Re: Root cause.
"One might be driven to ask WTF it was doing in a bloody browser in the first place!"
Because Tim Berners-Lee put it there, because in 1993 it would have been unthinkable not to support FTP, because that was where all the data was.
1368 posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
Hmm. I'm not sure about the similarity to the Keyholes. Apart from the fact that the latter point towards Earth instead of away, they were not co-designed with Hubble at all. I heard that somebody from the dark side sat in on the Hubble design team, taking notes but basically saying nothing, occasionally nodding and smiling when they happened to re-invent the same things as the early KHs.
"Deliberately trying to eliminate nat was an own goal"
Firstly, NAT hardly existed when IPv6 was first designed, and it certainly wasn't widespread. Second, NAT doesn't scale, which is why carriers are deserting CGN at warp speed now that IPv4 has run out and IPv6 is mature.
" the other changes where stupid."
Automatic address configuration was so stupid that IPv6 copied the idea from Appletalk.
A distinct interface identifier field was so stupid that IPv6 copied it from Novell Netware and DECnet.
DHCP was so stupid that IPv6 copied it from IPv4.
Yes, extension headers were a bit stupid, which is why they are mainly unused.
I could go on, but IPv4 is a really primitive design compared to (say) Appletalk, Netware and DECnet which objectively speaking dominated the enterprise market when IPv6 was designed. If we hadn't done IPv6, you'd probably have got OSI shoved down your throat.
"And this response is a perfect demonstration of my point."
You're not getting it. Of course we need secure solutions to protect resources from unwanted/malicious traffic. Nothing in IPv6 affects that. With an IPv6 router as my interface to the Internet, I have to change firewall settings to allow incoming traffic. There isn't a single respect in which IPv6 reduces my protection. It just avoids the complexity of address translation, which has nothing to do with security.
Um, yes, there are tricks you can play but address sharing at that rate is expensive and unreliable, and that's why the serious large-scale service providers support both IPv4 and IPv6. Do you think that Google supports IPv6 as a vanity project? Or Cloudflare? Or any of the large scale cloud providers and CDNs?
All the usual misconceptions about IPv6 here, I see. But in the real world, its growth continues (35% of all users now at the weekend, 33% midweek, according to Google). So yes, large telcos are switching more and more users to IPv6 because it's cheaper and more reliable than Carrier Grade NAT. Enterprise deployment is going more slowly but IPv4 growth is over and it's rapidly becoming a legacy technology.
BTW it's no accident that IPv4 and IPv6 can coexist and that IPv6 now absorbs the growth. It was designed to be like that.
"pretend that everything's Google's fault"
No, it's just that most things are Google's fault. The rest is FaceBook's and Twitter's fault.
But seriously, French copyright law applies in France, so what else do you expect the French to do? Australian copyright law applies in Australia, and Google first blustered, then complied. It will go the same way in France.
You wait until the EU goes after them again for privacy breaches. That will be measured in billions, not millions, of €.
Well, browsers seem to have mainly forgotten that there's a difference between the URL bar and the search bar anyway. Unfortunate circumstances forced me to use Edge briefly the other day, and whatever URL I tried seemed to send me into Bing.
I'm off now to devise a way to make googling google recursive.
Well, there is indeed a small consolation for the Chinese here: the US has thrown $1.9B of tax revenue down the drain. Of course that's not all good news, considering how much $ debt China holds.
It's very dispiriting that the Biden Administration hasn't realised that a trade war with China helps nobody (least of all the Uighurs and the Hong Kongers).
"They can't even migrate their own emails from their old system that they sold off to a new one"
I hope you don't imagine that Notes stored email in mbox format or exchanged messages using SMTP or accessed them with IMAP. This is so much more than an email migration project. Notes and the Domino distributed database were built into every aspect of IBM's business processes. Absolutely ridiculous to design a cut-over style migration; it needed to be done in baby steps, with interworking gateways every step of the way.
Heads will roll, up to C-level I trust.
"Kaseya told all of its nearly 40,000 customers to disconnect their Kaseya software immediately... Huntress Labs said it had tracked 20 IT companies, known as managed-service providers, that had been hit. More than 1,000 of those companies’ clients, mostly small businesses, also had been affected by the hack" [Washington Post]
Another outstanding success for outsourcing your crown jewels to some software company with good advertising.
