Re: [SLE] ipv6? -- IPv6 is actually a dream (and there's common FUD)
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:40 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Support for using IPv6 addresses everywhere - configuration etc.
Okay, there's a _lot_ of "FUD" out there about IPv6. Why? Because people have _never_ used it. IPv6 was designed for _less_administration_, and it _is_. First off, every IPv6 system has an automatically configured LINK LOCAL address. It's FE80::/64, with the lower 64-bits being based on the 48-bit IEEE802 MAC address. E.g., my Ethernet MAC is: 00:E0:4C:09:20:45 My IPv6 LINK LOCAL address is: fe80::2e0:4cff:fe09:2045/64 ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ MAC Address ^^^^ fe80::/64 (LINK LOCAL subnet) If "LINK LOCAL" sounds familiar, it's because the IPv6 concept was backported to IPv4 as well -- 169.254/16. *BUT* in IPv6, you _always_ have a "LINK LOCAL" address. I.e., the _local_, layer-2 IPv6 address is _always_ "LINK LOCAL." If you have a routed IPv6 address, then you have a _second_ IPv6 address on a system. IPv6 was _purposely_ designed for 3 "context" IPs: - LINK LOCAL (layer-2) - SITE LOCAL (layer-3, internal -- deprecated, see below), NOW PRIVATE - INTERNET Many _large_ and even _medium_ size enterprises are using IPv6 LINK LOCAL and PRIVATE addresses. Why? Because it solves a _lot_ of issues. Traditionally, interconnected enterprises use 1:1 NAT to hide their schemes and avoid IPv4 address conflicts (i.e., I've worked in large, interconnected defense and financial firms) -- but IPv6 handles it _much_ better.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. I though it worked the other way round.
Huh? _Every_ Linux distribution that enables IPv6 by default _also_ has the system come up with a IPv4 address.
So, if I were to get an IPv6 range from my provider
First off, you need to go research how IPv6 works. You _can_ use IPv6 _internally_, and then NAT/PAT IPv6 to IPv4 for the Internet. If you are interconnecting enterprises, IPv6 typically _eliminates_ the requirement for 1:1 IPv4 NAT. Secondly, you have LINK LOCAL (layer-2) and PRIVATE (layer-3) addresses. There _are_ reserved IPv6 ranges for private use. LINK LOCAL is an absolute _dream_ to have on the same subnet.
(there are some providers here that offer it),
Why are you talking "providers"? I'm _not_ talking about "providers"! Anytime someone like myself talks of IPv6, _why_ do people think the Internet? Oh, that's right, because they have _never_ used IPv6. ;-> IPv6 is a _dream_ for enterprises! It was _not_ merely designed to address the Internet, it was designed and _chosen_ by the IETF _because_ it solves many issues for _enterprises_internally_!
there's no reall need to worry?
Worry about what?
Would people on plain IPv4 networks have access to e.g. my mail-server on IPv6 or would I need to provide some sort of gateway?
IPv4 maps into IPv6 and IPv6 maps into IPv4. Again, _read_ up on IPv6 -- don't assume and spread FUD.
Currently, I occasionally see AAAA records returned for some Swiss hosts - these I don't have access to without a IPv6-4 tunnel or something. (fortunately, they also have IPv4 addresses).
We *ARE* using IPv6 in the US at Fortune 100 companies, as well as organizations that connect to them. Even if only the Internet2 is IPv6 publicly, IPv6 is very, very _common_ in the US. It's one of the reasons why I'm pushing _hard_ to make IPv6 knowledge _standard_ in the next round of LPI exam updates. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Most IPv6 nodes also have a IPv4 address.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. I though it worked the other way round.
Huh? _Every_ Linux distribution that enables IPv6 by default _also_ has the system come up with a IPv4 address.
What I meant was - I though every IPv4 address could be expressed as an IPv6 address, but not vice-versa.
So, if I were to get an IPv6 range from my provider
First off, you need to go research how IPv6 works. You _can_ use IPv6 _internally_, and then NAT/PAT IPv6 to IPv4 for the Internet.
I understand that. You could benefit from being a little less condescending.
