| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago |
| This may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remove v4 support from people who have built stable networks around it. You won’t be able to force the world to switch to IPv6 with tricks like this, any more than you can force old industrial machines to stop using ancient 486es as controllers. There is a lot of old equipment in the world. IPv6 was built to work alongside v4, and there is no reason to change that. |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something? |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained. | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4 But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected. > I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere? | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Somehow IPv4 versus IPv6 has become one of those noxious political-technical debates like Android versus Apple or GPL versus BSD/MIT, in which both sides are dug in and think that the other side must be destroyed. The reason that I don’t like seeing patches like this, even as a “joke”, is that there are real people who would like to see IPv4 removed (possibly by government intervention) in order to achieve their dream of an IPv6 only internet. The whole idea is preposterous, but here we are. It’s about as realistic as banning cars but that doesn’t stop the endless flame wars about it. Someone has to step in to point out that v4 and v6 were designed to coexist, this is fine, please don’t remove common standards for your personal preferences. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | traderj0e 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| v6 was meant to succeed v4, not work alongside it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-1 |
|
| ▲ | budman1 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| *removed comment. I didn't know this was an April fools joke. sorry for my lack of a clue.... |
| |
| ▲ | zamadatix 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The patchset is an April fools joke and even then it's not going this far. |
|
|
| ▲ | bladeee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What? Freedom to opt in or out is good either way. |
