Every Vista Computer Gets Its Own Domain Name

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.

IPv6 adoption.

[caluml]

Anything that gets IPv6 in use.
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.

Upgrade cycles

[fohat]

I don't think it is all that wise to upgrade both an OS and a full Office suite at the same time. It's really best to roll out one thing at a time, and make sure it all works. The UI changes alone are going to freak users out. I know of places that are just now rolling out XP, and they are doing it one section at a time. The more testing you do, the safer you are.

Who knew?

[zptao]

Vista will actually be useful... 1) Fueling hardware upgrades 2) Encouraging, on a huge scale, migration to IPv6 3) Fixing a great deal of the holes in WinXP 4) Allowing hardware changes without requiring new installations of Vista 5) etc...

We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[khasim]

Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.

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 ... no way is it easier to upgrade the hardware, the OS and the apps at the same time. You'll waste too much time trying to find out if the problem is a bad motherboard or driver or ... anything.

Why upgrade?

[Carrot007]

Please try to convince my company to upgrade!

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.

Sales guy's wet dream

[chill]

Vista and Office at the same time? Someone in the sales dept. is smoking crack and dreaming of an annual bonus. Hell, why not upgrade all the servers to 2003, Exchange, etc.!

How about changing one thing at a time and seeing how it works, first?

the push finally to switch

[frovingslosh]

...going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6..

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:IPv6 adoption.

[garcia]

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.

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:Why upgrade?

[Threni]

> Simple truth is most companies have no reason to upgrade. It aint gonna make them more money.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[LaughingCoder]

... paying ridiculous prices for bug ridden software with DRM restrictions, ...

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:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[kensai]

Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.

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:IPv6 adoption.

[caluml]

"Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting."

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 > ::1.

*This isn't my prefix.

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's perfectly easy to accomplish all of that in *nix and has been for decades.

So, your argument for Linux is "it does what Windows does, only soooo much betterer".

And this, Sir, is what makes you Linux zealots so ridiculous and is the reason why I command my recruiters to ignore any resumées with "Linux", "GTK" or "Qt" in it.

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[kfg]

So, your argument for Linux is . . .

. . .completely unstated in this thread, so far.

Sir, . . . what makes you . . . zealots so ridiculous . . ."

. . .is canned resposes to arguments that have not been made.

KFG

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[syousef]

The benefits outweigh the risks. In every great change, there will always be downsides and dissenters. It's an inevitable outcome of progress.

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, software and training.

Benefit:
- Possibly a nicer looking OS.
- New features (none of which change or contribute to business functions)

Where do I sign up? Seriously name one new thing this OS offers businesses that they don't have with XP. Please don't start with security because that's farcical. XP was more stable than 98 and refined the UI. 98 more stable than 95 and improved support for new hardware. 95 made 3.11 look like a toy. 3.11 moved you to a GUI.

Vista does what better? A 3D desktop you can flip through. Gimme a break! The desktop doesn't need improving. Improved IPv6. Not useful at this point to most businesses. 3D graphics improvements with DX10? Not needed. Most of the rest has been stripped out.

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[Midnight Thunder]

Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.

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:IPv6 adoption.

[binford2k]

Don't spout about something you know nothing of. NAT is a terrible (although very clever) hack that completely breaks the idea of a layered network stack. It doesn't "solve" anything.

Go read the RFCs.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[welsh git]

NAT is shit, IPv6 means we can get rid of it once and for all

Whilst I agree about the problems NAT has caused, that's a rather glib statement. It has helped get people out of a hole, and the many home-routers these days with natd have helped insulate PCs from the net for newbies, which can only be a good thing.

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[jandrese]

How about making it effectively impossible for Worms to spread by IP scanning? Without botnets deployed by worms the spammers will have a much more difficult time getting up and running.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[cortana]

BTW, Internet users in asian and third-world countries already have to suffer through 4-5 layers of NAT. But I guess end-to-end connectivity isn't important for non-first-worlders?

I'll also take this opportunity to plug The Digital Imprimatur [fourmilab.ch] again:

Over time, this equality among Internet users has eroded, in large part due to technical workarounds to cope with the limited 32-bit address space of the present day Internet... With the advent of broadband DSL and cable television Internet connections, a segmentation of the Internet community is coming into being...

The typical home user never notices NAT; it just works. But that user is no longer a peer of all other Internet users as the original architecture of the network intended. In particular, the home user behind a NAT box has been relegated to the role of a consumer of Internet services. Such a user cannot create a Web site on their broadband connection, since the NAT box will not permit inbound connections from external sites. Nor can the user set up true peer to peer connections with other users behind NAT boxes, as there's an insuperable chicken and egg problem creating a bidirectional connection between them.

