SSH can be configured to lock down which commands the user can run; this is common in combination with e.g. gitolite for letting people push to a git repository without giving them full shell access. Anybody with access to such a server can now run arbitrary local commands

That's the general goal of the Free software movement. There's far, far more software out there than any one entity can produce, so 99% of the time you'll be benefiting from the work of other people.

Mozilla are working hard to "fix" this though. It's not even as customizable as its own previous versions.

My recommendations to that are a) use DNS anyway (you can limit which clients get access to which zones, so you can keep them internal if you really want), or at least a hosts file, b) pick your IPs carefully to avoid dealing with horrible addresses, c) copy/paste.

e.g.:
# host he.net
he.net has address 216.218.186.2
he.net has IPv6 address 2001:470:0:76::2

16 characters vs 13 characters isn't too bad, and it's the same effort to copy/paste either way... and if NAT is involved then the v4 side gets silly because you have to deal with two addresses for that machine, which is definitely more effort than those 3 extra characters.

Neither. That's just an IP.

If it was http://2001::48:8080/ then you'd be connecting on port 80. If it was http://[2001::48:8080]:8080/, then it'd be port 8080. It's not the most wonderful syntax, but it's not ambiguous either... and it's not like anybody deals with IPs on a regular basis anyway, because we have this "DNS" thing that saves you from doing it.

That decision was made almost 20 years ago, and I haven't had much luck finding any records of the discussion about it. I can, however, point out that there's a big difference between numbering networks and numbering hosts. A 48-bit space for numbering hosts is tight; a 64-bit space for numbering networks is not.

And your ISP is supposed to be giving at least a /56, so take your allocation size up with them. If they won't give you more, it's not IPv6's fault, it's their fault.

Uh... yes there is.

a) Being able to connect to someone else's (or your own) v6 machine is useful.
b) Not needing NAT is very useful. It's much, much easier to manage a network that doesn't use NAT.

Even putting (a) aside, (b) makes it cheaper and nicer to admin your network. Unless you're a masochist, why wouldn't you want that?

NAT rewrites addresses; firewalls don't. The former breaks inbound connections and complicates everything for the network admin and for anything that needs to know your IP. There's no reason to do that to yourself unless you absolutely have to.

That's fairly unusual, but it's not quite as strange as Perl's $[, which you can assign to to select where arrays count from.

It's not a firewall. NAT doesn't block incoming connections, it breaks incoming connections (and more besides). We should not be basing the internet around something that does that.

This is pretty much what IPv6 did.

Once you sit down and hash out all of the details of this "just add a few more octets" plan, you end up with roughly what we've already got. Except, of course, we decided to add 12 octets rather than 2, because 48 bits is hilariously too small for the current internet, let alone to handle future growth.

I and others have offered to maintain the features I listed above, and Mozilla have rejected our assistance. I'm an extension developer, and maintain a bunch of extensions which exist for the sole purpose of making recent Firefox versions sane, so this isn't a hollow offer: I (and/or other people) will be maintaining extensions to do these things anyway, but Mozilla is refusing to integrate that code into Firefox.

(Note that CTR is a pretty clear demonstration that you can't do all those things in Firefox, or there wouldn't be an extension for it.)

You can't stick stuff on a toolbar at the bottom of the screen, you can't uncombine or even move stop/reload, you can't move back/forward or put buttons between them and the address bar, you can't get rid of the conditional forward button, you can't put the tab toolbar under the navigation toolbar, you can't turn the broken toolbar button styling off with Small Icons mode any more, and you can't put stuff at the far right of the navigation toolbar because the Menu button is there and unmovable. Probably plus other stuff that I've forgotten or not discovered because I don't use Australis.

ZFS. It's by far and away the best choice for data storage like this. Even if you ignore its technical features (lz4 and gzip compression, checksumming (including of metadata, which you won't manage with a script), redundant metadata so you don't lose entire directories to a single badly-placed bad block, snapshots and the ability to incrementally send snapshots over a pipe to another pool, native block devices, ...), it's just way nicer to administrate than btrfs, which is the only possible contender.

Just don't be tempted by its dedup. You'll regret turning that on.

By scanning the pattern and constructing a new brain with the same patterns. Implementation details are left as an exercise for the reader.

This seems like it'd be extremely hard but not necessarily impossible. The bigger issue is that you'd essentially be fork()ing your mind -- the original mind would still be stuck in the original body, so the whole procedure wouldn't help it any.