orangeboats

20 ms·

271.
by orangeboats 3y ago
That's the thing. You still have to think about lifetimes when you refactor C++ code too. I have accidentally introduced segfaults refactoring my own C++ code, that is for certain. You still have to do all the hard work thinking about
272.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>I think Rust will remain a niche language because its main benefits compared to its learning curve are high. Honestly? I simply don't think the learning curve of Rust is worth mentioning, or at least it is in my opinion on the same
273.
by orangeboats 3y ago
My hot take: when D intends to compete with C++, having an opt-out GC is a deadly disadvantage. It is difficult to prove to the performance-oriented people that GC'ed languages can be performant, and years of JVM stop-the-world GC didn
274.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>IPv6 with default-deny firewalls in most places would break P2P communication too. That's why you have the PCP protocol to help you setup a hole in your firewall, you default-deny until some host in your network says "I can ha
275.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>I don't know a single person that has ever fallen victim to a virus or malware on linux, and I've been using it almost exclusively for the past 20 years. If it was a threat vector, it clearly wasn't a very big issue. So:
276.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>One of the beautiful things about Linux was that you had thing huge variety of desktop environments and the reason for it was that X11 gave you all the infrastructure, you only had to do the user-facing parts. Why do people like to emph
277.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>Neither NATs nor firewalls were invented with the Internet, and it doesn't matter. NATs are a thing now. Don't forget the context: we were talking about "removing NAT as an extra goal of IPv6," not "does it matt
278.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>And this is what I said in my original comment, ipv6 has extra goals (like removing NAT day 1). Extra goals? Removing NAT? Come on now... Don't act like NAT was invented along with the Internet itself, you know it wasn't. And
279.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>doesn't suddenly mean you have more routes to deal with. Routing tables don't magically change their structures according to the routes either. Think about this: the routing table must provide at least 40 bits of space to acco
280.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>But going v6 means redesigning your network. >If all the addresses, routing, etc were kept the same as before It is a natural consequence of having a greater address space. If you decide to expand the address to become 128-bits long
281.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>Special kinds of addresses You give one example (ULA) and I can raise you four: 192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.12.0.0/12. You give one example (LLA) and I can raise you another: 169.254.0.0/16. So come on now with t
282.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>From the horrible addresses (why are they impossible to memorize? Who thought that was a smart idea? At least I can wrap my brain around IPv4) Every time someone brings up this point, I have to assume that they know nothing about IPv6 b
283.
by orangeboats 3y ago
Are we not _already_ attempting security by obscurity at the very moment we talk about "exposing your LAN" as a supposed weakness of IPv6? /64 is the smallest network your ISP can hand out, of course you can rely on that. Eve
284.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>exposing your LAN to public routing tables is madness And I don't understand why people think that. You are exposing a /64 network. That's 2^64 addresses, no one can scan your LAN if that's what you fear, nor can any
285.
by orangeboats 3y ago
>IPv6 isn't ready for real use Tell that to 45% of the Internet. Also, half of the bingo items there are intentionally humorous, and if you are taking those items literally (I wouldn't be able to tell, you never listed them out
286.
by orangeboats 3y ago
We should abandon the very idea of "public" and "private" addresses. An IP address is just an IP address, a globally-unique number that identifies a networked device. If you want a device to be inaccessible by other devi
287.
by orangeboats 3y ago
Oh boy do I have a great news for you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol) Some IoT devices are now IPv6-required.