Every Vista Computer Gets Its Own Domain Name 388
c_forq writes, "According to APC magazine, every new Windows Vista computer will be given its own domain name to access files remotely. There is a catch though: to use it one must be using IPv6. Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6?" Microsoft, meanwhile, is trying to convince businesses to adopt both Vista and Office 2007 at once. An analyst is quoted: 'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to IT systems than two. Or three.
I have been waiting this... (Score:5, Funny)
Both at the same time, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
I couldn't agree more: switch to BOTH Linux and OpenOffice.org 2.0 at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Both at the same time, eh? (Score:5, Informative)
From the screenshots I've seen of Office 2007, OOo 2.0 will probably be more immediately familiar to most Office 2003 (and previous) users than Office 2007.
IPv6 adoption. (Score:5, Insightful)
When is Slashdot going to drag itself into the 21st century, out of interest? It's not that hard. And you can use a tunnel broker if your ISP don't supply native v6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmm, using IPv6 via a broker to read Slashdot which will be linking to hosts on IPv4 anyway. Nothing like waiting even longer than normal (300+ ms ping times) to realize that a page is Slashdotted.
I used IPv6 years ago to do the only thing it was useful for: make vanity hostnames on IRC. Other than that there was absolutely no reason to use IPv6.
Currently, I still don't see any reason to switch either. Like Slashdot will make a huge difference?
Re: (Score:2)
But mainly - why not?
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:4, Informative)
This should really be a Frequently Answered Question, it comes up every time a story about IPv6 is posted.
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, unlike a firewall, some viruses and things which may need to determine their 'public' IP address will find the situation harder behind a nat.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments here, and personally have been using IPv6 on all my servers, and all my home machines for many years, and have been involved in big networking projects for many more.. Yes, NAT can be a pain in the butt, but it HAS helped keep Joe Public a little bit more secure!
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Here. Here's electricity and an electric range."
"I can't switch to that! Elephant shit COOKS MY FOOD!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
in particular one pretty much requires that you be able to execute malicious code on the router while the other only requires
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, I just set up a small business network for a friend. His 12 or so hosts get private IPs from the DHCP server, but we only leased one public IP from Comcast. In an IPv6 scheme, would I just end up getting several IPs from the ISP? And are they going to charge me more? In the end, it just seems easier to manage non-publicly-routable address space, but like I sa
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose your definition of "practical, real world use" is quite limited. But it's late, and I can't be bothered to explain.
You really want to start having to remember 8 groups of four hexidecimal digits just because "it da futar!"?
No. There's this new fangled thing recently been making itself known on the internet called DNS. Check it out sometime. Plus, once you're used to your network prefix (2001:141:3*), it's up to you how you manage the addressing within it. E.g. 2001:141:3::1 for your router, 2001:141:3::254 for your switch, or whatever you like. At work, I just map the 192.168.x.y to 2001:414:3:x::y, and it's easy to remember. IPv6 addresses **can**be shorter than the IPv4 equivalents too. 127.0.0.1 >
*This isn't my prefix.
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like you couldn't think of anything...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's also a pain in the rear for FTP and a shed load of other protocols, especially games. In recent years people have designed their applications to work around NAT, but that's not to say they couldn't be more efficient and work better without having to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- Running a server
- Faster and easier file transfers between you and your friends
- Easier to play games
- You can run a shell or a VNC and access it easily from outside
- IPsec included in the protocol, easy secure communications over any medium (wifi... )
Re:IPv6 adoption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting.
The thing wrong with IPv4 is that it is expensive if not impossible to get a large block of IP addresses, one for each machine you desire you connect to the internet.
Now, maybe you only have one machine yourself, but that in itself proves your lack of qualification to give input on this subject. It is also not the target crowd for slashdot.
If you have 50 systems and want them all on the internet, NAT does not allow you to do that. It really only allows 1. The point is sometimes 1 isnt enough, and you need more systems on the net at the same time. So NAT has to be ruled out.
Even if you want to attempt to claim port forwarding works with NAT to fake it, you fortunatly provided my argument that it doesnt.
If you have 200 web servers, port forwarded from one IP, you yourself say you would hate to remember all those ports and which machine they go to, by your complaint at remembering IP addresses in IPv6.
Fortunatly the rest of us use DNS, which lets us not have to remember IPs. DNS doesn't much help with port mappings like you prefer to use.
The point is, your usage of the internet is very very limited, and atypical of the people here on slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll also take this opportunity to plug The Digital Imprimatur [fourmilab.ch] again:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose "surfing is extremely slow" is really meaning "DNS lookups take very long" or something like that. Or is your throughput really lower?