If you are interconnecting enterprises, IPv6 typically _eliminates_ the requirement for 1:1 IPv4 NAT.
Who's talking about "interconnecting enterprises"???
(there are some providers here that offer it),
Why are you talking "providers"? I'm _not_ talking about "providers"!
So? You talk about "interconnecting enterprises" even though I'm not.
Anytime someone like myself talks of IPv6, _why_ do people think the Internet?
Why shouldn't they? To me, using it internally is not particularly attractive for the time being.
Would people on plain IPv4 networks have access to e.g. my mail-server on IPv6 or would I need to provide some sort of gateway?
IPv4 maps into IPv6 and IPv6 maps into IPv4. Again, _read_ up on IPv6 -- don't assume and spread FUD.
Please, Bryan - I'm not spreading anything. And do also please adjust your tone - it _really_ does you no good.
Currently, I occasionally see AAAA records returned for some Swiss hosts - these I don't have access to without a IPv6-4 tunnel or something. (fortunately, they also have IPv4 addresses).
We *ARE* using IPv6 in the US at Fortune 100 companies, as well as organizations that connect to them. Even if only the Internet2 is IPv6 publicly, IPv6 is very, very _common_ in the US.
Why are you now talking about the US? I never spoke about the US - it is in fact utterly irrelevant to me. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 14:25 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
What I meant was - I though every IPv4 address could be expressed as an IPv6 address, but not vice-versa.
Yes and no. Yes, there is a reserved IPv6 subnet for IPv4 (the subnet number is slipping my mind -- it's another /64 CIDR IIRC). But no, for the most part, the router is doing address translation when it comes to _both_ directions.
I understand that. You could benefit from being a little less condescending.
Because everything you've said has been based on assumptions. I'm not being "condescending," I'm just waiving my arms, trying to get you _past_ those assumptions.
Who's talking about "interconnecting enterprises"???
*I* am! That's what IPv6 is being used for _heavily_ in the US. That's the #1 problem with the FUD on IPv6. Yes, IPv6 is being used to address the limitation of IPv4 address of the 4 non-IANA regions. But IPv6 was _also_ designed to address many _internal_/_private_ issues. And it does that _brilliantly_! That's why IPv6 is being enabled on systems by default. Which is why you can't make this an "Internet-only" thread. Because a _lot_ of "Linux" systems aren't directly on the Internet. ;->
So? You talk about "interconnecting enterprises" even though I'm not.
But that's where 90% of IPv6 adoption is occurring. And most of that is in the US. Last time I checked, this thread wasn't merely limited to the Internet. It was on IPv6 in general -- so I'm going to talk about where it's being adopted the most. But even those that use IPv6 on the Internet have _little_ issue with its adoption. All you need is a router and a name server. In fact, that's what I've said repeatedly throughout this thread. IPv6 adoption is not difficult at all. And most of the other issues have to do with UDP/TCP services in general -- regardless of IPv4 or IPv6.
Why shouldn't they? To me, using it internally is not particularly attractive for the time being.
Again, last time I checked, this thread wasn't merely limited to the Internet. Especially since IPv6 was designed to address internal/private issues more than just the address space. In fact, so much from IPv6 has been "backported" to IPv4 for 100% internal/private use.
Please, Bryan - I'm not spreading anything. And do also please adjust your tone - it _really_ does you no good.
Because 99% of the posts I see on IPv6 are FUD. It gets just as frustrating as any other FUD.
Why are you now talking about the US? I never spoke about the US - it is in fact utterly irrelevant to me.
But that's where the _majority_ of IPv6 adoption is. Which is why more and more Linux distributions are shipping with the IPv6 LINK LOCAL address enabled. And IPv6 LINK LOCAL is _not_ for the Internet. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 08:54 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Yes, IPv6 is being used to address the limitation of IPv4 address of the 4 non-IANA regions.
Correction, I meant the 4 non-ARIN regions (not IANA).
