I'd love to know what hardware your running that doesnt have ipv6 support.... just about every supportable, mainstream vendor does, the short list:

- juniper (screenos and junos)
- cisco
- avaya
- netgear
- hp
- ibm

Actually, I take it back, theres too many. If your running gear right now that cant do a firmware upgrade to support ipv6, you really should be considering replacing it cause it must be decades old. Even still-supported decades old kit from cisco has ipv6 support via firmware upgrades.

To be honest, I cant really think of many vendors that dont support it off the top of my head.

Yes, running out of ipv4 address space is alot of hot air, probably for another 3-5 years. In reality they could even extend that quite a bit. assuming you dont take into account china and india all getting internet-connected phones... thats a somewhat scary scenario.

But, what I dont get is why geeks arent excited about the move to ipv6... I *LOVE* ipv6, i wish my isp would get it faster.

From a purely geektechnonerd perspective, i find ipv6 interesting and hence want to use it (do use it in fact).. i think it has its flaws though, and what scares me is the lack of a "real" private address range (with nat) like we do now with ipv4. While I can understand people in the linux kernel going "nat was crap, we're not doing it in ipv6", i find that view very short sighted. Yes, ipv4 nat is a "hack" (or was originally created to facilitate a hack), but its come to be a useful one and can get you around some nasty things an isp can do to you simply by limited the number of addresses you can have (not to mention many other things it can give you)...

But, the techo in me who loves setting up networks cant wait till the next job im doing that uses ipv6, and thats coming more frequently now.

Quite honestly, if the press wants to make a big deal out of it and blow it out of proportion, im not going to stop them or even criticize them. I love doing ipv6 and if a client is thinking "maybe i should do ipv6 with my next network overhaul" I dont really care what the reasons for it are, be it a sensationalist media hype reflex or an interest in the protocol itself...

But then i get excited over most new bits of tech - be it physical or not. As in, i get about the same levels of excitement when google announce a new android phone (i.e. the nexus) as I do when a client starts asking me about how they adopt their network for ipv6.

Ok, ipv6 aint exactly new by any means, but people implementing it is another matter. The best part is until you see real (i.e. complex) networking scenarios using ipv6 you dont even some of the challanges that lay in store for you when implementing the protocol... but thats an article, not a slashdot post.

ahhh, well, depends what you do from home doesn't it? take this as an example of why dyndns doesnt really solve some of the problems static-ip-for-home does..

1) my dns entry "me.dyndns.org", points to my current dynamic home ip
2) i run a webserver, chat server (xmpp), mail server perhaps... many different things you could list here
3) my home internet switches off for some reason and i loose my dynamic ip address.
4) someone else logs on and gets my ip adress while im offline
5) someone else starts getting a bunch of connection attempts....

Note: "me" and "my" in this scenario are hypothetical, not actual references to me specifically.

The effect of which can be somewhere between unnoticeable and catastrophic, if you really think it thru... Personally i do run a web server on my home machine for unimportant things and only for me, but there are lots of scenario's where some service your expecting to send data to on your old ip address may expose something you didnt want someone else to see... Then again, it may lead to something more annoying like the user who's getting random connection attempts assumes he's being hacked and acts accordingly...

Thats actually incorrect. RIR's still have "plenty" of ip addresses to go around, its only IANA thats run out of address space to give to those RIR's.

While its more then plausible that they're going after google cause someone else said so, and one could perhaps consider its a rather large conspiracy between many companies to erase google from the IT landscape by burying them in legal costs up to their ears, its also plausible they go after google simply cause they have the most number of mobiles and the largest market share, hence the largest chunk of plausible revenue should they win.

to be honest though, i do believe alot of people are going after google cause its google and they're "open platform" scares the pants off people (from a "how do we make money from ours when google give it away for free" perspective - if nothing else).

With any luck, these lawsuits (including MS, apple, etc) will all end with one result - alot of patents being voided... one can only hope its worth the cost and that google can afford it.

