msbarnett

134 ms·

1141.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> I think you're under a mistaken view of what OS distro packages exist for. The "system ruby" and other such packages aren't for end-user (or developer) consumption; they exist for the sake of other system packages,
1142.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> Note that "package-the-world-and-freeze" distributions (Debian, RHEL, whoever else) have an entire infrastructure in place to creating their own line of packages from an "upstream's" basic-tarball releases. &gt
1143.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Yeah, no question that investor pressure to submit all of this inappropriate work is a big problem in and of itself. It is, as you say, a good program, and I've had fairly reasonable experiences with it when the company in question was
1144.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Bypassing the developers say "version 1.15 is out now" instead of "version 1.15 is out: 1) Now + however many years until the next Debian stable 2) Now + however many months until the next Ubuntu 3) Now for Arch users 4) Now
1145.
by msbarnett 11y ago
This is my observation as well. There's also a non-zero number of companies filing for SR&ED credits and complaining about the onerousness of the audits who, quite frankly, should not be eligible for SR&ED. Paying devs to bui
1146.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> So far as I know there is no equivalent kludge to UPnP Port Forwarding that works reliably on that scale There's only Port Control Protocol, but almost no sane ISP will ever enable it, because it can't really solve much and
1147.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Only two /24s a month? Demand hasn't been that low in ages.
1148.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> NAT traversal is getting better over time, not worse. (Says data from gaming platforms) You only /really/ need more than one IP if you want to expose more than 65000 different services from a single physical place There&#x27
1149.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Carrier grade NAT is a disaster for end users, unless you want to do little more than browse the web unreliably. Multiplayer gaming, peer-to-peer anything really, is an unmitigated shitshow under heavy NAT. You definitely do not want carr
1150.
by msbarnett 11y ago
I mean, yes, IPv6 fails the improbable science-fiction wish-list test, for any number of reasons beyond address space path MTU discovery algorithms aren't going to be efficient when packet transit times are measured in decades, for one
1151.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> IPv4 with NAT can scale for a very, very long time. Sure it can. Just ask everyone in India and China sitting behind three levels of Carrier-Grade NAT how great that experience is. And hey, working out a rotational schedule as to who
1152.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Even if everything and everyone fails to learn the lesson of 240.0.0.0, and ignores the standard, and hard-codes the assumption that 7/8's of IPv6 is unusable forevermore, 1/8 of 340 trillion trillion trillion is still unfath
1153.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> I think the point is that even with the ability to see the future, they would have still made the same choice, given technical limitations of the time. So there's nothing to regret I disagree. We can regret the way something worke
1154.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> What the parent is saying is that had they implemented a scheme like IPv6 at the time, it would have been problematic for hardware reasons, so it wouldn't have made sense. He's right. There is some spectacular failure of comm
1155.
by msbarnett 11y ago
consider that there are something like 3.35 * 10^22 water molecules on earth there are 3.4 * 10^38 addresses in the IPv6 space we could individual address every water molecule on earth and still have an enormous amount of space left over so
1156.
by msbarnett 11y ago
I suppose the idiom is normally supposed to be "heat death of the universe", but yeah, either way, the IPv6 address space is just galactically, unfathomably huge
1157.
by msbarnett 11y ago
You'll have to settle for a measly trillion of them
1158.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Good clarification
1159.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> They really couldn't have made any better decision at the time Is there some confusion about what the phrase "in retrospect" means? Time is linear and we gain perspective as we move forward in it. Often times good, sma
1160.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> What am I missing? A few things. There's only 4,294,967,296 addresses in IPv4, so if you hand out giant blocks, you run out quite fast, whereas with 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 you could hand out huge IPv4
1161.
by msbarnett 11y ago
I don't think anybody's out to shit on the original engineers. That the decisions they made at the time made sense doesn't make them any less regrettable in retrospect . Either way, it's a pointless argument anyways. Th
1162.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> What the frack does Halliburton need with 16 million IP addresses? Who cares? If they gave them back to IANA tomorrow , IANA would be out again in 2 weeks, at the rate of demand they were seeing the last time they had any blocks to as
1163.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Because address allocation is inefficient and it is impractical to address this inefficiency in IPv4. ARIN is out but your ISP has extras. Why doesn't your ISP sell its extras, since a scarce resource should have monetary value? Routi
1164.
by msbarnett 11y ago
IANA was allocating at a rate of 2 /8s per month right before they ran out. Recovering an /8 would take staggeringly more effort than it is worth in terms of how little it fills existing demand. There is no scheme that will make
1165.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> Every open source app i download that is not signed with Apple needs GateKeeper disabled. No. Every unsigned app you download needs to be whitelisted . Right click the app, click open. It will remember your choice and whitelist the ap
1166.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Most apps are signed nowadays, regardless of whether or not you're getting them from the store.
1167.
by msbarnett 11y ago
It will fail if the signature is invalid. Don't open it if the signature is invalid.
1168.
by msbarnett 11y ago
Any time one of those "Quickly set up an OS X dev machine!" setup scripts makes the rounds, you can practically guarantee that the script disables Gatekeeper and the file download quarantine because the author "found it annoy
1169.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> That doesn't really have the same security properties as the original login information. Well, obviously. For instance, it lacks the property of being trivially vulnerable to a GPU hashing the entire dictionary with a given salt
1170.
by msbarnett 11y ago
> The entropy in the resulting hash is almost the same as a salted MD5 though, is it not? You have more bits, but not significantly more possible hashes. The entropy isn't the significant problem with MD5. The problem is how damn f

More ›