But that's where the _majority_ of IPv6 adoption is. Which is why more and more Linux distributions are shipping with the IPv6 LINK LOCAL address enabled. ... And IPv6 LINK LOCAL is _not_ for the Internet. ;->
Again, we're talking about distros that turn on IPv6 by default, and assign the IPv6 LINK LOCAL address. That has 100% to do with _internal_ use. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
Hi Bryan, Whole discussion about advantages of IPv6 and how many corporations use it doesn't help if I have to wait longer for name resolution, and that is concern of most private users. When my ISP implement IPv6 than I can enjoy advantages, until that time I have to disable it to get out as fast as possible. I disagree with folk that try to generalize their problems with mixed networks and blame all on the protocol instead of particular implementation, but than you should answer to Michael James not to Per Jansen that pointed out difference between protocol and implementation. HTH -- Regards, Rajko.
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:41 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
Hi Bryan, Whole discussion about advantages of IPv6 and how many corporations use it doesn't help if I have to wait longer for name resolution,
First off, re-read _back_ through the thread. To re-cap, I said, as long as you address IPv6 name resolution -- just like IPv4 name resolution -- IPv6 is a _dream_. IPv6 is _not_ an "issue" -- that's FUD talking! If you actually setup IPv6 correctly -- which is _easy_ (and 99% of those who say otherwise are full of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, FUD -- even if unintentional) -- it's a _dream_! So stop spreading the FUD. You can advocate just disabling it. But I've seen FUD after FUD after FUD on IPv6. It's just untrue!
and that is concern of most private users.
But what is Linux designed for? I've had this same discussion on the Linux Professional Institute (LPI) lists. Do we artificially limit the objectives/exams for home users? Or do we design the objectives/exams for enterprise users? Same deal with Linux distributions. Do we artificially limit the distribution for home users? Or do we design the distribution for enterprises? Hey, I'm all for a "checkbox" in the installer that disables IPv6. But IPv6 name resolution is _no_different_ than IPv4 name resolution. And IPv6 UDP/TCP services are _no_different_ than IPv4 UDP/TCP services. IPv6 _must_ ship with _all_ new distros. Because enterprises are using it! Say it's "broken" or "shouldn't be enabled" or whatever, based on 100% FUD (and I've seen many, many statements here that are just dead _wrong_) -- no, that's the problem. It's been a major problem with LPI to date as well. And LPI-Japan, where the overwhelmingly greatest number of certified individuals and more revenue (than all other countries combined) thinks so as well. Hell, God knows that limiting for the home user is at the core problem of Windows. You want to tank Linux? Do that! ;->
When my ISP implement IPv6 than I can enjoy advantages,
Huh? IPv6 works like IPv4 internally -- only with many _advantages_ (like auto-configuration, etc...). IPv6 adoption was _designed_ for _superior_ "internal" use versus IPv6. Again, FUD suggests that IPv6 was _only_ designed for the Internet.
until that time I have to disable it to get out as fast as possible.
Then that's your choice. I _never_ disagreed with that.
I disagree with folk that try to generalize their problems with mixed networks and blame all on the protocol instead of particular implementation, but than you should answer to Michael James not to Per Jansen that pointed out difference between protocol and implementation.
Huh? Remember, I _never_ said that you shouldn't disable it. I only said that IPv6 is a _dream_ if you learn the basic concepts. But apparently, the FUD machine of IPv6 wants to translate that into something else. It's FUD -- remember what FUD means ... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt That is what I've seen repeatedly in the comments here on IPv6. Hell, *I* am the one that pegged it as a "name resolution" issue. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 10:26 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
And you are wrong.
Because the problem is? Please, do continue. I would like a useful and _on-topic_ discussion with using SuSE Linux IP6 LINK LOCAL being enabled by default. And now what 90+% of others tried to turn it into. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On 29/05/06 10:40, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 10:26 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
And you are wrong.
Because the problem is? Please, do continue.
It is well described in a number of other posts to this thread, including my own first two notes. There is no need to repeat it a third time.
I would like a useful and _on-topic_ discussion with using SuSE Linux IP6 LINK LOCAL being enabled by default.
And now what 90+% of others tried to turn it into.
Then by all means, do so. Start a new thread, and describe all the things that are needed to do either of the following: a) turn off ipv6 completely, at least on the external interface, or b) keep ipv6 turned on, and use it successfully in an environment that has only a ipv6 linklocal available to it. Better still, make an account at Novell, then go and contribute the same material to the OpenSuSE wiki. Whatever you do, please remember you are addressing members of the general public, not a bunch of highly trained, experienced engineers like yourself.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Who's talking about "interconnecting enterprises"???
