snarkinatree

8 ms·

1.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
And how do you propose to decrypt those packets?
2.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
I agree tapping into the existing userbase is enticing. And that's no doubt what some people are trying to do (e.g. the Russians). But all VOIP codecs are not created equal. Skype's success is not due to NAT piercing. Even though Skype e
3.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Yup. This is why it's amusing to watch trademark registrants going after domain names based on confusing variations of their registered mark. Meanwhile their trademarks are being hijacked by DNS services and ISP's, in order to show ads, pro
4.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
It's great they support it, but how many people have DNSCurve enabled authoritative nameservers? And how many OpenDNS cache users are routing their queries through a DNSCurve forwarder? It's the same as with DNSSEC. To get the full benefi
5.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
I wouldn't take part in this for "credentials". I would do it for the sake of learning. Some of that acquired knowledge might be applied for commercial gain, some might not. Does it matter? The cost is the cost of an internet connection
6.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
This is also how OpenDNS makes money. Neustar does the same. And probably others too. They call this "DNS service". Anyone can run a resolver, including your next door neighbor. Unless you live next to a datacenter, your neighbour's "D
7.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
How about "Skype: The Missing Technical Manual"? MS will contribute nothing to the state of the art of free voice and video calls over the internet. As is so often the case, what they purchased with the Skype deal was a user base. One th
8.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Normal people care about price. As in free calls. All three criteria you mention are very easy to meet. Skype's GUI was thrown together quickly in Delphi. Yet it's good enough for most users. The bar is set very low. Features could be a
9.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
I'm definitely not a FOSS zealot. However I might be a zealot for simplicity, lucidity, keeping code small, unclever and boring, making compilation quick and easy, not tolerating many of the annoyances so many folks routinely accept. I do
10.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
My "title"?
11.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Is that really true, or just an assumption? How can we be sure that doing stuff like this was a contributing cause, let alone a necessary cause?
12.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Can you provide an example search that demonstrates this? If Wikipedia had full-text search, with a results page that looked like Google, and it was as fast as Google, would you use it? Consider that Wikipedia is not, AFAIK, collecting your
13.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Try not to think in terms of server and client being separate machines. Or thinking that a server needs to be complex or able to handle an unlimited number of nodes. It's possible to be both a client and a server. And that is in fact wha
14.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
What did I link to? I'm well aware of the Apple "rules" as well as the rationale behind them. If you have superiror knowledge about Apple that puts them in a better light, then please share details.
15.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Nothing wrong with what Skype did. He made his money. Good for him. The point is that Skype is not magic. It's something that can be replicated, with simplicity and transparency. I agree, the greed factor is great. And one would imagine
16.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
The need to have Wikipedia in search engine results is perplexing. Why not just search Wikiepdia? It is certainly not slower. They even provide SSL. Is it the lack of full text search on Wikipedia? I've experimented with building a full-
17.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no ma
18.
by snarkinatree 14y ago
Please share the snarky replies!