3 ms·
On what basis should Apple be forced to provide a DHCPv6 client as part of their OS? They have 10% of the market, and the number of IPv6 users I imagine is goin
by iuguy 16y ago
On what basis should Apple be forced to provide a DHCPv6 client as part of their OS? They have 10% of the market, and the number of IPv6 users I imagine is going to be a niche within their niche.
I appreciate that DHCPv6 support may be useful for some apple customers, but in the grand scheme of things it's probably in a minority, perhaps best served by the app store.
I also like the idea of references to 'religious nuts' being tied to apple users, not all but specifically of the fanboy type.
In short, I find the statement poetic. The value it adds is humour. You might not agree as humour is subjective, but it works for me.
- wnoise 16y agoThat's much clearer. Thanks.
- drdaeman 16y agoSorry, but are you saying "almost nobody needs IPv6, so why care"? That's why we still can't have nice things.
- iuguy 16y agoNo, on the contrary. What I'm saying is that IPv6 doesn't have enough traction, there's a finite number of developers and there are features that will be used by more people that should take more priority. To put it another way, a native IPv6 client isn't necessarily as innovative as some of the other pending features. Not having DHCPv6 native isn't the end of the world and is a minor annoyance for a few. Putting a team on implementing DHCPv6 for a small subset of users takes people away from things like bugfixes. DHCPv6 is not trivial. If Apple found a feature that relied upon IPv6 then I imagine a DHCPv6 client would be a priority. As it is, in the meantime you'll have to settle for things like http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/ http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/ - which at least works on leopard but you'll have to compile it yourself and it's not complete. For some info on what is already possible with IPv6 on OSX take a look here: http://ipv6int.net/systems/mac_os_x-ipv6.html http://ipv6int.net/systems/mac_os_x-ipv6.html
- drdaeman 16y agoSorry for misunderstanding, now I see. Thanks for the explaination!