World: r3wp

They can't even patent this protocol since they have already released 
the description of how this works *and* reference code.

In comparison to MS or IBM I can see no top designers in google, 
having actually a vision, a complete one. They throw things here 
or there, they can do whatever (almost unlimited resources), and 
you can bet, that they lead us to lock-in ....

I don't give a crap about Google culture. If the protocol is good 
(and it looks good so far) I'll write the R3 support for it.

The lock in is in mentality. All the cloud crap, not having the date 
at my location everything on server. Welcome matrix :-)

An open protocol doesn't have to be used with Google servers.

This is not cloud crap. It has nothing to do with lock-in. THis is 
a much lower-level protocol than that.

You talk about the protocol all the time, I talk about generally 
Google submitting another thing and world swallowing anything they 
drop onto us. The protocol might be actually good. I just hate things 
being accepted just because they are provided by the "beloved one".

The protocol is the Tech News. All the rest of the complaints about 
Google are not related to this Tech News.

And it is too soon to see if the protocol would be accepted just 
because it came from Google, or because it is good on its own merits, 
or *at all*, because it hasn't been accepted at all yet, just proposed. 
And since it was proposed I will look at it. If it sucks, I won't 
give it a second thought. Who gives a crap that it came from Google?

That AJAX that people like so much now: It came from Microsoft at 
first, and that doesn't make it greater. So did SOAP, and that doesn't 
make it suck less. Where it came from doesn't matter, all that matters 
is whether it benefits you and you are allowed to use it. In this 
case, I don't yet know whether it would benefit us (though it looks 
promising) but it does look like we would be allowed to use it (they 
probably can't patent it if they release it this way). If it is good, 
it would help REBOL/

...Services. No Google needed.

I'll take SPDY and compiled JS over the alternative any day. Others 
are free to stick with HTTP, slow JS and 9600 baud modems if they 
so choose ...

Well, who are the largest contributors to RFC? Without companies 
researching these things rather than universities, then we won't 
move forward.

a stateful http...

Microsoft to open-up compilers - http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/microsoft-open-compilers-visual-basic-c-894

Google unveils ChromeOS -

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os-open-source.html
http://www.osnews.com/story/22505/Google_Unveils_Chrome_OS

hmm... so REBOL isn't going to be terribly interesting in ChromeOS 
unless it can get into the browser.

They'll have to jazz up the rebol home page then :)

I guess we'll just have to build a REBOL/OS now.

What's wrong with running everything inside a rebol plugin ?

well, that's just too limited for us rebolers :-)

let's see .. there's one Carl .. and an unfjinished r3 .. and you 
want to restart wildman?  :)

I guess it should be wildman

Maybe that other Karl ( Robillard ) can switch his efforts from Boron 
to wildman instead :)

I think the development of Boron is a bit of a shame. The effort 
should be directed towards R3 instead.

exactly. I can understand open-source freaks. But open-sourcing something 
is not a mantra. Look at AROS, look at Orca - how is that it has 
not more users, than official distros?

the old saying .. united we conquer, divided we fall

R2, architecture wise, in comparison to R3, is so old school, that 
it is not even funny to compare. Now having Orca/Boron following 
R2 model would be a mistake too. I think that if Karl wants Boron 
to succeed, then why not to use R3 host, and just re-create the interpreter 
(a DLL)? Of course we know nothing about the licence of R3 yet, maybe 
such a step will be prohibited?

Graham - exactly - I think that we have many things to do - port 
R3 to many platforms, create browser plugin, etc.  There is where 
our energy should be put. R3 is free. How more cheap you want it 
to have?

Of course we can't prevent ppl from anything. Boron might be good 
test-base for the interpreter itself ...

is the license GPL? In that case that would explain some things.

The thing is, the mafia and other internet criminals are dictating 
how we use our PCs.

Viruses, malware, phishing etc are all forcing us to a self healing 
OS like Chrome where everything lives on the cloud.

I can see this as being very attractive to users tired of being threatened 
by every piece of malware out there.

So, how is rebol going to fit in this?

If the OS is going to handle the security side .. does this mean 
that the browser plugin can afford to worry less about security ??

Wasn't that the issue with the firefox plugin .. that the security 
model was never completed ...

Graham - Google & co are teh mafia :-) There is no cloud, and there 
is no Chromium OS - they are just fooling us with marketing ;-) The 
cloud is - internet, and storing my data not on my device. Once there 
will be a time, when whole that cloud crap collapses, and you will 
want your local storage once again :-) And Chromium OS? What is that? 
Linux and Chrome browser on top of that ...

In regards to what I said - is there really a difference to security 
model? Because cloud just means - my hardisk is not in my machine, 
but somewhere else. But still there is an OS, apps, and still there 
is a user trying to click on everything you put in front of his eyes 
:-)

Every application will be sandboxed.

if the filing system is encrypted .. do you have to encrypt your 
files again?

I have a Dell ntb with Bitlocker capable chip - so I run encrypted 
storage on my Vista for 2.5 years already ... nothing new here ...

that wasn't the point .. it was an allegory

but  .. using your ntb, do you encrypt sensitive files again?

there is a difference pekr. in the cloud only one type of malware 
is nessesary to make a total collapse possible. ;-)

transfer responsibility  to a third party doesn't solve the problem. 

technological mono culture has the same advantages and disadventages 
like the biological one.

the dinosaurs flourished for hundreds of million of years .. that 
was a biological monoculture

your wheat also graham...

To answer your questions towards REBOL browser plugin:


- we don't know, if they will allow plugins, do we? But if they do, 
we can create one, why not?


- Josh disappeared long time ago, security doc he was supposed to 
work on, was never finished. But most probably non-ability to properly 
secure browser plugin was one of the reasons why R3 effort started 
...


- with browser plugin, you better don't allow call to local system, 
nor any call to system API. So the question is - what happens to 
'call and 'extensions? Even if you would display security requestor, 
it might be considered a threat, as users are kind of dumb, and many 
will click YES anyway. So the only chance probably will be to build 
special Hosts, including everything we need for a plugin


- there might be some special version of plugin, with signing and 
certificates, so e.g. RT would inspect the extension, and claim it 
being secure. But I still don't know, if it is going to be enough 
...

A lot of my stuff I use lives in the cloud now ... Evernote ( just 
recently installed ), Dropbox, Googledocs, Googlewave, my own EMR 
app ...

Anyway, this is a threat to the traditional desktop .. I thought 
we should just do a threat assessment :)