growse

Home networks don't usually have the problem of having to suddenly merge together with another, similarly-addressed network.

Nothing stops you getting a subnet allocated from your local RIR and announcing that on the internet, if you care about that sort of thing for your home network though. You just need a decent ISP.

Yeah, that one's a bit silly.

I imagine the threshold of org size where they stop taking their prefixes from their ISP and just go get their own from the RIR is .... Not big.

Sure, some network engineers will try and design v6 networks as though they're v4, but everyone else will just go and get a squillion addresses from the RIR that's unique to their org and then just use/announce that.

Pretty much any system that's capable of handling IP traffic is also capable of firewalling. Not sure what that's got to do with address rewriting though.

shrug at work we use NAT to let two different networks with overlapping addresses talk to each other all the time. No firewalls there.

NAT wasn't invented for the home-broadband user, you know.

But I'm at least glad we've cleared up the myth that NAT provides any security benefit when, in fact, it's the often deployed accompanying stateful firewall that's actually providing this.

> It _was_ possible to create an address space extension that was IPv4 backwards compatible

How? People keep claiming this, but I've yet to see a coherent design (either back then or today). Do you think they broke backwards-compatibility _on purpose_? What's the motivation here?

> If that's the only benefit of IPv6, it doesn't sound worth it to me.

It's not the only benefit, as anyone who's tried to build a large network or merge two networks with overlapping address space will tell you.

Well, they also junked useless un-scalable things like broadcast and ARP.

No... it's not? It's simply a widely-used technique to rewrite the addresses of IP packets that transit a router. It inherently makes no policy decisions on which packets should and shouldn't flow over and above what a router does anyway.

Ah - fair point!

NAT does not, in any way, "force" the use of a firewall. They're entirely separate concepts.

Private companies' interest in what Wall Street thinks is generally not very large.

I hope you get to a happier, less angry place in your life where you no longer hate an inanimate piece of software.

The projection here is fascinating.

Good luck using software you don't like, I guess. Each to their own.

People hate it because one part of it is designed to run as pid 1? I don't follow.

(People hate systemd? They hate a piece of software? Eesh)

They're not the one whining about how systemd's stolen the "good old days".

As they say: working code or gtfo. Complaining about someone else's software project is so passé. No-one's forcing anyone to use systemd, Linux, or a computer.

> Exactly. So why is it part of your init system?

Is it?

Systemd is not an init system. One component of systemd is an init. There are other components.

Anyone who tries to use complex software without really knowing what they're doing is going to have a bad time. I'm not sure that's the software's fault :-)

Or maybe the people who think it's a good idea have a different perspective and value system to you?

Labelling a technical decision that was made about a system design (that a lot of people agree with) as "not sane" makes you look like a fundamentalist.

> Which we somehow did not have for the last few decades. I wonder why.

Speak for yourself. Lots of us spent many man-months over years engineering around crusty 80s abstractions that no longer worked.

And yet, some of us manage to successfully run critical national infrastructure on stacks that include Linux distributions running systemd.

Isn't MacOS a UNIX?

Maybe someone should port smf or launchd to Linux?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "finance". I'm talking specifically about technology & engineering in financial services.

But mostly, in a resume, I'm looking for 1) evidence of competence (do you know what software is and how to make it), 2) evidence of interest in the domain and 3) evidence of being able to communicate with others.

Everything else specialist can be taught / learned. You don't need to know either how to balance a tree, or how to calculate the value of an IR swap.

I have a chemistry degree and an entire career doing software / system engineering in financial services.

I've also hired a boatload of people with STEM degrees. In fact (massive generalisation warning) I prefer hiring them to those with computer science degrees.

The usefulness of that depends on whether you think academic higher education is vocational ("I'm doing a chemistry degree so that I can be a chemist") or inquisitive ("I'm doing a chemistry degree because it's so heckin' interesting").

I'd tend to advise people to study stuff they find interesting. I'd wager the percentage of degree holders doing a job that's directly related to their degree is in the minority, and that's not a bad thing.

> If you start telling lies about me online and try to incite a mob to threaten or harm me and the people who do opt to socialize with me (despite or maybe even because of my opinions),

Both of these things are already well-litigated limits on speech. I.e. - it's already illegal.

> or organize mobs for PR damage to pressure my boss into taking away my livelihood, that is something quite beyond exercising your right to choose your associations.

Either your views are so taboo that most of society doesn't want anything to do with you if you express them, or they're mainstream enough that only some people don't want to associate with you. If it's the former, then yes, you might struggle to find a sympathetic employer and that warrants some introspection. If it's the latter, then you're hardly at risk of having your livelihood taken away.

The alternative is that I should be forced to employ someone who fundamentally disagrees with my right to exist (and perhaps owns lots of guns).

My point is that "cannot say" is pure hyperbole. Your freedom to say whatever you want is not impinged, and my equivalent freedom to shun you based on what you say is similarly unimpinged.

Usually when people complain about what you "can't say", what they actually mean is they can't say whatever they like and still have people still employ / socialise / be nice to them.

Expressing opinions that others find disagreeable is not a protected class.

But not arrested.

Freedom of association is a thing.