Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:well (Score 2) 418

Jitter isn't caused by cables. Its caused by the devices either side.

Typically on switches or routers, where packets are received on two different interfaces, and need to be transmitted out a third. If two packets are received at the same time on the two ports, one of them must be queued while the other is being sent. This will introduce a small amount of jitter. This is magnified with a busier network, and is one of the things QoS tries to eliminate for certain traffic types (typically voice on enterprise/ISP networks).

The most a cable could really do is cause a packet to get mangled, and retransmitted. I suppose this could be viewed as introducing jitter, but its at a higher point up the stack at the application layer, rather than the network.

I find it amusing that the guy in this article completely glosses over the importance of the switches in his network. If he had any other traffic running over his network when performing his tests, they are pretty much invalid.

Comment: Re:Their excuse sucks (Score 1) 579

That's the kind of problem that would be easier to be fixed if the full source code was available to you. Cameras (among other things) tend to be a binary blob. Reading the associated bug, it actually appears to be the GPU driver that is out of date there.

The fact there are very few complaints is testament to it being able to run 4.4+.

Typically in porting a device that hasn't been officially upgraded a replacement driver must be found that supports the new API calls. Often drivers from phones with similar hardware is pulled in, which obviously will never work quite too well. This was a big thing when going from 2.x->4,x as the camera interface changed massively.

Looking at the bug report, they expect that to be fixed when they move to CM12.

Comment: Re:Their excuse sucks (Score 1) 579

Why does it need to be in the 4.3 code base?

As previously mentioned, Android versions are not like Windows versions - ie a massively different OS. They are incremental, and especially with the recent versions don't require massive additional resources. The fix is to upgrade from 4.3 -> 4.4. The Galaxy Nexus is capable of running 4.4.

Your argument here should be 'Why is Google not releasing 4.4 for the Galaxy Nexus'. I could support that statement.

Comment: Re:The solution is obvious (Score 3, Informative) 579

No, blame for this is on Google, because Android is designed as a firmware but marketed as an operating system. An operating system would get updates without requiring a complete wipe and reinstallation.

My current phone has got updates from Kit Kat to Lollipop without a wipe and reinstallation. As have all my previous android phones from one version to another. I'm unsure what you are getting at here...

Android has a huge attack surface and still completely lacks ways to fix bugs except by abandoning entire "OS" versions.

Not true. Google has a way to patch parts of the operating system on older versions using play services:

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

by Geordish (#48795011) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw

If you go with a Nexus phone or tablet, updates have been rolling pretty steadily.

I'm going to call you on that one. Because it's not true. I just asked my 2012 Nexus 7 tablet to check for updates. I've done this numerous times since Android 5 came out.

It says I'm up to date. That, of course, is false. From this I conclude Google has abandoned me, and I will not be buying another Android device.

This seems a bit of an extreme reaction. They have released an update for your tablet ( Have you contacted google for support about why the update it isn't working for you?

Comment: Re:Android support is a long term Clusterfuck (Score 1) 629

by Geordish (#48794677) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw

Except that google do support older devices in the form of Google Play Services. This provides the latest and greatest APIs as far back as gingerbread:

In fact many of Google's own apps are updated to use the material designs etc on Gingerbread devices:

All this should make it easier for the developer community to keep up with the newer API versions, and support the older ones.

Comment: Re:Cat and mouse... (Score 5, Informative) 437

by Geordish (#48727691) Attached to: Netflix Cracks Down On VPN and Proxy "Pirates"

Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?

The issue is the existing licenses (with service providers with a lot more subscribers, and therefore able to pay more for licensing) will demand exclusivity.

If I'm a TV provider in the uk, I don't want Netflix picking and choosing the content they want, and then undercutting me. I want to lock access to game of thrones down so they can only get it via me.

Comment: Re: Cat and mouse... (Score 3, Interesting) 437

by Geordish (#48727611) Attached to: Netflix Cracks Down On VPN and Proxy "Pirates"
And then a subscriber goes on holiday with their tablet, and are getting the incorrect content, and breaking licencing agreements. Or a pool of people from different countries pay for an account each, and share the details. Or someone pays for an account on behalf of someone else in a different country...

Comment: Re: Pay vs. Pirate (Score 1) 437

by Geordish (#48727577) Attached to: Netflix Cracks Down On VPN and Proxy "Pirates"
The issue is likely a bit more complicated than that. The content owners likely have existing agreements in place with 'legacy' providers in each region (satelite/cable...) that prohibits them from licencing the content further. As quickly as Netflix etc are expanding, they don't yet have the subscriber base of these legacy services, and will be unable to beat the payments that are currently being made for the prime content.

Comment: Re:IPv6 (Score 2) 248

by Geordish (#47662299) Attached to: The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Why would that be different than with IPv4? Prefix aggregation, AKA route summary, AKA Supernetting, has been available for a very long time. Unless IPv6 addresses are being handed out in a way that's much more conducive to this, it won't really change anything. This guy agrees (#4)

He is kinda correct, but the RIR's have come up with addressing plans to deal with this.
My info comes from the RIPE region, as its the region I'm in.

Every ISP gets assigned a /29 minimum. This is 2^35 networks (assuming you are using a /64 per network as recommended). If you prove you need more than a /29, fine, you can have it.

The next 3 bits are then reserved for future use. You use up your initial /29? Fine, increase your subnet mask to /28 and carry on. This doubles you address space. Carry on until you are at a /26. That is a LOT of room for growth.

In the IPv4 world this isn't possible. You get your allocation. You run out. You get another etc. Verizon are currently announcing 1,446 IPv4 prefixes from AS701, compared to the 12 IPv6 prefixes. Of the 12 IPv6 prefixes 5 of them are the one prefix they have deaggagated, the rest are customers with PI space.

You have a point about the near term, but long term once IPv4 has died a death (10+ years) the routing table will shrink again.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson