> I've never figured out why the inordinate delay given that millions are unhappy with Windows and Microsoft generally. You'd reckon open source developers would be falling over themselves to join such a project but it seems not.
I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project. Take Go-lang for example, originally created by Google, then opened up. I am sure there are Google employees that still contribute (on Googles dime) to the project. Why would Google do this? Why not keep the Go just for themselves? Simple, if they open it up and can get other people/companies to use it, then they can make future hires where they don't have to train everyone on a proprietary language.
ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime.
Development is skilled labor, especially for an OS. Dev's need to eat, need a home, etc. I don't know a single dev that is itching to give away their skills for 0 compensation. The only time devs really do that is when it is a personal passion project.
> I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project.
I actually think this is a wider societal issue. People love calling for work to be done in some abstract sense ('someone should really...', 'they should make it so that..'), but who is this 'they'? Or this 'someone'? You? Because you're either volunteering yourself, or you're 'volunteering' someone else for the job, there's no third option.
There's this general sense that everything will be (or is) documented; every tool made, every itch scratched. But unless the incentives (money, fame, prestige, personal fulfilment, love, curiosity, self-expression, etc.) are there for someone to do it, it won't get done. Most things will never be done.
So if someone says "I don't understand why X hasn't been done", I feel like an appropriate response is to ask why they haven't done it. And generally, whatever reasons they give, those reasons will be a good explanation why anyone else hasn't done it either.
"I feel like an appropriate response is to ask why they haven't done it."
The average user can't program let alone build an operating system. The same way the average driver cannot build a car. Or smartphone users cannot build a smartphone.
Users have requirements of their tech and the more experienced they become the more they reqire of their tech. The trouble is that with the monopolies that run Big Tech their monopolistic practices give them little incentive to provide features that benefit users, instead the new features benefit them.
I could give you numerous examples of software that requires new features but no attempt has been made in decades to add them. Take Windows, whatever happened to the WinFS file system? It's sorely needed but MS and Big Tech generally want users to use Cloud storage and that benefits them, WinFS would help sidestep that. Windows and Windows Explorer need major extensions to the file attributes sysyem, Explorer needs major ergonomic enhancements to make file manipulation easier, and that's just for starters.
Without real competition none of this will occur, not even Linux and Apple can fix this because of their differences, they too are moribund in their own ecosystems for the sane reason.
Meanwhile, users like me have unfulfilled needs that are quite technically within the means of existing computers and well within the capabilities of tech companies to provide but these needs still remain unfulfilled after decades.
That we are nearly 80 years into the computer revolution and users still cannot perform simple basic tasks on a PC that have been straightforward commonplace operations in a paper-based filing system for hundreds of years just isn't good enough.
The fact is it's impractical for users of modern tech to start from scratch just because Big Tech doesn't fix bugs or add much-needed features. Unfortunately, attitudes like yours do not help.
Marx once said workers need command of production, these days I'd alter that to users need command of production so they can get the necessaries to do what they need to do.
Why anyone, reads, or cares at all about Marx, is beyond me. The guy was the biggest fucking loser bum to ever exist. He was constantly hitting up family for money, never had a real fucking job, was an absolute slob of a human being, treated is children like dog shit, and in general was too impressed by his own "intelligence".
>ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime.
It's also a solution to a problem that largely doesn't exist. The people working on it do so for fun, not because they need Windows but not made by Microsoft. The parent comments says "having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain" but it's not a real pain to any significant amount of people.
The amount of evidence pointing to vaccines being the cause of excess deaths is staggering.
It’s absolutely flabbergasting how so many people will stick fingers in their ears and try and blame anything and everything but the so called “vaccines”.
I like the single-binary approach that Nomad (and Consul) uses. Whereas, Kubernetes feels like a complicated web of services and APIs that need to work together. There's also a bunch of choices that need to be made up front when deploying Kubernetes to decide which distribution to use and which components you may or may not need. Kubernetes is a lot more flexible and powerful than Nomad, but Nomad is a lot easier to deploy and manage.
That reminds me of Groucho Marx's stunt of "responding" to a never-actually-made legal threat from Warner Brothers (publisher of Casablanca) over his movie A Night in Casablanca. As a pre-emptive media strike, it seemed to work.
> You claim you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without their permission. What about Warner Brothers — do you own that, too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. When Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, we were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers and even before us, there had been other brothers — the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazoff; Dan Brouthers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, can you spare a dime?” This was originally “Brothers, can you spare a dime” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other brother and whittled it down to “Brother, can you spare a dime?”
The idea of Nix is great, implementation not so much. If everything you need is within their package/ecosystem then things will go fine. But God help you if you want to run some binary that isn't in their package manger, the amount of time in effort and struggle to get a simply binary to run is absolutely insane.
Ha, you better believe it - even /8 would be tight for them. Ultimately, it comes down to segmentation creating a ton of waste and you need segmentation to manage ACLs and things like that
With ipv6 you can just assign every actor a /96 and they get 4 billion IPs to play with
Comment #42069 on "HN doesn't understand the Internet Protocol". This opinion is frequently repeated here on HN but -- you CAN'T use IPv4 internally and expect to talk to external IPv6 hosts.
How would this IPv4 internal host (say 192.168.1.10) send a packet destined to 2001:db8::1? You can't stick a 128-bit IPv6 address into your IPv4 packet - there are only 32 bits available for the destination address inside its header.
NAT is not magic, it cannot extract a 128-bit number out of your 32-bit number.
Ironically, you are the one who needs to do more research.
I have deployed NAT64 in multiple networks before.
NAT64 is used when you have _internal_ IPv6 hosts who want to reach the _external_ IPv4 hosts. In order words, 2001:db8::1 can send something to 198.51.100.1 but not vice versa.
Your proposal is that we use IPv4 _internally_ since you think "internal IPv6 is overly complex" and we should "NAT to internal IPv4's". It doesn't exist since IPv4 is inherently forwards incompatible.
"HN doesn't understand the Internet Protocol" strikes again.
IPv6 internal network is simpler and probably a good idea for a brand-new network.
The big advantage is that don't have to worry about subnet size. No deciding how big subnet is going to be, and either making it too small and having to resize or making it too big and wasting space.
IPv6 is more complicated in that supports multiple addresses, but that is an advantage. For internal use, assign ULA addresses and route those over VPNs. For accessing Internet, computers use the ISP assigned addresses. Then assign fixed addresses from hosting provider to load balancers and external servers. This means that only Internet only sees random addresses; they know the provider but that is known with IPv4.
You ever ran out of ipv4 addresses on a home network? I find this probably does not apply to vast majority of users. And even if you do run out... If using DHCP is it trivial to change network prefix.
(Obligatory "anecdotal, but") I noticed that some routers have a very limited DHCP server, for example being limited to 100 simultaneously-connected devices only. Multi-tenant households with IoT devices may approach that number, the highest number I've seen is around 80 currently.
The S in IoT stands for security, of course. But it's going to be a bummer if my IoT devices forces me or my guests out of my network.
IPv6 can be made stateless with SLAAC so DHCP (and any DHCP-related limitations in the router) are completely out of the picture.
Been awhile since I had Windows as a daily driver for work, but years ago I used to use mRemoteNG https://mremoteng.org/. It was awesome, as I could bookmark SSH and RDP connections in one place and organize them in a folder structure. It also had tabs for multiple active connections.
reply