Is the site dead? Or does it use strange features that keep it from working universally? I just see strobing grey lines...
It finally loaded after several minutes. I see the device pulldown is large, yet there's no scrollbar, and there's no way to search. And from what I see, it doesn't seem to have any CPU based devices yet.
It worked for me (FF, Android, surprisingly fast hotel wifi), in that it loaded, I could select a GPU from a drop-down, a model from another drop-down, and push a button that gave me some information and a configuration example.
Forty years ago I had a Sinclair QL with an 8086 emulator. Because the Sinclair QL had preemptive multitasking, I could easily search memory for patterns, monitor locations, stop and start the emulation, or change memory programmatically and easily from the QDOS side. It was worlds easier than using a debugger, particularly since I didn't own an 8086 system.
I always thought it was a clever way to get insights in to software while it was running that wasn't available to people with 8086 systems, and it's interesting to see this idea so many years later.
Bochs and MAME both have superb and widely-used debuggers, while Qemu is more limited but still has some debugging capabilities in its monitor, as well as a gdb integration. (Can’t say anything about PCem/86Box.) It seems that developers of emulators targeting good coverage of old stuff simply can’t not build a debugger, because it’s an integral part of their task to figure out what the hell the devs of the latest failing thing did to make it fail. Bochs is (was?) also quite popular in the OSDev scene as a debugging tool.
DOSBox can be configured to include a debugger. The feature is not enabled in the official binary but the enhanced derivative projects probably have it (DOSBox-X definitely does):
Hey because I don't feel like making a phone call to my BSD expert, is that a flag? Like in Gentoo it would be like
USE="debugger" emerge -vaD bochs #portage reads env and will set flags this way or in /etc/portage/packages.use/bochs (folder name packages.use is arbitrary and I'm old school.)
Curious if BSD is like that too and I am way to tired to attempt to search for it with correct words...
Oh yeah, that is right. thank you! i didn't want to have to install a bsd just to check, i don't have one handy right now!
to clarify: USE="debugger" would be a flag that the package has, when you call the package manager to build it from source it just enables that in the make or whatever. package.use is if you want to make sure that some other package doesn't uninstall/modify your package. I am doing a poor job of explaining.
package.use is useful for maintaining your flags during upgrades. USE="debugger" or USE="-debugger" are one off, and i should have specified by putting emerge -va1D bochs (or whatever)
gentoo is a source-based OS, in a similar way to at least the bsds i've used.
Gentoo does have "system wide USE flags" they go in /etc/portage/make.conf, where you would set like USE="-gtk -alsa -X" or whatever, and portage will balk if some package tries to pull in masked packages. "Package has been masked by USE -X"
make.conf makes sure that specific tech stacks won't be pulled in as dependencies unless you specifically unmask the flag for that package in package.use or USE="" emerge[...].
package.use is where you keep your "this is how i want this software built when you do it for me" {this part is wrong, but i don't feel like explaining all of the portage package dot whatever weirdness, because anyone who started using gentoo in the last decade or so might strongly disagree with my assertions about naming and other convention - Ed.}
USE="" is if i need to install some package with a specific feature that isn't enabled by default. Such as debugging real mode or whatever. I generally only USE="" if it's something i need for a few moments and then gets uninstalled. On a source based OS keeping oddball archive support packages or whatever adds time and heat to your updates.
In general, compared to gentoo, things like buildflags, for CPU(-features/levels/generations), general compilerflags like -02 or -O3, and linker-flags would be set for the build of the kernel, or additionally the 'world'.
IF you are building from source at all. 'World' meaning the complete basic userland, in sync with the kernel, as one cohesive thing, (or in linux-speak the base image of the 'Distro/Distribution')with individual choices of 'ports' runnig atop of that.
That's less granular than gentoo. OTOH gentoo can be used with binaries too, or not?
Anyways, the fine granularity of gentoos use-flags isn't replicated anywhere else, afaik.
(Yah well, Paludis on Exherbo possibly, but too much hassle for me)
If you ask nixers (Nix-Os) about it, they don't get it, because of reproducible builds.
And on FBSD, I had the feeling that too much 'ricing' is being frowned upon.
