IPv6 is a subject, that really get-s me mad for over 10 years now.
Pushing IPv6, getting rid of NAT that would be really great.
Will it happen? I doubt it for many years to come.
I even start to doubt 'evolution' as a mechanism in nature, since CIOs/roots/admins all are too comfortable with a NAT/FW-type of 'lame-duck'-construction of their networks. And the ISPs and Telcos, while using IPv6 internally, don-t really propagate it.
I know numerous stories of troubles/problems and countless man-hours, dealing with traffic-problems. Yet, I write this on a LAN-pc behind NAT/FW. Sharing one ISP-address with 200+ others. I assure you. Bittorrents are finding their way through, no matter what.
So does maleware...
Still I don-t like the (typical) Microsoft-idea to host the "Teredo"-Servers, which is another word for 'Trackers' and logging all traffic that goes through. I know, I know, but that-s typical for you: good intentions - bad execution.
It is also funny to see one dev-department trying to make Vista as secure as possible, while the other dev tries to find ways to break it, to allow communication. Hen and egg-dilemma, all over again. Unsolvable IMHO.
I would humbly emphasize on the aspect that any (automated) implementation on a web-services-basis of PKI (public key infrastructure) should be applauded.
Business, Government, Citizens will eventually have to communicate in secure ways online. They can do it already but it is time-consuming and to complicated for the everage person or business-transaction. Nonetheless, implementing it into Web-Services is a
way to go.
On the other hand: whoever wants to keep the insecure infrastructures shall keep it, as long as it is legal.
I don-t use creditcards (online OR offline)and I don-t buy/sell on Ebay because I
don-t trust neither of them for now.
BTW the video is a waste of time and should be plugged with that tag...
... unless you are into chickflicks which C9 is not my source for.
This vid should be in Ken's private library and nowhere else. What did I learn from this: People have dinner together, they have a nice time and maybe afterwards ... more nice time, which is non of my business, of course.
MS has to seriously think about the consequences of bluetooth, wireless, and other interfaces to cars, household appliances, etc. which will be more and more commonplace. Basically, the worst-case scenarios will be a lot more than loss of money or time
in the future...
Well that's exactly where - after 2 decades - I am shifting from Microsoft's responsibility towards the responsibility of the Customer/User. Let's face it: Users want the
USB-everywhere-into-everything-Plug-me-in! They themselves have the responsibility to know that you cannot protect yourself if you allow
unprotected access everywhere into everything. Of course, there are security issues within apps. But there are also improved scenarios how to protect your business-environment. The Security-issues are less technical (although we dev's have
to improve there too) but are rather generally ideological. The question ultimatly comes down to the CEO (not CIO) to say: "OK. I want security in my company. It will cost me lot's of money+time+training_the_employees etc... without any investment return whatsoever!".
If CEOs are willing to do this instead of quarterly profit annoucements, there's hope.
I used to be one of those persons who would rant about the security-issues from old DOS-days on (knowing Unix). I stopped blaming Microsoft when I realized how "stupid" users behave and how they don't want to be bothered with things like "passwords", "profiles" or
They want to do "everything" with their PCs without knowing what this means and without any sense of "problems" that might evolve.
You don't have to be a dev or prog to understand the sensitive concept of exchanging information between total strangers.
Every click is an execution, is a decision on the presumption that it will be "ok". Unless people start thinking about what they do before they
do things, we will have to deal with pain.
BTW: Another great vid. Interesting people make interesting vidcasts.
I agree /w Rich Neves towards the end of the tape. The future wont be the "one-size-fits-all"-OS/Kernel. Listening to these "Biggies" gives me a glimpse of how painfull it must be to go through the code and "componentize" the system. It must be a "pain-in-the-youknowwhat"
re-designing/refining this extremly complicated and complex code-snippets. I can only guess...
A lot of things that were discussed (virtualization,usermode-device-driver-framework, fragmentation, memory_management) reminded me of the discussions I follow with the linux-kernel-newsgroup (- no flaming intended).
The "Do you guys wish (that) the Registry would have never been developed?" was sure a fun question which led to some serious answers. Thats what I like.
Unfortunately I had some difficulty to understand what Richard Ward was saying. I guess I was not the only one.