Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:IPv6 is a failed technology (Score 0) 112

I would not discount the possibility of a properly backward compatible variant of IPv4 emerging, to address the very real needs of popular web servers that have no economically viable choice other than maintaining compatibility with IPv4 far into the future.

There is no possibility for a "properly backward compatible variant of IPv4." Any change to the protocol in which the goal is to increase the address space, which is the mean impetus for all of this, required a re-write which means no backward compatibility.

Vint Cerf, the "father of the Internet," had this to say about the decision to go with a 32-bit address space for IPv4. "It's enough to do an experiment," he said. "The problem is the experiment never ended."

http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

I really don't understand this irrational fear of IPv6. It's just a frigg'n protocol. For most people they will plug in their network gear and it will just work. Just like it always has...just as my current dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network currently does. I did't have to do anything when my ISP enabled native IPv6. It just started working.

Comment Re: IPv6 is a failed technology (Score 1) 112

I read what you write and almost everything the opposite is true.

"With IPv4, NAT was normal." No, NAT was a kludge designed to deal with the fact that we were quickly running out of IPv4 addresses. If it wasn't for NAT we would have run out of IPv4 addresses more than a decade ago.

"But that means most users will use protocols which transmit their IPv6 address(es), including the local part, inside the protocol payload." All modern IPv6 implementations use temporary "privacy addresses." The local part is never exposed unless the enduser configures their systems to explicitly expose it.

"We will also see less flexibility regarding port numbers, because it's not needed anymore." What does that even mean?

Comment Re:Make Apple products for enterprise IT (Score 0) 244

Yes, because the enterprise has been so good for the companies that have served it over the last twenty years. Look what happened to IBM, sold their PC business to Lenovo and now their server business as well to get out of the enterprise PC market. HP is on the verge of spinning off their PC business, Dell went private because their enterprise PC business is failing. And what happened to Compaq, DEC and countless others who died, consolidated with or were bought out by others. And what exactly has Microsoft's "iron grip" on the enterprise done for it lately?

Apple's PC business is growing just fine. They make more profit (1.) in their PC business than all Windows PC companies combined . Their PC business is growing faster than the Windows PC business. Since 2001 their PC business has grown sequentially every year with the exceptions of fiscal years 2003 and 2013. They are on track to sell over 22 million units in fiscal 2015.

(1.) http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...

Comment Re:Screens are a dead end (Score 0) 244

Wait. You actually think the "focus of technology" has been "the ability to connect your virtual world with the real world?" You sir, need to get out of your basement and back to the real world. Let me make a prediction for you. I predict, in less than 5 years, no one will be talking about Hololens let alone using it in any meaningful way.

Comment This legislation will do nothing to reduce waste (Score 0) 358

If every device you buy includes a cable as a standard accessory then this legislation will do nothing to reduce waste. People will still end up with excess cables after they've discarded their old devices despite the fact that their new device could work with their old cable. Unless they are willing to also legislate the end of new cables being included with each new purchase nothing will change.

Comment Re:Gubbamints... (Score 0) 358

Wait. You start your rant complaining about Apple not using, according to you, "a common charger" and how that decision is why you don't buy their products and how that is a "free market" choice.

Then you complain how other people, exercising their "free market" choice and choosing Apple's products is somehow wrong because Apple is greedy and charges too much for their software. Wait, I thought we were talking about chargers.

Sorry but, what expensive software are you referring to exactly. Their operating systems? Can't be that, they don't charge for their operating systems. Must be their other software, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iTunes or Xcode? No, those are all free as well. Must be their professional software. Final Cut Pro $200, Motion $50, Compressor $50, Logic Pro X $200, Main Stage $30, Aperture $80. Those seem considerable less expensive than the competition. I'm sure if you did a comparison you'd agree with me.

It seems you support the free market but only if that free market agrees with you and if not then regulations should be used to force the corporations to bend you yourumm, I mean, I don't know what you mean anymore, you're all over the place.

Back to chargers for a second. What determines "common?" Apple has used only two different connectors over the course of about 11 years. The 30 pin connector that originated on the iPod and was used on a few generations of iPhone and iPad and the just recently introduced Lightning connector that now spans the entire current range of mobile devices. I think that's a pretty good track record.

Now let's contrast that with the history an plethora of connectors that were common on other mobile phones and devices. Even amongst a single manufacturer it was common to have different connectors amongst different models of products released in the same year let alone the fact that it was also common to change the connector every 2-3 years.

How about Apple's laptops. Apple introduced the MagSafe connector in 2006 and used the same connector across all its laptops. It wasn't until 2012 that they changed to a slightly thinner design to accommodate the thinner profile of their newer laptop computers.

Comment Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. (Score 0) 549

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it

And that was the 1970's version of what the NSA is doing today. The people who lived in the apartment with the telephone were the informants who kept an eye and "ear" on everyone who used that phone informing on the 'goings on' within the circle of people they interacted with. Low tech but effect enough for that time period.

I have the same thoughts about our current society as Woz does. It's becoming the very same society as the one that we railed against during the cold war and it sickens me.

Slashdot Top Deals

"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"

Working...