*I* am! That's what IPv6 is being used for _heavily_ in the US. That's the #1 problem with the FUD on IPv6.
I know *you* are, and I'm trying to explain that 1) I'm not and 2) just as you saw fit to complain about my mentioning a provider, I don't give a toss about your "interconnecting enterprises". I'm just returning the favour, Bryan. I'm fully prepared to make room for all kinds of uses of IPv6, but you were the one who hit me on the head for mentioning "provider" which is where IPv6 could possibly become interesting to my own little world. (which is otherwise quite well served with RFC1918).
That's why IPv6 is being enabled on systems by default. Which is why you can't make this an "Internet-only" thread. Because a _lot_ of "Linux" systems aren't directly on the Internet. ;->
I'm not trying to make it any such thing, but I suspect most users here are not enterprise-size with a sore need to run IPv6. Do you think a lot of the users have a great need for interconnecting enterprises?
IPv6 adoption is not difficult at all. And most of the other issues have to do with UDP/TCP services in general -- regardless of IPv4 or IPv6.
I am trying hard to restrain my sarcasm - surely, that is exactly what I said was my main IPv6 concern - application support.
Why shouldn't they? To me, using it internally is not particularly attractive for the time being.
Again, last time I checked, this thread wasn't merely limited to the Internet.
Quite so. But that does not explain why people should NOT think Internet when someone says IPv6 - except if those people happen to be members of interconecting enterprises. Frankly, you're the one with a limited outlook, not me.
Why are you now talking about the US? I never spoke about the US - it is in fact utterly irrelevant to me.
But that's where the _majority_ of IPv6 adoption is.
I really hate to point out that again I'm just returning the favour. You bring up something that I think is irrelevant, so I'll just be obnoxious too and point it out. You wouldn't by any chance be out trolling, Bryan? /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 20:33 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I know *you* are,
Here's the context ... 1. SuSE-based, Fedora-based, etc... Linux now ships with IPv6 LINK LOCAL enabled. What is IPv6 LINK LOCAL used for? _Not_ the Internet. 2. I said IPv6 is a dream because it solves many issues with its autoconfiguration, etc... over IPv4 -- based on that _same_ context of "internal."
and I'm trying to explain that 1) I'm not and 2) just as you saw fit to complain about my mentioning a provider,
I _never_ "complained" about you mentioning a provider. I said it had _nothing_ to do with the "problem" you mentioned. You (among others) added FUD to the context, including Internet.
I don't give a toss about your "interconnecting enterprises".
Context, context, context ... it's everything. If I am wrong, please point out where SuSE -- or even Fedora -- based distros enable IPv6 for the Internet? Now I'm not blaming merely you. This thread has gone into all sorts of forms -- _well_away_ from the _original_ comment/problem/issue that SuSE Linux enables the IPv6 LINK LOCAL IP by default. A 100% LAN/WAN consideration and _not_ Internet. And then we got a floodgate of FUD on what IPv6 does, doesn't do, problems it causes, etc... What does that have _anything_ to do with: - SuSE Linux's enabling of IPv6, _or_ - What I said about IPv6? Now do you understand where I have stood from answer, comment, etc... 1? ;->
I'm just returning the favour, Bryan. I'm fully prepared to make room for all kinds of uses of IPv6, but you were the one who hit me on the head for mentioning "provider" which is where IPv6 could possibly become interesting to my own little world. (which is otherwise quite well served with RFC1918).
Because the _context_ is everything. But nearly _all_ of what I've seen here on IPv6 is 100% based on FUD. Name resolution with the SuSE Linux IPv6 setup has _nothing_ to do with with your provider, the Internet, etc... In fact, that took _my_ comment on "name resolution" being the "root cause" and ass-u-me'd that I meant the ISP. I meant 100% _internal_. Because 100% of what I talked about was _internal_. Because SuSE Linux's IPv6 default is 100% _internal_. Context, context ... surprise ... context!
