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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score 3, Interesting) 272

by Sq (#47371683) Attached to: Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job

well, over here, employer can put it in your contact that you're not allowed to work in competing company for up to two years after you quit, but they have to continue paying you at least 50% of salary you had while you were working there. And that clause becomes null and void if you are laid off (or your ex-employer agrees to pay you 100% of your salary), or if you quit without notice due to employer gross misconduct, or if such ban would unproportionally burden your further work and carrer.

And Croatia is not really the country you would call very protective of the slaves^Wworking class.

+ - Open Source Embroidermodder goes where no embroiderer has gone before->

Submitted by supermatt
supermatt writes: Even Linus Torvalds has had trouble with the proprietary formats of Embroidery machines. Enter Embroidermodder 2, an open source program on Kickstarter to create and edit digital embroidery designs.

Jonathan Greig and Josh Varga launched a Kickstarter for Embroidermodder 2, an open source, cross-platform program to create and edit embroidery designs.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Confused! (Score 1) 219

by Sq (#44200887) Attached to: Oracle Quietly Switches BerkeleyDB To AGPL

Actually, "Open with as much Freedom as possible" would be releasing the code into the public domain.

Except, in most countries (like most of EU and USA) you as an author CANNOT release the code into public domain (unless you die, stay dead for 70-90 years, and hope copyright protection does not extend in that time, which is a hope against current trend of practically infinite copyright). For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States

The entire purpose of a license, ANY license, is to place restrictions on what can be done with the code.

That is totally incorrect. It is the copyright that places restrictions (remember "all rights reserved" phrase?). If there was no license at all, standard copyright would be in effect and you would have no right to copy, modify, translate, etc. work at all (except as governed under fair use and similar exceptions).

The license is actually copyright holder GIVING UP some of his/her copyright protections, sometimes (but not always, see WTFPL for example) in exchange for some other promise on users side (for example, proprietary licenses might allow you to to make 5 copies of some program IF you agree to give them e-mail to spam you; or GPL might allow you to copy that program without limits IF you agree you'll also allow others makes copies of your derived work, etc.)

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 185

by Sq (#35101910) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

I guess by use of VPNs, as it works now (see http://btguard.com/, https://www.ipredator.se/ etc). So essentially it won't get sold, but rented (it might get rented for indefinite amount of time for fixed one-time price, though - depending on the bussiness model chosen). Of course, your latency will go up compared to normal IPv4, but hey...

Also, you CAN transfer an IP range, and not just give it up.
See for example https://www.arin.net/resources/request/transfers.html, but other RIRs have similar policies. You just agree with potential customer that you'll transfer part of your IPs to them after they make a payment to you. So while you're not technically selling them IPs, practically you are (you're transfering them your IPs only after they give you their money). But it would be more "gray" than "black" market...

Comment: Re:Typical West-European sensibilities (Score 1) 185

by Sq (#35101860) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

Still, about half of the Europe (as in the continent) is not in GMT+1, but in GMT, GMT+2, and GMT+3.

Hence my remark that your claim "Europe is in GMT+1" shows as much elitism and unawareness of timezones, as you accuse the OP of.
Just pointing out your hypocrisy, no need to get so upset about it :)

(and you'd be amazed how many people in those other timezones there are - way way more then in just the example city of Moscow. But I'll leave finding that number as a homework, you might learn few things about Europe in a process)

Comment: Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr (Score 1) 185

by Sq (#35092192) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

Yes, there always needs to be some incentive to force them to make a change. However, a market itself will be force enough to force it. Not yet though for those looking only on short-term (and hence losing market in the long term) - I guess it will be at least two to three years before interesting stuff appears on internet as IPv6-only, and IPv4-only people will not be able to get to those. But from that moment onward, it will start hitting such IPv4-only ISPs harder and harder every day with customers leaving for ISPs that lets them see "whole Internet" without blackholes.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 185

by Sq (#35091904) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

Sure, there is possibility for such a black market of reselling IPv4 address space to happen, but I don't think it will happen (at least not much).
It is not even expected that people will be giving back their pools of IPv4 addresses, much less that anything depends on it at this time. In fact it may even be counterproductive on wasting time to return IPv4 pools by now.