I was *very* glad to see the back of PROFS, despite Notes being only half useable at the start. But in those days, there were competent people highly motivated to make stuff work. Nowadays, the "management" believes that you can buy competence wherever it's cheapest by the square metre, and manage it by KPIs. They deserve the result, but it's bad luck on the employees and customers (if they have any of the latter).
This is just Huawei continuing Ren's policy of copying IBM. (IBM as it used to be, not the hollow shell that it has now become.) But if you want an illustration of how the tRump/Biden trade war against China is much more dangerous to the US than it will ever be to China, just consider Ren's reaction: we'll continue copying American success factors, and we'll build our own supply chain. The end of the American Empire is nigh, and it's increasingly self-inflicted.
Actually it's quite a lot of money for me too, but we got good value for it, namely the 40% or whatever of European export earnings that we seem to have, er, mislaid somewhere this year. What a great bonus for the Brexit liars that this can be conveniently blamed on COVID-19.
Yes, that's how the tax system works: it moves money from the consumer to the government, to pay for essential services and to support redistribution of wealth to make society fairer. What tax havens do is distort the tax system in a way that favours the rich, deprives many governments of necessary revenue, and obstructs fair redistribution.
So, the G7's goal here is noble. Of course, it's also bound to fail, since the G7 is only seven countries and most tax havens aren't included. Only a very strong set of WTO rules can do the job.
"The redesign, on the other hand, includes a new icon set, new typography, and simplified menus. There are now just two menu buttons, the hamburger menu top right, and a right-click menu; the three-dots menu in the address bar has gone."
Thank heavens I froze Firefox updates at version 71. Now things don't keep being "improved" against my will.
Oops, I meant to refer to "intent-based networking" but it seems to have been auto-corrected. Please point us to the standard for "intent".
That said, yes, starting out by trusting everybody to be well-behaved isn't a good idea, but requiring everybody to jump through security hoops every 5 minutes is such a bad idea that no money-making service provider will ever do it.
If I'm not mistaken, zero trust and least privilege really originated in MULTICS, although described differently in those days. You have to ask why they didn't catch on 50 years ago. I think the answer is the same as why most people don't use 2FA most of the time. It's just too much hassle. I'm not optimistic.
If my neighbours recuperate energy from my WiFi signal, I certainly expect them to pay me for it. There should be no free lunch here. Also, since they abstract energy, they must also make the S/N ratio worse. I think that's a tort, on top of the stolen energy.
Lawyers should pay attention...
Backwards compatibility of features that we might not even know we havePython's an interpreted language and includes the eval() and exec() constructs. As a result you can never know what you have in the code base. I've written Python that dynamically constructs statements and sends them over TCP to another Python program that executes them. You can't do that in a compiled language, so it's pretty certain that there will always have to be a complete interpreter and a byte code version of all variables. Good luck in making that run several times faster on the same hardware.
Banks have switched to in-house "secure messaging". That's hard to do for a health board (in any country, not just NZ) because getting every citizen set up with a trustworthy access mechanism would be a logistical nightmare.
But you'd think they could virus-scan all incoming attachments.
Rubbish. The Information Commissioner's Office has its head up its bum IMNSHO. The reason we have number plates on cars is precisely so that misbehaving drivers can be identified. That's been the case since 1904, for good reason, and only the reigning monarch on official business is exempt. (So if you see a car with no plates, it must be Liz.)
It's insidious and misleading how she makes it sound as though the "security concerns" about Huawei and ZTE kit are real, instead of being completely imaginary concerns invented by their competitors' lobbyists in Washington DC. This is a bit of tRump's misguided trade war that Biden needs to nip in the bud quite urgently.
The challenge is that to invalidate a whole patent, you have to beat back every single claim, which usually means at least 20 claims per patent (and does in this case too). Having my name on three or four patents in the same general area, I looked to see if there was a quick $100k for me here, and sadly there isn't. It would take days of work just to translate the claims into plain English, and then you have to stretch Google pretty hard to look for around 100 hypothetical pieces of prior art. If the patent attorneys did their job, two or three of the claims in each patent would survive this process (because the art of writing a patent is making the successive claims narrower and narrower, so that even if the main claims are thrown out, something survives).
If I was seriously looking for the prior art, I'd read Larry Roberts' own publications for the few years from about 1996 on. All the ideas seem pretty obvious with my excellent 20/20 hindsight.
Also, unless Cloudflare has gone into the router and switch hardware design business, it stretches credulity to suggest that they have implemented even a single one of all the claims in those patents. These are not things you do in software.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021