Strange that the BSDs doesn't have those ridiculous problems. If you aren't connected via IPv6, there should be no default route for IPv6 and applications ought to fall back to IPv4 immediately.
Check with netstat -rn whether that's the case or not. If there is no defaul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Office2007 (Score:5, Funny)
More FPs? (Score:2)
Re:Office2007 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh! From time to time I relate this story, and someday I hope somebody can produce an original copy of the ad, but...
In a very early issue of PC Magazine -- or PC World, or one of the others -- circa 1984, I saw an ad for this amazing new word processing program, called WordPerfect. The selling point of the program was that it, unlike other word processors of the time, was able to keep up with a 90
Naysayers, post here (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
domain names (Score:5, Funny)
microsoft-eats-children.share.live.com
nochildpornhere.share.live.com
microsoftupdate.com.share.live.com
update.paypal.com.share.live.com
freexxxdonkiesandmidgetsgonewild.share.live.com
Re: (Score:2)
ms-prnp-is-the-digital-equivalent-of-bare-backing- on-meth.com
Re:domain names (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:domain names (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, that belongs to the Gnome group . . .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Upgrade cycles (Score:5, Insightful)
Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not ready for IPv6 yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
With IPv6, there are (effectively) an unlimited number of IP addresses available for spammers. "Effectively" because no one is going to run a database big enough to track them as fast as the spammers change them. Every message could come from its own IP address on a cracked system.
And the other article
Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Risks:
- Inherent and unknown risk of new unproven OS.
- Inability to do business due to hosed OS.
- Interoperability (incompatible older files)
- Incompatible software, particularly custom software will need to be upgraded or replaced.
- Underestimation of hardware required to run new hungry OS
- Increased costs takes away from business spending to allocate new hardware, s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll just have to come up with a better way to block spam (anything is better than that braindead scheme) or fall by the wayside.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a perfect alfgorithm to fight spam I can tell you... But you'll need to ditch IPv4 too.
Frankly, I don't need IPV6 (Score:2)
Can someone remind me again why we didn't go OSI instead? Rather than re-inventing the wheel again, that is. Oh yeah, design by committee...
IPV6 has been defined by a working group, not a committee... That's ok then...
C'mon, give me a reason to upgrade. What do I get out of it?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not ready for computers yet. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So track subnets. How is this hard?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IP6 wont change that, since the ISP will still be assigning one subnet per user, and probably have one subnet for all their DSL accounts.
I'd even go as far as saying the migration to IP6 would make it *easier* to block spammers and botnets because of the far more structured approach used to allocate addresses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a good a time as any to update their systems. Quite honestly I would these system get updated before IPv6 starts to get widely used, rather than after.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense. You cannot just make up an IP address to use on the internet, if you expect it to work. You have to use the addresses allocated to you by your provider. No provider is going to assign you an effectively unlimited number of addresses to work with. Most of the IPv6 addresses are going to remain unallocated for a long time.
There will be approximately as many (same order of magnitude) allocated IPv6 addresses
Why upgrade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day I use such great microsoft products as NT 4, Office 97 (with outlook upgraded with the free 98 (about a year ago, OL 97 before that), IE 5.5, or is it 5.0? I forget.
Simple truth is most companies have no reason to upgrade. It aint gonna make them more money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Large companies can afford it, no problem. Staff don't usually like having out of date skills; there are security issues with older software. You'll get no support, and when things go wrong and time/money IS lost, you'll have a hard job justifying it to those above you.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience the bigger companies keep with what they have and never upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
And the reason is ... (Score:2)
And the reason for that, in my experience, is that the bigger companies have more time and expertise invested in their existing systems.
Changing a server OS & app when you have 10 people using it is far different than when you have 10,000 people using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Whew. It's a good thing there won't be security issues with any software released from this day forward.
1) Good 2) understandable (Score:4, Interesting)
As for them pushing the update to Office 2007 - well, that's what they're in business for... I'm not amazed and I'm not disapointed.
Sales guy's wet dream (Score:5, Insightful)
How about changing one thing at a time and seeing how it works, first?
Re: (Score:2)
Admit it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the push finally to switch (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, right. My ISP and may others are out there port blocking so that I can't share any files on my Windows boxes across the Internet with normal Windows file sharing techniques, and somehow we are expected to believe that with Vista will come a drastic change in mindset, rather than going out of their way to block ports to stop us from doing something, ISPs will suddenly expend effort to make connectivity better? Yea, sure, I believe that as much as I believe anything Microsoft says.