IPv6 is going to be more and more present and value of IPv4 lower and lower. And even people with IPv6-only would probably have means to access IPv4-only networks, with their ISPs (or other third parties) providing IPv4 connectivity via NAT64, DS-Lite and other solutions (so they wouldn't be likely to shell out big bucks for IPv4 VPNs on black market)

Comment: Re:We want NAT-PT! (Score 1) 185

by Sq (#35091800) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

NAT-PT was obsoleted due to quite a few problems, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4966

Anyway, you would still need support for both IPv6 and NAT-PT on router appliance (and if you have working IPv6 on it, you can run dual stack quite easily on most OSs and many devices already). And NAT-PT was only intended as temporary IPv4 to IPV6 transition mechanism, not as "solution" anyway. So you'd have to do transition sooner or later anyway.

However, if you insist on leaving local network on IPv4 (which will actually make your problems worse as time goes by, but whatever, your choice) you can implement 4to6 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473) instead of NAT-PT.

But I really would recommend some other transition method - either classic Dual stack, or perhaps DSlite or NAT64+DNS64.

Comment: Re:I Want to have a multicast address (Score 2) 185

by Sq (#35091582) Attached to: Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
224/8 to 239/8 are actually used for multicast. We use them in our company for example (makes for *great* bandwidth saver for media streamings and stuff)
240/8 to 255/8 (so called E-classes in old days) however were "reserved for future use".

The problem with reusing them is exactly what you state -- way too many firewalls and routers around the world drops those, and so they are effectively unusable for global (Internet) routing - you would need to fix the whole world before you could safely use them (who'd want IPv4 adresses that won't work on 99% of the Internet?), and apparently fixing the whole world is much much more complicated than just deploying IPv6.

Comment: Re:Call me retro (Score 1) 164

by Sq (#34225254) Attached to: Vint Cerf Calls For IPv6 Incentives In UK

Then there's the boneheaded idea of making 127.0.0.1 the "localhost" network, instead of something otherwise unusable like 255.255.255.254, or at least the high end of the smallest class C net (223.0.0.1). Also, who needs 256 private class C subnets (192.168/16), in addition to 16 class B (172.16/12) and a class A (10/8)? That could have been pared back some. And why does AutoIP need to use 169.254/16 instead of the, say, 240.0/16 region?

While those are tehnically correct, they are irrelevant really. Watch http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?page_id=326, current rate of burning IPv4 address space is about 1.5 /8 (called "A-class" in good ol' pre-CIDR days) per month. So even if they didn't reserve even *single IP* for 127.0.0.1, nor for private class A,B,C nor /16 for AutoIP; you'd still only extend the IPv4 deadline for what, less than two months?

Even if none of the E-classes (240-255 /8) were reserved, you would get less than additional year (you can play nice what-if IPv4 endgame results with the tool at http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?page_id=77 )

And given that the industry quite cheerfully ignored IPv6 for more than a decade, I think that one can say with surety that just one threatening anonymous call to, say, cisco CEO would've helped waaaay more :-)

Comment: Re:Call me retro (Score 1) 164

by Sq (#34225114) Attached to: Vint Cerf Calls For IPv6 Incentives In UK

In all seriousness, I don't know how they're going to deal with people with legacy devices, which may not be upgradable to IPv6 compatible.

Yes, that is exactly why there was a (completely ignored, of course) warning about 7 years ago that is last moment to start implementing IPv6 in devices, so that when 2010 came, all legacy IPv4-only devices would be dead.

But did they listen? Noooo... But that is not the end of the world. People will just buy more new IPv6 enabled equipment than they would normally and throw away their old stuff (we all love this consumerist society, yes?), and we'll be running IPv4+IPv6 for some time before IPv4-only sites start to become unreachable without hacks anyway.

But due to ignoring the problem for the last decade, there *will* be some pain and expenses which could've easily been avoided. For example, if companies started demanding 8 years ago that all new routers/etc they buy must be IPv6 enabled, all their old stuff would be replaced by now with no additional expense. As they didn't, they'll have to shell out some extra monies and upgrade their hardware much sooner than their useful life is over.

Maybe that will teach companies to listen to techies in the future (yeah, right)

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra

Working...