| ▲ | thevinchi 4 days ago | |||||||
I’ll concede that IPv6 has usefulness on the public Internet, where adoption is actually gaining nicely. No issues there really. However, my comparison is end-user focused (ie. the Linux desktop experience). I should have been more clear about the scope perhaps. Both IPv6 and Wayland have increased complexity and surface area for pain (cost) without an obvious benefit for the end-user. Also: wrt IPv6 specifically, I don’t believe every device on a private network should be publicly addressable/routable. To me that’s a bug, not a feature, and again does not serve the consumer, only the producer. | ||||||||
| ▲ | redeeman 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> without an obvious benefit for the end-user. I guess HDR support, 10/12bit colors, displays with different dpi/refresh rate etc is just not really an obvious benefit to you? | ||||||||
| ▲ | gspr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
> Both IPv6 and Wayland have increased complexity and surface area for pain (cost) without an obvious benefit for the end-user. I'd argue the opposite: IPv6 has lowered complexity for the end user: SLAAC, endless addresses, no need for CIDR – these are all simplifications for the end user. > Also: wrt IPv6 specifically, I don’t believe every device on a private network should be publicly addressable/routable. To me that’s a bug, not a feature, Some would argue it's a feature. But let's say it's not useful. It's still surely not a bug. An address being publicly routeable doesn't mean you have to route traffic to it. Just don't, if you don't want to. > and again does not serve the consumer, only the producer. I'd argue that it simplifies some things for the consumer (see above), and also lets the consumer be a producer more easily. I'd argue that that's a good thing, more in the spirit of the internet. But even if the end user doesn't care, it's not a detriment. | ||||||||
| ||||||||