Though I did that, a looong time ago, with both Free- and NetBSD.
Nowadays I'm just relying on others doing the 'tuning' and compiling for me(mostly), and in case of CachyOS that works really well for me, atm.
The "IPv6 is Hard" source seems to be sarcastic, not serious. IPv6 is ridiculously easy, in the grand scheme of things.
What's hard is getting people who should know better to do what they're supposed to do, without playing games. The very fact that there are people who will argue why IPv6 is unnecessary tells us everything we need to know, because occasionally those people are in the path of deployment of something public. They don't write software which works agnostically with IPv6, they don't implement addressing that's stack agnostic, they don't bother taking the extra five minutes to test with IPv6.
Then you have a corporation that requires manager types to have enough "justification" to actually fix whatever Mr.-IPv4-is-good-enough, and because they don't understand that their own phone uses IPv6 all the time, they don't see a "business case" for it.
The title would be longer, but perhaps more accurate, if it were "Getting know-it-alls to stop stubbornly clinging to IPv4-is-good-enough and getting managers to realize that IPv6 is not only inevitable, but ubiquitous, are hard".
This article's conclusion isn't totally off, but in this case it's something that could easily be fixed by having a junior network admin just simply set things up. It's a trivial problem that's probably there because someone thinks they know better.
> IPv6 is ridiculously easy, in the grand scheme of things.
How do I do a guest wifi network with isolation? On ipv4 I just flip a switch and thanks to NATs it just works, always.
With ipv6? First I have to figure out what prefix delegation my ISP gives me. How do I do that? Manually, somehow, and hope it never changes. Already not "ridiculously easy" at the first step.
Oops, turns out I was given a /64. So now what? Please explain this "ridiculously easy" thing to me, thanks.
IPv6 is easy, it was just not designed to handle
intentionally adverse ISPs.
If ALL customers would get a static /48 and the router provided by ISP wouldn't be industrial waste, you could easily use a different /64 for guest WiFi. (Or even a /56, if for some reason your friend wants to delegate some /64s to VMs running on their notebook.)
But in that case these ISPs wouldn't be able to ask more money for "business" internet services.
I think this is just the result of negligence from IANA or RIRs, these "suggestions" or "best practices" should be mandatory for ISPs and enforced by RIRs.
I don't think you can frame it as "adverse ISPs". I mean in some respects yes, but also IPv6 made the assumption that networks want to be shallow & wide, yet that's not where we've ended up. Rather, we now tend to have a lot of depth to the routing tree. Is this because of NATs? Possibly. But also network isolation turned out to be a powerful tool. And every step of isolation is necessarily another subnet. So now the depth of IPv6 is a limiting factor. Great you can have infinitely wide networks, but you can't expect to nest them much anymore. And that's a rather big limitation.
Which maybe will happen eventually with RFC 9686 & 9663. Those are getting activity and maybe eventually will enable an actual IPv6 future in, oh, another 20 years? give or take.
Is that really the case though? I very much doubt it.
I get a /56. Dynamic configuration mechanisms exist. I literally do not have to anything except flip a switch. My router even supports Prefix Delegation, so a downstream router/access point can do its thing.
> Is that really the case though? I very much doubt it.
It's what AT&T fiber does. Well, they give a /60 to their shitbox, but if you want your own router with a public IP then you're stuck with a single /64 for it at least when doing the "easy" path.
You can get some routers to request multiple IPv6 blocks and then you get the freedom of a whopping 7 subnets but you've also left "ridiculously easy" way, waaaay in the rear view mirror at this point anyway
I mean it’s not a great answer, but you could always set up a ULA for your guest network and use NAT. :-P
But I’m with you on prefix delegation sucking. Prefixes change, and that makes all your devices’ addresses change. ULA’s solve this. But then you start asking hard questions like “if I’m going to use a ULA anyway, why even use the GUA addresses?” And the answer is shrug.
I mean, it’s great that you can give real addresses to your devices when you want to host a service on them, but you can always just NAT your ISP-provided prefix to them anyway. You’ll probably want better addresses for them anyway, as those randomly generated host addresses aren’t easy to remember (may as well just start your public addresses at ::1 and increment from there, routing each one to the underlying ULA.)
