orangeboats

5 ms·

31.
by orangeboats 5mo ago
In some cases the built-in firmware is very barebones, just enough to get U-boot to load up and do the rest of the job.
32.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
It's scary that your 1-minute old comment got insta-downvoted.
33.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
Unfortunately it's you who feels that way. Because you never realized that third world countries are being hurt by IPv4 address space depletion. The lack of self awareness is appalling.
34.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
The fact that we are giving IP addresses an hierarchy is stupid. If you don't want outsiders to connect to your device use a firewall.
35.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
Come on... that's the top comment on the thread you shared. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47355046 This article that "begs to differ" is inventing IPv6 all over again. It just refuses to call itself so
36.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
If bad routers etc. makes you think IPv6 is bad... then man, I think for me IPv4 is a mountain of shite. But my comment was not directed at you, more so towards those people who looked at IPv6 very superficially (i.e. the ipV6 AddRESs iS Ug
37.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
Got it. So they are subhumans who shouldn't get a public IP anyway.
38.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
>The topic is CG-NAT and port forwarding You don't mention port forwarding without mentioning about hole punching. Because what port forwarding is for, if not to ease the establishment of direct connections? >You don't need
39.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
>Can you clarify what you mean by hole-punchable? If all else fails, just use TCP, right? Does TCP also not work? I... uh, what? Please... learn more about hole punching before trying to engage in the topic. Hole punching, in the context
40.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
>What is this entitled mindset that somehow people without CG-NAT already benefit from their public IPv4? I will raise you the opposite point: why deprive people of their ability to have a globally addressable IP address? >But even
41.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
Pretending that 0-9A-Z is somehow comparable to 行 or ∮ is quite daring, I will give you that. And once again: any anti-IPv6 people could have already learned proper IPv6, if they directed 10% of their efforts (spent on bashing the IPv6 addr
42.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
What happens when DNS is down (IPv4 edition)?
43.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
DHCP? For country-level IP allocation? Yeah, your mama was not wrong - you indeed are a special one. Now, let's bring you to a nearby playground...
44.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
>other than port forwarding >other Well you just handwaved away the most significant difference between NAT and native IP, obviously there won't be any major difference to discuss about anymore! No, we can't ignore port fo
45.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
IPv4 - first come first served, with a 24 karat FU to the 3rd world countries. It is their fault that they are poor. IPv6 - still the same, but the space is large enough that any first-mover advantage is minuscule.
46.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
You have to be really special if you think a 32-bit address space can cope with the ever expanding internet. We only managed to scrape by for now because ISPs keep on putting more and more people behind CGNAT. (My country's ISPs force
47.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
What about you send $2 to the people in India and China who can't get a public IPv4 address then?
48.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
There are already abstractions that allows you to deal with IPv6 without actually typing in the addresses. It's the DNS, but every time this topic pops up, someone rejects DNS and proceeds to continue sprouting something about how IPv6
49.
by orangeboats 6mo ago
It's already the major protocol in many countries. A decade ago people were laughing, saying IPv6 will never break 10% adoption. Now it's 50% and somehow people are still making the same joke. Are we insidiously shifting the goa
50.
by orangeboats 7mo ago
I am not talking about modern ARM though.
51.
by orangeboats 7mo ago
"Making everything optional" is for the embedded space. As for general purpose processors, RISC-V has always had the idea of profiles (mandatory set of extensions). Just look at the G extension, which mandated floating point, mult
52.
by orangeboats 7mo ago
>which seems still debatable In what way are RISC-V profiles debatable? Canonical is spearheading the RVA23-as-a-default movement and so far, it seems that there are no heavy objections towards that effort (beyond the usual "Canonic
53.
by orangeboats 7mo ago
>What kind or ancient arm hardware are they using here? I think that's the point being made here. ARM in the 2000s was not known to be fast, now it is. RISC-V being slow isn't an inherent characteristic of the ISA, it only tell
54.
by orangeboats 7mo ago
Go is pretty minimalistic as a language though. At least I don't feel that it has the same expressiveness as either Zig or Rust.
55.
by orangeboats 8mo ago
>Support for IPv6 is notoriously bad in residential modems. No? Over here at (South) East Asia we have been deploying IPv6 for nearly a decade now. The users are getting their IPv6 connectivity. Before someone jumps out and shouts SeCuRi
56.
by orangeboats 8mo ago
I am tired of people claiming that you can make a "new Internet protocol that is compatible with IPv4". No, backwards compatibility is not the problem here: IPv6-only hosts can easily connect to IPv4 hosts. Just append "64:ff
57.
by orangeboats 9mo ago
Reading comprehension! The GP was clearly referring to the current AI boom, which is the root cause of DRAM price surging.
58.
by orangeboats 9mo ago
Very apt username for the occasion.
59.
by orangeboats 9mo ago
You clearly do not understand networking. Or else you won't make such a statement: >This is stuff that could be implemented in any ipv4 stack in some days of work. The sysadmins across the world, who had to deal with decades-old, ne
60.
by orangeboats 9mo ago
>if his site supported ipv4 natively And it's becoming difficult for people to do so precisely because of IPv4 addresses running out...

More ›