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.
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
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!
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!
"Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer"...
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.
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.