I'm not trying to make it any such thing, but I suspect most users here are not enterprise-size with a sore need to run IPv6. Do you think a lot of the users have a great need for interconnecting enterprises?
And that's why I did _not_ disagree that it should be disabled. *BUT* when people started saying IPv6 was an issue, and made all sorts of incorrect statements, _that's_ when I started pointing out the _context_ of what IPv6 is enabled in SuSE Linux, and why it _does_ work. I'm all for a checkbox that disables it in the installer. I'm all for educating people on _how_ to disable it. In fact, I'm pushing _hard_ for a question on how to disabling IPv6 in the next revision of the LPIC-1 exams. But I'm also pushing _hard_ for basic IPv6 concepts, configuration, etc... in _all_ future LPIC-1/2/3 exams. Because the amount of FUD out there is rather distracting. Especially people not realizing that what SuSE Linux enables for IPv6 has _nothing_ to do with the Internet. And that's why 100% of my comments were 100% based on _internal_ use. And that's why when my comments "picked apart" (with lots of FUD) that I said _please_ understand why I
Quite so. But that does not explain why people should NOT think Internet when someone says IPv6 - except if those people happen to be members of interconecting enterprises. Frankly, you're the one with a limited outlook, not me.
People think Internet when IPv6 is mentioned because they are ignorant. Then they spread FUD. For the last time ... 100% of why and how SuSE Linux enables IPv6 by default is for _internal_ use. And 100% of my comment on "name resolution" has to do with _internal_ DNS.
I really hate to point out that again I'm just returning the favour. You bring up something that I think is irrelevant, so I'll just be obnoxious too and point it out. You wouldn't by any chance be out trolling, Bryan?
Yes, trolling to provide _accurate_ answers on issues.
From the "root cause" for IPv6 issues in SuSE Linux, to what IPv6 is enabled for in SuSE Linux.
If 90+% of people _disagree_ with what I say, I'll _continue_ to try to educate them on why they are missing my _technical_ points. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On 29/05/06 09:34, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 20:33 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I don't give a toss about your "interconnecting enterprises".
Context, context, context ... it's everything. If I am wrong, please point out where SuSE -- or even Fedora -- based distros enable IPv6 for the Internet?
Once more, Bryan, please stop to read what is being said, before you type. Clearly ipv6 *is* enabled for the external interface, or we would not even be having this discussion. There would not have been a problem in the first place. As for your "context, context, context", yes -- it *is* everything. And the context of this thread *originally* was, here is a problem that involves use of the internet. Nobody mentioned connectivity in an internal network, until *you* raised it.
I meant 100% _internal_. Because 100% of what I talked about was _internal_. Because SuSE Linux's IPv6 default is 100% _internal_.
From the "root cause" for IPv6 issues in SuSE Linux, to what IPv6 is enabled for in SuSE Linux.
If 90+% of people _disagree_ with what I say, I'll _continue_ to try to educate them on why they are missing my _technical_ points. 90+% of the participants of this list do not even understand your technical points, and even if they did, your technical points would be wholly irrelevant to resolving the problems this thread addresses. You are writing for a presumed audience of software engineers, rather than
Then *why* is anyone having a problem at all? The fact is, unless the user does something about it, by default you *do* get a linklocal ipv6 address on the external interface, as a result of which certain applications assume that ipv6 is fully configured, and thus try to use it. Result: a lengthy wait until timeout, if indeed the application times out at all. the general public, and even then you are discussing matters not germane to the problem which is raised. As for your contributions to the thread, you have been wrong on two major points: first, that this is a name resolution issue of any kind -- it is not; and second, that SuSE's ipv6 implementation is on internal interfaces only -- it is not. These are, of course, merely minor matters when they stand next to the lofty ideals of the rest of your posts. However, to the average SuSE user, they are show stoppers, and what you say beyond all this is totally irrelevant.
On Sunday 28 May 2006 08:25, Per Jessen wrote:
First off, you need to go research how IPv6 works. You _can_ use IPv6 _internally_, and then NAT/PAT IPv6 to IPv4 for the Internet.
I understand that. You could benefit from being a little less condescending.
Well said.....
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 12:06 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Well said.....