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't many ISPs out there with a bigger PR department than MS.
uh (Score:2)
They
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Proprietary Network Resolution Protocol
IPv6 or IPv6[TM}? (Score:4, Interesting)
Job Security... (Score:2)
Chinese Torture (Score:2)
'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to its IT systems than two.
Of course. The Chinese used this reasoning when developing torture techniques. Would you rather die with a single gunshot to the brain, or millions of tiny paper cuts?
IT systems to Microsoft: "Please, just get it over with."
Security Hole anyone? (Score:2)
Sure MS has t
As Former IT... (Score:2)
Office 2007, I'd do across the whole company. We had a procedure to upgrade people. Now mind you we had 120 employees, so our problems/solutions may not match yours. We had a requirement where -EVERY- user had to come to the IT room for the upgrade, and we checked off the whiteboard who got what. After $time, anyone who didn't, got loc
Set Top Box!! (Score:2)
But then, as the handcuffs start to tighten when MS demands more and more in license costs then what? Where do enterprises go in 3-5 years?
You won't be able to switch to linux because MS will have Embraced/Extended/Extinguished it. (as mentioned here: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/07/ 1435204 [slashdot.org])
If you value your freedom, then you will switch OS's. Now. Mac/BSD/Linux are three to consi
Seems like a ruse for marketing to me (Score:2)
this very much resembles it. 'its better if you change them all' or implyingly, 'you have to change them all'. which is definitely something that came out of 'marketi
PNRP vs. zeroconf? (Score:3, Interesting)
.
Re:PNRP vs. zeroconf? (Score:4, Interesting)
PNRP is Microsoft's attempt to replace DNS with their own P2P naming system under IPV6. It's patented, so of course making stuff compatible with it outside of the Microsoft domain will be illegal, hazardous to your IP, or require a small percentage of your immortal soul.
Shortly after it's common, people are going to discover a number of things:
The whole replacing-DNS thing seems unlikely to work out. Yet another toxic service to turn off, it should set back IPv6 adoption three years or more.
*shakes head* (Score:3, Interesting)
hey (Score:3, Funny)
Added Value (Score:4, Insightful)
So, all in all, I think this is a move in the right direction. Added value to the legit buyers, rather than bullshit like 'Genuine Advantage' that only benefits MS.
Microsoft DNS .. (Score:3, Informative)
Way to invalidate IPv6's advantage. (Score:3, Interesting)
So what exactly is this useful for? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, first off, that name is going to be biglig-p.p4562b4628ac54782dda52789038476237e7c726
Secondly, if someone is connecting to your machine, that means you've got to have a service listening to it, right? So you have to configure the service, and your firewall. So why not spend another 5 minutes registering a DDNS name that doesn't look like you spilt coke on your numeric keypad?
Thirdly, what sort of service do you need to run on your PC? Web page to host your photos? Er.. Flickr. Web page of your diary? Er... Blogger. Video? Er... YourTube. Share your documents? Er... Writely. etc. etc. Only one I can think of is remote control so your granny can connect to your PC and fix it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of businesses are not opposed to their software infrastructure being "DRM infested" - in fact I suspect they prefer it. Believe it or not they would rather that their employees *not* spend all day listening to music or watching movies. And they are usually somewhat opposed to employees running P2P on their networks as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's perfectly easy to accomplish all of that in *nix and has been for decades.
No, the reason the vast majority of businesses are not opposed to their software infrastructure being "DRM infested" is the management of purely internal documents. The shit they don't want the SE
Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I heard those Linux media players suck, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they suck, because all they do mostly is just play your music and stuff. They don't have all those totally cool features the popular commerical media players have, like connecting the web to look for plugins and updates, nagging you every time you play anything that you need to buy another related product (*cough* Real *cough*), and filling up your screen with stupid "visualizations" of your music. (Okay, so xmms does have the stupid visualizati
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of us are like that, just the noisy half.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
. .
Sir, . . . what makes you . . . zealots so ridiculous . .
. .
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's an operating system. Operating systems broker between computing resources and computer software.
As such, the argument for any superior operating system is "It does what (inferior system) does, only so much better."
Regardless, is the fact that it does the same thing better and cheaper not a reasonable argument for using it? Did we get transported into some parallel dimension where those are not desirable quali
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "average user" will not need to worry about how to configure it. Any good malware will take care of that quite nicely. As for it being nearly invisible, the "average user" seems not to worry about highly visible malware, judging by the various toolbars I see in the browsers of users complaining of poor performance. Micr
Re: (Score:2)