Personal opinion, but i believe the difference is moot. I find that (as a hacker type) apps I want on my phone (android) are available on the android market. For example an SSH daemon (which i dont think there is one on the apple market) that can access the root of my phone's filesystem. Some may think me crazy for running such a thing, but I am a little crazy. But it is apps like that you'll find quite a few of (apps designed to support rooted phones) that you'll never see on the apple market and they do appeal very much to me in alot of cases.

The problem with that particular example is that im the 1-2% of the android market who are looking for those type of things.

The general populace want games, some lifestyle apps, some social apps and maybe some business apps. In general, i believe there are more then enough of these available on both platforms and markets. On the whole, i'd say its a line-ball call. You'll find what you need for all those in both markets and in some cases they'll even be the same app ported from one platform to the other (angry birds is a good example). You'll also get alot of pure entertainment from both that'll fill just about any taste. These days i've yet to find something I wanted to do I cant find on the android market (which wasn't always the case).

One thing I do believe is true, if you sat down and decided "i want to do this, this and this with my phone that it doesnt do right now", the cost of adding that functionality tends to be lower on the android platform them the iphone side however, you'll probably have to live with advertising on the android device to do so. What I also mean with this is that you'll find what you want is probably available on both platforms these days.

I dont think this project has any real (or official) input from google. Intel's port might, but thats not this.

While slightly off topic - if you like ion, try amd fusion (e350m series)... very much like atom, but actually worth having (faster, and generally better hardware).

I liked the idea of atom, until i got one and compared to a (at the time) 8 year old epia (N10k)... the atom was about 1.5 times the speed and sucked down more juice... I was really disappointed with the atom processor... ION made it worth while, but in reality the atom is a POS bang per W is very low on the platform and the atom has had several functions torn out of it (compared to a i3/i5/i7 or core/core2) which i personally found kind of annoying..

But, back on topic. This should run on the embedded cpu AMD fusion boards (such as the e350 mentioned above) and if i get the chance i do plan on giving it a shot.

What I find interesting is how this is going to impact Compliance and Discovery type activities (things like PCI, SOX, etc etc). Theres lots of compliance type directives that basically say "communications inside and outside of your company must be kept for xxx days/years/months"... Alot of people read this as "we need to archive our email so if we get into a lawsuit we can cover our discovery requirements".

The best part of this is that people dont (yet) seem to realise that compliance and discovery don't specify email - they specify electronic communications. So if you dump email and move to something else and you have compliance requirements your going to have to comply with them no matter what your system of communication is!..

Keeping in mind of course that compliance and discovery type measures are defensive ones. The ability to prove/disprove something was done or said is simply a way of "covering your arse" in court and often where people read compliance to mean "i need to archive all communications" what it really means is "if i dont archive all communications, i cant prove joe from company X sent me an email telling me to do something".

Ultimately though, my point is that who ever wins the "internal social networking email replacement tool" war will also have a trail of developers behind them wanting to develop a set of archiving and compliance tools that go along with them... read that as $$$.

Actually the kind of thing your refering to is the various compliance requirements that exist for discovery purposes.

They dont acutally specifically say "email"... they specify communications both internal and external with the company... so hold onto your hat cause when people inevitably do dump email and move to chat/social type interfaces the same compliances rules apply to those too

It's not often i'd say i'd be annoyed at the slashdot community, but this time around the advice here is truly below par.

ANYONE who's suggesting this guy gets an SLR is an IDIOT. Read the question again, and lets go thru it line by line shall we?

- I've managed to go my entire adult life without owning an actual camera.

READ: I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CAMERAS!

- I've owned photosensors that were shoehorned into various other gadgets, but I've gotten to the point where the images produced by my smartphone aren't cutting it. My question: what camera would you recommend for getting into basic photography?

READ: I take photos with a smartphone! I want to step up from that. Zoom, flash and resolution, thats all i need.

- I don't mean that in the sense of photography as a hobby or a profession, but simply as a method for taking images — of friends, family, and projects — that actually look good.

