding keys for "critical" one-off licensed software for a machine swap. God forbid you're moving to 64-bit and dealing with old .NET apps that nobody's going to ever re-write. It's not just walking around and swapping out some PCs.
I never really understood... I mean what is so different about win32 environment in XP vs Win7? If your writing drivers or doing some particularly funky low level foo, interfacing with hardware without windows 7 support... sure I get it...but beyond that I don't understand the problem for your typical business apps and the application space they operate.
What version of any .NET app won't work on Windows 7? What breaks for win32 apps when run on 64-bit operating systems? I'm sure there are quite a lot of answers... I am willfully ignorant...I don't get what the big deal is... Win7 has with some exceptions all the same APIs as XP did. Could someone list specific issues??
Except energy use requires energy production. Energy production typically requires the creation of at least some pollution, which effects us all. We live in a society and have to consider what's best for the society as a whole.
Every year during the UN general assembly superpowers summarize all the wars they are fighting, Macedonians threaten to wipe Greece off the face of the map, third world countries blame the gross mismanagement of their own lands on climate change and all the worlds tiny island nations throw a fit over how their countries are literally sinking into the sea from cumulative effects of everyone else's pollution.
The problem with "considering what's best for the society as a whole" is that in actual reality nobody gives a flying fuck. Tree huggers never accomplished anything, attempts at changing behaviors with sticks offers only a slightly better outcomes. The only way to solve pollution and supply problems is to provide or work to provide consensus for solutions the market is willing to accept. Anything short of this is a fairy tail the world will ignore.
If you can source it within budget run twisted romex everywhere and get a whole house surge suppressor. Just might keep yer gear from gettin crispified via "inductive coupling" from nearby lightning strikes :(
Since we all live on a planet with finite resources, overconsumption of limited resources is everyone's business.
Unless you live in a clay hut without a motorized vehicle, electricity, fruit loops or Internet access moral relativism necessary to keep from being branded a hypocrite would be funny if it were not so outrageously sad. Don't judge least ye be judged. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...etc. ad nauseam.