Sites with persistent, unrestricted Internet connections now constitute a privileged class, able to use the Internet in ways a consumer site cannot. They can set up servers, create new kinds of Internet services, establish peer to peer connections with other sites--employ the Internet in all of the ways it was originally intended to be used. We might term these sites "publishers" or "broadcasters", with the NATted/firewalled home users their consumers or audience.

Re:We're not ready for IPv6 yet.

[zptao]

LoverOfJoy: an address available for possibly every machine currently in existence. Whether it be this decade, the next, or in another generation, IPv4's pool of addresses will dry up. IPv6 fixes that.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[welsh git]

With a NAT box in the standard 'home' configuration, where the local network uses private-ip address space, NATed to the single, common IP address, there *is* effective packet filtering (incoming, at least) - whether it's by design or consequence is not relevent!

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

This is *exactly* why ISPs are dragging.

[zooblethorpe]

Your quote completely sums up about 50% of the business reasons behind why ISPs are dragging their feet about implementing IPv6. Obviously, there's some overhead, which I count as the other 50%, but this particular 50% has to do with these two choice bits:

...the home user behind a NAT box has been relegated to the role of a consumer of Internet services.

and:

Sites with persistent, unrestricted Internet connections now constitute a privileged class, able to use the Internet in ways a consumer site cannot. They can set up servers, create new kinds of Internet services, establish peer to peer connections with other sites--employ the Internet in all of the ways it was originally intended to be used. We might term these sites "publishers" or "broadcasters", with the NATted/firewalled home users their consumers or audience.

Practically *everything* we've seen about the major media companies (which are increasingly also ISPs) is that they're struggling to force the internet into the TV paradigm. Unwittingly perhaps, but it seems that the NAT workaround has helped them do that. I'm not in the least surprised that these companies would do all they could to keep their audiences captive, and putting off IPv6 sure seems like part of that effort.

Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux, not Vista

[jonadab]

> Yeah, I heard those Linux media players suck, too.

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 visualizations, although by default it's just an oscilloscope-like thing, nowhere near so annoying as that nonsense Windows Media Player shows you. I'm sure there must be a way to turn the visualizations off altogether. Maybe someday I'll find it.) I mean, if you don't use Windows, then you're really missing out on all those *extra* features that a media player could have, besides just playing media.

But we're getting pretty far off track. The reason businesses don't care about DRM in the operating system is because they have other things to worry about than philosophical issues about user rights. Frankly they're more interested in whether they can lock down the user's desktop to have only the shortcuts they want than they are in whether the user can shift music from one computer to another. What they really want to know is more along the lines of, "Can we buy this product from our regular vendor, does it come with a support contract, and what has my boss read about it in his management magazines?"

Re:Office2007

[PCM2]

I've heard you can type much faster in Word2007. If that's not a reason to upgrade I don't know what is.

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 90wpm typist. Apparently the other word processors of the day couldn't keep pace with that speed. As people who've been around a while know, WordPerfect gained a strong foothold in law offices that persists to some degree to this day. I don't doubt that the emphasis on touch typing had something to do with that.

Added Value

[The Raven]

Honestly, this seems like a perfectly valid move to me. The proper way to combat piracy is to add value for legitimate purchasers via services... services are a dozen times harder to 'steal' than just bits. A MS operated DNS (even if it is ipv6 only) is a perfectly reasonable service to convince the medium-skill techies (who can format a machine, but not setup a DNS service) to buy rather than copy. These mid-level windows users are the most common casual copiers of the MS OS... they know enough to copy Windows and install a machine, but not enough to delve into Linux.

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.

privacy

[drac0n1z]

wont having a unique identification be the end of anonymity and allow microsoft to force legal copies of windows and other software utilising the unique id?

Re:XMMS is dead. BMPx is the successor.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

The only format I really need it to support is WAV. (I don't like lossy compression. It sounds bad. I guess I'm picky.)

Why not use FLAC, then? It's lossless, and files are almost halved in size compared to WAV.

So what exactly is this useful for?

[biglig2]

You know, in the real world. I mean, getting a permanent internet name for your machine without you having to do anything sounds good until you think about it.

But, first off, that name is going to be biglig-p.p4562b4628ac54782dda52789038476237e7c7263 .pnrp.net so you're not going to tell your granny about it over the phone so she can browse to your holiday photos.

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.