ATsch

43 ms·

421.
by ATsch 7y ago
Phoronix does do this, but it's unfortunately harder to use than would be required for wide adoption in the press. It really has to be as simple as downloading an exe that pops up a window with a "go" button when run, and has
422.
by ATsch 7y ago
I think this distinction is very important, for the following reason: Once you've acknowledged that firewalls are technically optional, but used in 99% of cases, there's no reason to say why home routers wouldn't come out of
423.
by ATsch 7y ago
> How many ipv4 are in poss2of the US Gov and military? Do they really need all of those? You're not the first person to ask this, and the answer is: not nearly enough. Demand for IPv4 is orders of magnitude larger than the current
424.
by ATsch 7y ago
This is probably going to be the case for most professional devices that have CLI configuration and expect the user to be familiar with networking. They don't know what you're going to use it for and in real networks, the sensible
425.
by ATsch 7y ago
The more likely scenario to me is everyone slowly running more and more ipv4 traffic over ipv6. Home providers will start tunnelling ipv4 traffic over v6 (this is already the case here, termed "Dual-Stack Lite"), computers will st
426.
by ATsch 7y ago
Well, you still need to bother with adding firewall rules. But that's a lot less annoying than port forwarding, I agree.
427.
by ATsch 7y ago
The vague "jumping through hoops" aside, I am very, very glad about every one of these features. Maybe you could elaborate on why you assume these things are bad?
428.
by ATsch 7y ago
This is completly incorrect. While NAT is almost always combined with a stateful firewall, the NAT itself does not provide any security. Home devices are always going to be deployed with an allow outgoing, deny incoming firewall, regardless
429.
by ATsch 7y ago
IPv6 is already faster on it's own, because the packet header was modified to be more easily routed in hardware.
430.
by ATsch 7y ago
Maybe this would change if someone would pre-package a build environment with source code, a nice gui and fancy abstract visualization of the compile process.
431.
by ATsch 7y ago
This is my frustration with almost all tech sites. The AMD press deck included compilation benchmarks, but the only others to reliably provide them are Phoronix.
432.
by ATsch 7y ago
They aren't, though. It's simply a CNAME alias to a third party ad and tracking provider.
433.
by ATsch 7y ago
Not sure what's supposed to be interesting about that. It is good when good things happen and bad when bad things happen, yes. We don't need to lock ourselves into some kind of universal ethical conclusion here.
434.
by ATsch 7y ago
I'm actually kind of going to agree with you. First of all, I don't like the term "bland", because it implies a judgement. I think a better word is "sparse". But now, the question, and the thing the researchers
435.
by ATsch 7y ago
Yeah, this is really the core issue, even within the music. As a thought experiment, let's say someone invented a brilliant revolutionary new complex rhythm. Everyone went wild using it for a year. Then, once everyone knows it, artists
436.
by ATsch 7y ago
I think this Dataset is probably unfortunately most famous for an incredibly flawed but very headlineable attempt, which you've almost certainly seen somewhere, by a group of researchers from AI and related fields (none of which had mu
437.
by ATsch 7y ago
Well, the Lakefield design is fully 3D, and Intel has not announced any chiplet based designs, so either they made it all up, or they're convinced they can make it work in the next few years.
438.
by ATsch 7y ago
Well, the complaint usually goes like this: "we recently set up service x, and it seems to be working fine. However, when we try to connect from the campus wifi, or a certain department, the service does not respond". What happens
439.
by ATsch 7y ago
Signs currently point towards Intel skipping the chiplet-on-interposer model AMD is currently using and going directly to 3D stacking i.e. dies directly on top of other dies. They did a paper launch of their "Foveros" 3D stacking
440.
by ATsch 7y ago
Neat, I didn't know about this. If we relax the restrictions on being publicly routed, I can raise you $ ping :: PING ::(::) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from ::1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.071 ms though, shorter by one chara
441.
by ATsch 7y ago
> 172.16-172.31 are particularly frequently unused haha, I wish. We decided to use them two decades ago exactly because we thought they were less frequently used, but then a decade later docker comes along and uses exactly that as a defa
442.
by ATsch 7y ago
This should not usually really be a problem. IPv6-only hosting should usually come with a NAT64 gateway, which allows you to seamlessly connect outwards to any ipv4-only hosts. If not, you can choose to use the ones provided by he.net or go
443.
by ATsch 7y ago
You are right that it would be hard to open a TCP connection with you on a specific target port on a 1:N NAT without UPnP. If you could, IPv4 exhaustion would not be an issue. However, NAT is just a mapping from an internal IP to an externa
444.
by ATsch 7y ago
Two big reasons that Microsoft says have caused them to start pushing v6 adoption internally from around 2017 are: a) struggling to implement proper IP based access control with their available address space. b) as everyone uses the same 16
445.
by ATsch 7y ago
As bad of an idea as memorizing addresses is, they're only so big if you use all of the bits. If you manually assign addresses, most of the bits will be zeroes or low numbers, which means you can just collapse them. E.g. if you had a &
446.
by ATsch 7y ago
Yes, this is important to remember. While automatically assigned IPv6 addresses will usually use the full 128 bits (last half is random), manually assigned addresses usually don't. So e.g. one of my servers is 2a00:1234:8::10, which is
447.
by ATsch 7y ago
As always, it is worth nothing that these things are being conducted by individuals who have had a falling out with the general matrix community for a number of reasons and have since worked on a generally hostile fork. It is in their best
448.
by ATsch 7y ago
I mean, all of the devices already support v6. The problem is providers and services not deploying it and software ignoring it's existence.
449.
by ATsch 7y ago
Well, not directly, but for seamless bridging to work properly, your protocol must support being able to mock users easily. Many new protocols simply don't allow that. This means you need to fall back on a protocol session per user (li
450.
by ATsch 7y ago
The thing is that there's really little benefit from this. Anything performance critical will be written as a native extension anyway, even if Python speeds up by 10x. If you're doing that, you can lift the GIL anyway and run as m

More ›