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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Good news (Score 1) 391 391

Exactly. California is one of the worse. If a person has a "on list lower" they have to have a DOJ letter to own it, otherwise it is a felony. The same gun with the lower swapped out, can be legal. It makes no sense. I wish they would remove the Roberti-Roos and series list laws and just go with feature-only.

Comment Re:Fabricating an assualt rifle in California... (Score 4, Informative) 391 391

It is not an "assault rifle" if it does not feature "A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." So depending on the grip that is attached to that lower, it is fine. Also, no flash suppressors, folding or telescoping stock, thumbhole stock, or grenande launchers. It also must not be a .50 BMG. The other option is to "permanently" attach a magazine that holds ten or fewer rounds of ammunition to the lower. If the rifle sticks within these parameters, then it is not an assault rifle.

There are plenty of guns in California that are based on the AR-15, AR-10, and AK-47 platforms that comply with the law.

Comment Re: Just another arrogant CEO (Score 3, Informative) 49 49

So, just another systemd rant.

RedHat has contributed a lot of very cool things to Linux. They have acquired software and opensourced it (e.g. Sistina, Qumranet, Sun/iPlanet LDAP server). They work not only to make a good distro, but also try to solve the bigger problems. For example, they have put together an awesome set of tools that brings Active Directory-like functions to Linux (easy to deploy Kerberos, LDAP, certificate server). They are working on OpenLMI which provides Linux with WBEM management functions. Their Atomic host project is also very interesting. Again, all opensource.

As far as systemd goes. So far I like it. It hasn't burned me at all. Quite the opposite, it has made it easier to write init scripts for our in-house software.

Oh, and BTW, you did hear that the FreeBSD is considering replacing their init system, right? Maybe even something like systemd or launchd (see http://www.slideshare.net/iXsystems/jordan-hubbard-free-bsd-the-next-10-years

Comment Re:The Rules (Score 1) 347 347

It doesn't. The Netflix issues were never about Net Neutrality. I have tried to explain that countless times. The problem is that people are so blinded by their hate of cable companies and their ignorance of how peering works that it doesn't sink in. Peering is a good thing. The Netflix deal actually helps the little guy that can't afford peering to have more bandwidth over the backbones and cable company transit connections. Netflix played people. I suspect they used threats of Net Neutrality in negotiations. It never had to benefit them. It never had to really be all that bad, just the threat was good enough. Now the FCC had a foot in the door, we should all be scared. It seems to me that governments have a worse track record of stifling free speech than companies do.

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 550 550

Wrong? Rearlly? Netflix has peering with the ISP's right now! It is working! Netflix even said they liked the outcome in their stockholder's meeting. The host inside the network still requires a connection that is over 1Gb/s. Sometimes it makes more sense to peer. Netflix got in trouble because they tried to use the government to negotiate peering. Netflix is not pure and clean. Yeah, the outcome worked out for them, but at the risk of the FCC stepping in and changing everything. Now Netflix isn't too sure it likes Title II regulation. I know everyone hates the cable companies, but they were not treating Netflix any different from any other peer, once Netflix decided to peer directly instead of using a 3rd party.

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 550 550

It is *completely* logical. The reason VPN works is because your are reaching your VPN endpoint via the transit connection. The VPN endpoint node was on a network that either had no peering with Netflix or the peering point was not overloaded.

Peering exchanges traffic between two networks. Your VPN host would have to be inside the Netflix network to experience the same issues as raw streaming.,

Comcast was NOT throttling. Cogent didn't not purchase enough bandwidth from Comcast via the peering port to handle all the traffic. Not only that, but Cogent didn't want to purchase more bandwidth because Cogent enjoys mainly settlement-free peering. Cogent *admitted* that *they* were throttling. They probably wished they had never taken on Netflix as a customer.

People, please learn how peering and the peering fee structure works before asking the FCC to stomp around and change the Internet!

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 2) 550 550

Ummmmmmm.... No. Peering costs. It is NOT true that ISP charges customers only. Well, unless you count Netflix and others as customers, in which case, yes, Netflix is charged.

I know you stated that you are a network admin, but apparently you don't know that the *sender* pays in a peering agreement. It has been this way for a long, long time.

Now it is true that some content providers did cut deals in the early days. For example, it was reported years ago that Yahoo! only payed for half of their transit costs because they built out their own national network and peered with large ISP's. AOL did something similar. But, traditionally, peering costs money. That is why there is something called "settlement-free peering" where both sides can all it "even" and skip paying each other. I know you *think* that the other side should pay, but that is not the reality. It is the way it is. You can argue for a new model, but you would be radically changing the fee model for the Internet.

Either way, this has NOTHING to do with Net Neurality!

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 550 550

"Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer"... .wha???? The traffic is coming from Netflix to the ISP. Netflix is the one required to pay the fee, not the other way around. The network *sending* the traffic pays the other network to deliver the traffic. That is the way it has always been. Netflix was in a pinch because Cogent didn't want to upgrade the peering links because it would have cost them more money when they are used to settlement-free peering. Now that Netflix is peering directly, they are pretty happy. It was stated as such in their stock holder report.

The caching box from Netflix requires a connection greater than 1Gb/s. For a large ISP, the caching box may or not make sense. It just depends on the diversity and size of the customer base. Peering may be the logical solution in a large city where there is a nice meet me room.

My main point is that Netflix is not the innocent party. Netflix tried to con their customers into getting the government to help them. They thought they could use it as leverage in negotiation. Now they state that they didn't really want the FCC to go as far as Title II. Oops.

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 0) 550 550

Peering is a good thing. Peering can *save* money for the content producer. Stop talking about stuff you do not understand. Netflix issues are not Net Neutrality issues. Netflix has said that their bandwidth costs are tiny compared to what they pay to the studios.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...