No offense, but if you don't know how IPv6 works, you're spreading _FUD_. Here, you want "condescending"? Shut up if you haven't used IPv6! Better? I have read no less than 2-dozen different _incorrect_ statements in various statements here in the last week on just 3 different subjects. Almost all of it has been FUD-based. And then you have responses based on that FUD and proliferation. I _never_ disagreed with the attitude of disabling IPv6. But IPv6 is a _dream_ to wield on a network with just a couple of concepts. It is _easier_ to support IPv4, and things like the LINK LOCAL address -- enabled by distros -- have _nothing_ to do with Internet. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On Monday 29 May 2006 10:59, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 12:06 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Well said.....
No offense, but if you don't know how IPv6 works, you're spreading _FUD_. Here, you want "condescending"?
Shut up if you haven't used IPv6!
Better?
Yup, that's pretty condescending..... You act to me like a 22 yr old who really thinks he's God's gift to computers and a) you know everything, and b) you really enjoy telling all the rest of us know-nothings about computers. BS! I'll match you experience any day but why bother? You'd still be insufferable. You're a new-comer to this list. (nothing wrong with that) but your tone and behavior doesn't lend itself to the friendly behavior of most of the members. Hoping you have a short stay here. <PLONK> P.S. Please learn to not send emails directly to posters.... We all get the emails from the list.
I have read no less than 2-dozen different _incorrect_ statements in various statements here in the last week on just 3 different subjects. Almost all of it has been FUD-based.
And then you have responses based on that FUD and proliferation.
I _never_ disagreed with the attitude of disabling IPv6. But IPv6 is a _dream_ to wield on a network with just a couple of concepts. It is _easier_ to support IPv4, and things like the LINK LOCAL address -- enabled by distros -- have _nothing_ to do with Internet.
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 05/29/06 12:08 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "He who is flogged by fate and laughs the louder is a masochist."
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:12 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Yup, that's pretty condescending.....
It was meant as a joke. Please take it as such.
You act to me like a 22 yr old who really thinks he's God's gift to computers
And I get that attitude when I'm telling 90+% of the Linux community they are wrong ... especially when they are spreading FUD. Everyone is free to assume I'm a kid who doesn't know anything. Assume I pull answers right from my rectum. Assume I don't know anything. That's all fine! Because it takes _years_ of constant, correct answers, help and, more impressive, _predictions_ that come true (and damn if I didn't peg SCO v. IBM from Day 2, most of the IPv6 adoption, Novell and Red Hat moves, IBM moves, 3D IP/support issues, etc...) for people to trust me. Until then ... standard legal disclaimer ... DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY. ASSUME I'M HERE FOR ENTERTAINMENT OR OTHER, NON-TECHNICAL VALUE. TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND CHECK TO SEE IF THE ANSWERS, INFORMATION, COMMENTS, ETC... ARE TRUE OR NOT. THEN DECIDE IF IT IS WORTH LISTENING TO MY POSTS AND COMMENTS. Every new list I join, I'm quiet at first. Then there are a few areas where my experience strongly differs with 90% of the answers I see. At first, I try to give answers. Then a few people ream me. Then I point out the FUD, and how it's based on ignorance of X, Y and Z. After about 6 months, eventually a few people see that I'm giving solid answers in the _few_ areas of my experience. After about 3 years, enough people have gotten enough correct answers -- and more importantly -- seen me admit I'm wrong enough times that see "there's a method to my madness." And I'm perfectly willing to wait 3 years to earn that trust! Until then, just ass-u-me my rectum is speaking. Of course, some people still think ... and I'll quote you ... "who really thinks he's God's gift to computers" Sorry you want to assume such.
and a) you know everything,
No. Quite the opposite! I do _not_ answer when I don't know about something. When I make that mistake, and I am wrong, I immediately state so! I did so on my ignorance on "Anacron" -- that was a mistake. I'm newer to using Novell-SuSE on desktops -- 95% of my experience is on servers. I am fully ready to admit when I'm _wrong_. Hence why you'll see me stay out of _many_ threads.
and b) you really enjoy telling all the rest of us know-nothings about computers.