I've been writing software for pay for several decades and do not want IPv6.
Phones use IPv4 and IPv6 and you can switch your phone to IPv6 only in the networking settings, run like that for a month and observe multiple weird and bad behaviors.
I don't want IPv6 for several reasons, it looks like it was written by an alien and it inherently is privacy busting. I know many whose job it is to track people as closely as possibly will object but it's true, IPv6 is mainly only wanted by people whose job it is to track people.
> The very fact that there are people who will argue why IPv6 is unnecessary tells us everything we need to know
Yeah, it tells us that the IPv6 standard was invented by retarded monkeys who don't know what they're doing.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, I've heard it before - akshually it's the rest of humanity who is stupid for not switching to IPv6. If only they were enlightened enough to know they need to throw away all their hardware and switch to an untested network stack for no practical benefit!)
An ad for... the IETF? All of the firmware discussed in this post is open source, and we even contributed DTLS Connection ID server side support to a popular open source library [0] so other folks can stand up secure cloud services for low power devices. Sure, we sell a product, but our broader mission is making the increasing number of internet connected devices more secure and reliable. When sharing knowledge and technology is in service of that mission, we do not hesitate to do so.
It's perfect for things that just need a modest amount of bandwidth, like a TV. Most streams are a few tens of megabits, and that's about all you can reasonably expect from powerline networking.
When you try to use as much bandwidth as you can, they fail in sometimes spectacular ways. I have some old Radio Shack 10 Mbps ones that have brought a high end Juniper to its knees when the Radio Shack box's "collision" LED was fully lit. Newer devices do better, but it's best to just use powerline networking for things that need steady, continuous traffic.
So other than Windows constantly and actively slowing down machines, we have dust collecting which then causes CPUs to throttle sooner... I'd be interested to see what the trend in average scores looks like for machines that don't otherwise change over time, although I can't imagine anyone would run Passmark every day or every week for a few years.
I will always pronounce "DOGE" as "doggy" because it'd infuriate manchild Musk.
It's extremely telling that Republicans are blocking the subpoenaing of Musk. They're basically saying that asking questions is a Bad Thing™, and that we should just trust our new overlords and let them do whatever they want.
What other reason could there be for not wanting people to ask questions and get answers about what DOGGY is doing?
Cloudflare is discriminatory. They, and their fanbois, will likely claim that they can't publicly discuss their criteria for who they block, so some mysterious magic is going on in the background, and we're supposed to just trust them because they're big.
That in mind, I'd love even the most fawning of the fanbois to come up with rationalization for why for a very common browser (Safari on modern macOS), most links through Cloudflare work, but trying to get past the are-you-human checkbox on Cloudflare's abuse reporting page doesn't work half the time.
Obviously that shouldn't be on an abuse reporting page at all, but Cloudflare has been making abuse reporting extremely difficult for years. Adding rate limiting (a human can easily hit it) and prove-you're-human verification on their abuse page just unambiguously proves this.
You imply that archive.org is somehow doing something wrong by letting "vagrants" sleep on their steps. I'd assert that people who are compassionate are more trustworthy than people who think punishing others should be normalized. I'd definitely prefer my backups in the hands of compassionate people.
The problem is that the people who want to see others be punished can't be trusted to, you know, not do that. Removing information about climate change, about vaccines, about trans care, et cetera, very well could happen at the hands of those who get off on punishing others.
You say the National Archives already does this. What happens when the current administration fires everyone and replaces them with non-professionals?
So I really don't know why you'd be in here talking ish about ArchiveTeam.
> I'd definitely prefer my backups in the hands of compassionate people.
I prefer them in the hands of competent people, in a building with climate control.
Heard about the time these compassionate folks tried to run a bank and got shut down in the Obama era?
> Unwillingness to open accounts within the field of membership, make loans, and establish operations in the low-income community where the credit union was chartered to serve
It finally loaded after several minutes. I see the device pulldown is large, yet there's no scrollbar, and there's no way to search. And from what I see, it doesn't seem to have any CPU based devices yet.
Hopefully it'll improve over time.
reply