Comment Mini2440 (Score 1) 142
Happy hacking! Jasper
What do you think he will prefer?
Not calling that a huge marketing mistake, seems silly to me.
When Steve went for the iPad 2 name, he asked for numbers.
But hey, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful product. With super innovation with respect to screen and the required sw and hw to support that.
I'm happy for that as it will lead to better products in the Android tablet ecosystem as well.
Android made a few mistakes Apple made in the early nineties, and will gain the technological benefit from that. However, it is sad to see that the no-longer-underdog biggest IT company in the world, also wants to resort to monopolistic tactics to even further its grip on the market.
And then I'm talking about the closed nature of the iPhone and the iPad, not opening it up. Locking customers in. Closing down installing applications except from the App Store, BY DEFAULT on the next version of MacOS. Sad!
The underdog has to be careful to not become the bully!
An extra screen in the config box to set a static IPv6 address on an embedded device? Not seen one yet... Why? Because these embedded boxes are typically run in a seperate VLAN in the company.
Corporate requirements for IPv6 are close to nonexistent, so nobody cares, nor will. It's not that I'm against IPv6, but one has to be realistic about what to expect from the rest of the world - and a drastic change without a game-changing urgent need is not one of these things.
And I'm still waiting for an example of any organization _ANY_ organization who needs to have in the order of 16 million directly communicating devices on their private network. Just a million will do as well. Probably Google is the only organization which comes close to that order.
And even for them, there is not really an important reason why their infrastructure could not be split up between the google search cloud as one 10.x.x.x range and the gmail infrastructure as another one, for example, as direct communication between the two is probably unnecessary and managed by separate teams anyway.
One could argue that the 'renumbering' is difficult. Yet the cluster which Google build handles server failover, swap-in and swap-out and data partitioning as one of the major features. Fail to see why they couldn't implement it on the 'private IPv4'-level either...
While I agree that on their scale, such an experiment might be valid, my guess is that it will remain as such;... an experiment with a lot of problems:
1) increased latency because of IPv6 tunneling - and Google is very latency conscious
2) less proven technology leading to exotic problems which show up even more at the Google scale - because nobody uses it
And for what?
To solve the 'we are too lazy to write a stupid IPv4 pool re-numbering/re-partitioning'-problem? While it can be done with a very small shell script(TM)?
Allocating too much memory in userspace so the system starts swapping.
And then he comes up with a more efficient way to use the often swapped in and out memory pages.
Better programming is: keep all the junk you need quick in real memory, leave enough space for filesystem caching as well and prevent the OS from most swap activity.
Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce