Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting that default-deny stateful firewall is not the norm??
Holy. Fucking. Shit. Indeed.
You keep on suggesting to me that you really have no idea how networking works. (Which is par on course for people thinking NAT == security, but I digress)
Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall. If it supports NAT, it must support stateful firewalling. To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade. Disregarding routers, even your computer whether Linux (netfilter) or Windows (Windows Firewall) comes built-in with a stateful firewall.
How is this "dropping packets" not applicable to firewalls, then? You are not just going to casually connect to my IPv6 device as we're speaking. The default-deny firewall in my router does the heavy lifting... just like what NAT did.
Honestly, it just sounds like you need to brush up on networking knowledge. Repeat after me: NAT is not security.
I reckon I see most IPv6 complainers are from the US though...
In my country, turning on IPv6 is not really something ceremonial, it's just literally clicking on the IPv6 checkbox. The default configurations set in the router are good enough for an average home user, firewalls and all that security jazz are enabled by default.
The DNS didn't break just because I enabled IPv6, nor did my phone apps stop working. Life goes on, and I have gotten rid of that terrible CGNAT. Somehow this is not the case for many US users across multiple ISPs, I have heard IPv6 horror stories from Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. Like how did you manage to do that?
NAT does not provide security whatsoever. If the NAT mapped your (internal IP, internal port) to a certain (external IP, external port) and you do not have a firewall enabled, everyone can reach your device by simply connecting to that (external IP, external port).
I haven't seen routers that do not come with IPv6 firewalls enabled by default.
Also remember it was built with tools from the 70s. Which is probably an advantage
Definitely an advantage. Even without planned obsolescence the olden electronics are pretty tolerant of any outside interference compared to the modern ones.
Did you notice that I said "merge request" earlier? Your neighbours were kindly helping you to make a cake and you responded to their kindness with GTFO.
I don't see how the jack can make a phone less appealing? 99% of the time you'll be looking at the screen, you're not going to see the headphone jack.
Though, perhaps it's because of lifestyle differences between countries (I am not American), I simply cannot imagine not using the 3.5mm jack ever. I am still using AUX on my car radio.
I still don't quite get why some people are defending manufacturers which remove the headphone jack on their phones...
3.5mm jacks don't cost much materially. Removing it doesn't bring any benefit at all, and you are forced to buy a bluetooth headphone or a Type-C-to-3.5mm dongle on top of that.
GNOME developers seem to have some sort of a weird "vision" for their software. If your bug report falls within their vision, good for you. When your bug report doesn't, it's insta WONTFIX.
The FDO icon theme fiasco occurred merely a few days ago.
I use arch btw.