There will come a time in the future thanks to the popularity of iPhones and flagship Android phones where they begin building them with support for all carriers. Why? Because it's simpler if you only have one model to produce. Not to mention that when everyone moves to voice over LTE the CDMA problem is now completely gone.
ZFS's filesystem encryption is prone to watermarking attacks and a lot of metadata is in plaintext.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2
Some guy claimed to have put backdoors in the OpenBSD IPSEC stack for the FBI, but a full audit proved no such thing ever happened.
I seriously doubt this is happening in open source.
Except 8.4 has:
Better hyperthreading support than 9.1
Newer ZFS features than 9.1
Better snd_uaudio and snd_hda audio drivers than 9.1
These things were MFC'd to 8-STABLE and 9-STABLE after 9.1-RELEASE, so 8.4 is really a better release an some aspects than 9.1 is.
NON-LTS releases. As in "releases that are not LTS are now limited to 9 months".
AIGLX and DRI2 are not X11. They're modules.
you're not looking hard enough. i see 720p releases of sports all the time.
I swear to god if you keep posting articles that are links to Phoronix I'm going to firewall off your site and never visit again.
How about you link to the real source (mailing lists, official Debian website) instead of sending traffic to Michael Larabel's bullshit ramblings about LOONIX NEWS that he can't even properly comprehend let alone summarize 95% of the time.
Unix systems gladly replace system libraries that are in use, and just hope that not problems happen because two different versions of the same library are in use simultaneously. The further away from the core libraries you get, the lower the odds of a problem, but it's still a risk. The Unix approach is basically "Let's just go ahead and do it, it'll probably be ok."
Windows takes the safe approach of only updating libraries that are not in use. I'm sure you'd wind up with weird glitches if your apps were using multiple versions of GDI simultaneously. The Windows approach is "It may be ok to update this now, or it may not. Just to be safe, let's not update it until we can guarentee it's safe."
It is OK on Unix because that replaced library still exists in memory and can continue to be used by the programs
Each new invocation of the programs that try to use that library will of course pick up the new version. It's not magic. I don't get why people can't grasp this.
Quattro is great. Audi's might have their warts but they're head and shoulders better than BMWs.
and how would you know how clean Opera's code is?
Yeah, give your money to FSF and let Stallman get paid to ruin the open source community.
Give your money to one of the BSD projects and it won't be spent frivolously.
Usually when you see a "demand" for NAT on ipv6 its people who don't understand the relationship between a statefull firewall and NAT, and they really are "demanding" their existing firewall minus the NAT part.
2 advantages of NAT beyond firewalling:
1) Apps know there's NAT, and cannot assume end-to-end connectivity. With IPv6, determining if there's end to end connectivity is much hardware because firewalls are transparent - you may be able to establish a partial link, but not a full one because the firewall lets some of the packets through.
Please tell me you don't have a job working with networks. Either programming or as a sysadmin/engineer. This problem was solved by people communicating across the internet before you were born.
There's only one advantage of NAT: reserving the IPv4 space. There are no others.
your company is idiotic. you shouldn't get a PUBLIC ip when you connect to a VPN with ipv4
except your email goes through RIM's mail servers. You don't download your email from your mail server to your phone directly. RIM could be reading all your email.
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