Huh? Quite the opposite! This isn't a "pissing contest." But FUD is FUD. At some point, you either let it stand, or you try to correct it.
BS! I'll match you experience any day but why bother?
The problem with experience and credentials is that _someone_ always has more.
You'd still beinsufferable.
Yes, to many in e-mail.
You're a new-comer to this list. (nothing wrong with that) but your tone and behavior doesn't lend itself to the friendly behavior of most of the members.
No offense, but a happy, hugging bunch of FUD answers isn't helpful. I try to give solid answers. Then I get answers that just rip my comments. Sorry, when it comes to FUD, I expose it. And it's almost always based on ignorance -- and at some point, you have to just point that out. I fully admit I'm ignorant on _many_ things. I keep my mouth shut. When I don't, and I'm wrong, I admit it! No pride here. After all, I speak out of my rectum. ;->
Hoping you have a short stay here.
Exactly.
<PLONK> P.S. Please learn to not send emails directly to posters.... We all get the emails from the list.
The list setting are setting a "Reply-To". I just noticed that. I will make sure I don't do it from now on. Thanx for pointing that out. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
On Monday 29 May 2006 15:59, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 12:06 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Well said.....
No offense, but if you don't know how IPv6 works, you're spreading _FUD_. Here, you want "condescending"?
Shut up if you haven't used IPv6!
Better?
Oh dear Bryan. Hot water. AFAICS the issue is not whether or not Linux or SuSE can do IPv6, but whether as a typical user with an IPv4 ISP, the Internet as you connect to it can support IPv6.
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
I thought it was made illegal for Americans to burn their own flag in 1968. Should I be upset?
Vince, On Monday 29 May 2006 09:28, Vince Littler wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 15:59, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
... Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
I thought it was made illegal for Americans to burn their own flag in 1968. Should I be upset?
No way. At least not in a way that passed constitutional muster. It's deemed protected political "speech" (expression). The U.S. is near-absolute in its interpretation of the the free speech protections in our constitution. Which I support--for humans. The fact that corporations get nearly the same freedom and protections is a far more deleterious fact. Randall Schulz
On Monday 29 May 2006 17:51, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Vince,
I thought it was made illegal for Americans to burn their own flag in 1968. Should I be upset?
No way. At least not in a way that passed constitutional muster.
Thanks for the clarification, Randall
It's deemed protected political "speech" (expression). The U.S. is near-absolute in its interpretation of the the free speech protections in our constitution. Which I support--for humans.
It's always a problem , drawing that wretched line ;-) And it's always a dilemma, burn the flag, or stop global warming.
On Monday 29 May 2006 12:51, Randall R Schulz wrote:
The U.S. is near-absolute in its interpretation of the the free speech protections in our constitution
McCain-Feingold anyone? Whatta piece of crap that is... But I hope one of them runs linux so this stays on topic.... :-)
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 17:28 +0100, Vince Littler wrote:
Oh dear Bryan. Hot water.
It was meant as a joke. It represents what I could do, instead of trying to stop and explain things. Don't see it as a way to demonize me, as I would _never_ say such. ;->
AFAICS the issue is not whether or not Linux or SuSE can do IPv6, but whether as a typical user with an IPv4 ISP, the Internet as you connect to it can support IPv6.
But SuSE Linux doesn't enable such. It _only_ enables IPv6 LINK LOCAL. Again, I'm _all_for_ disabling it right in the installer. And I have _nothing_ against disabling it here. What I'm against is people stating something is "broken" or "wrong" because they don't understand it. E.g., over in the Red Hat world, SELinux falls in the same category.
I thought it was made illegal for Americans to burn their own flag in 1968. Should I be upset?
Nope. But they are considering an Amendment. I'm very much against that. American soldiers fight so Americans can legally burn the flag -- and most will fully admit that. Of course, they will also be the first in line to punch a person who attempts to. ;-> The best solution I've ever heard was not to make burning the flag a 4th degree misameanor ... but assulting someone to preventing them from burning the flag only a 4th degree misameanor. Problem solved. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation"
participants (7)
-
Bruce Marshall -
Bryan J. Smith -
Darryl Gregorash -
Per Jessen -
Rajko M -
Randall R Schulz -
Vince Littler