READ: i want to point a little box at something and get a decent picture. I dont want to understand aperture, focus, iso, etc..

- I figure a decent camera will run me a few hundred dollars, which is fine. But I don't have the expertise to know at what point spending more money isn't going to do me, as a camera newbie, any good. Any thoughts?

READ: I HAVE NO USE FOR AN SLR, NOR DO I WANT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY. Seriously people I have lens filters that wouldn't fit into "a few hundred bucks", the results you get out of a dirt-cheap SLR are garbage compared to the point-and-shoot you'll get for the same. Good example: canon 550d + kit lens's > "a few hundred bucks", and yet its pretty crappy bang-for-buck compared to a point-and-shoot you'll get for the same $. Sure, you can strangle a 550d with its kit lenses into giving you some good shots, but its not a place to start and it certainly not simple.

Hell, even a point-and-shoot for a "few hundred bucks" has some of the control you can get in SLR's these days, so if the OP finds those functions interesting enough to learn about them, they can start there - not at the SLR.

For the love of god I wish people here would get off the techno-power-nerd superiority complexes and stop looking down at things like point-and-shoot cameras because they believe them to be some lower form of life. For once actually read the question and get the idea of what someone is trying to ask.

Anyone who suggested an SLR, THIS MEANS YOU! get a firm grip on reality, actually look at what the original question was asking for and then go slap yourselves.

Honestly, as a guy who's been doing photography for over 20 years now and owns just about ever format camera there is in existence - slashdot is the poor place to ask. As is obvious everyone here is a techno-super-nerd who owns an SLR, thinks they know how to use it, and thinks its easy.

Given what you are looking for, an SLR would be a poor choice. Your not going to get anything in that vein for "a few hundred bucks". Dont get me wrong, if you really wanted to learn some photography (as in how a camera functions), an SLR is great. If you want to "just take good photos" (as was suggested) most point-and-shoots do this abundantly well and an SLR will set you back a tonne of money and provide you with 1000 features of which you need 10.

However, i personally think the best place to find such a beast (and im not going suggest one cause im not well versed in point-and-shoots) is dpreview.com (and sites like it). Get something with a decent zoom range, decent resolution, decent speed and a flash, and you'll probably be happy. The MOST important factor in this equation is $$$, the bang-for-buck ration of a point-and-shoot based on what your needs are are far in excess of what the SLR will provide.

On top of this though, go to a camera store and try a few point-and-shoots - they'll be happy to let you in most cases, find some that you think are nice then go check out how they review online.

These days "real world uses" in the data center often include virtualisation, so "fulling all cores" is quite often possible. AMD used to have quite an advantage in the virtualisation field simply because pacifica (amds first gen hardware virt) was more efficient and less buggy then vanderpool (intels). These days, i dont believe thats quite as true anymore.

Aside from the fact that the flow-on consequence is that oracle then needs to develop the ia64 oracle side - I still cant see why oracle think this is something worth even mentioning.

HP paid intel to keep making a chip HP uses - OH FOR SHAME! Or is the big thing about it the "secret" bit cause well, contracts like that do tend to be rather "sensitive".

But "oracle whinges cause HP tries to keep its IA64 customer base from moving to oracle servers" just sounds kinda ridiculous. Even reading the article is really not helping me get the problem oracle are trying to get at here. It reads like:

Oracle to HP: We would like to steal your customers please
HP to Oracle: Um, no thanks?
Oracle to HP: HAH, NO ITANIUM FOR YOU!
HP to Oracle: im sorry, but see this piece of paper says you cant do that

Meanwhile at the HP cave:
HP to Intel: heres some cash to continue IA64 development work
Intel to HP: Sure, no problem, we'll make silicon for you, we do that.

Meanwhile back at the Oracle Cave:
Oracle to Universe: WAAAAH HP WONT LET US STEAL THEIR CUSTOMERS.
*much thumb sucking ensues*

Now if HP had pain intel to stop making the IA64 to gimp dell (or someone else) for instance, then sure thats worth mentioning.