World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7915] | Pretty much |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7916] | When did this start? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7917] | Almost half a year ago, at least visibly, in hindsight |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7918] | Other people have the source code don't they? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7919] | No, why would they? |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7920] | Otherwise the community will just rot. |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7921] | Better pinch your nose |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7922x2] | I feel let down. If Carl takes a break he has to entrust the source code and development to someone else. |
Is there much action on boron? | |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7924x2] | That makes more of us. The overriding argument for REBOL and its closedness was always that Carl was the leader, he always knew best, and development always continued |
Boron is going steady, but it's an isolated project, much in the same style as REBOL. The community is more interested in Red | |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7926] | I heard about it. What's red for? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7927] | Programming :-) |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7928x2] | haha |
How many people are working on it? | |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7930] | Four or five or so |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7931] | maturity? what can it do atm? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7932] | One month :-) |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7933] | Why is it more popular than boron? Did the boron guy start red? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7934] | It can do loops, but not indexing, so you could have called me out on claiming it can do programming ;-) |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7935] | It seems very low level |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7936] | Yes, so far, but that's only Red/System |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7937] | What are the plans for it? |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7938] | Have you read the sites? |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7939x2] | Oh, there's a to do list |
I was looking for more of a long term outlook | |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7941x2] | Yes, and an extensive specification for Red/System |
The roadmap is in the original announcement | |
Nicolas 10-Apr-2011 [7943x2] | Thanks. How does the community communicate? |
google groups or altme? | |
Kaj 10-Apr-2011 [7945] | Here in the Red group, to the chagrin of the creator. :-) Better switch to that |
Dockimbel 11-Apr-2011 [7946] | :-) |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [7947x3] | Ladislav, the two most popular desktop OSes in use today are Windows XP and 2000. Both will be and have to be supported by R3, and neither is secure enough for a regular person to run without antimalware software. We don't want R3 flagged as malware *again* (it already happened with one of the early alphas). That is why we are putting effort into making R3 more secure. |
The R3 process needs to be able to save the %user.r file with the current user's permissions in order to allow the user to save their preferences. And we don't have a safe place to store the checksum of that file to compare against, without also making that checksum writeable by the user. That means that the checksum security can't be used for %user.r. | |
It makes me a little sad to realize that in order to keep a copy of that early alpha I have to keep it in a passworded compressed archive, so antimalware software doesn't delete it. I no longer recommend AVG because they refused to remove the false positive from their list (they refuse all requests from users of their free products, regardless of merit, so you have to buy their paid products to appeal). | |
Ladislav 12-Apr-2011 [7950] | The R3 process needs to be able to save the %user.r file with the current user's permissions in order to allow the user to save their preferences. - this is the only one I find relevant as far as security concerns are considered. Nevertheless, this does not contradict what I said in any way I can imagine. |
BrianH 12-Apr-2011 [7951] | How can any program be secure, if it runs in an insecure environment? - by adding its own security constraints, beyond those provided by the environment. We have to support running in an insecure environment since WinXP is such an environment. Oh well. |
Ladislav 12-Apr-2011 [7952] | No matter how well you pretend you are able to run securely in a compromised environment, it is not true. |
BrianH 12-Apr-2011 [7953] | Agreed. You can run more or less securely, but it is really a matter of degree. We just don't want to make the extremely common bad decision to run WinXP any worse, or else they might blame us for their mistake. This has already happened once, so we don't want it to happen again. |
Ladislav 12-Apr-2011 [7954] | Do I understand correctly, that there was somebody catching a virus and blaming RT for it? |
BrianH 12-Apr-2011 [7955x2] | Yup. The last non-public alpha of R3 was flagged as malware. To this day, AVG still refuses to remove the (hopefully) false positive from its list. |
No wait, it was the first public alpha, not the last non-public one. | |
GrahamC 12-Apr-2011 [7957] | if r3 is a virus, it's not spreading very effectively! |
BrianH 12-Apr-2011 [7958x2] | Agreed :( |
I'm really hoping to get the SECURE function working again before the current version gets flagged as well. SECURE has been turned off since a108. | |
GrahamC 12-Apr-2011 [7960x2] | Unfortunately R3 is not async |
Carl's absence continues to block | |
Ladislav 12-Apr-2011 [7962x2] | Are you serious the SECURE function working may be the difference between the R3 being flagged or not? |
That looks like a joke to me. | |
BrianH 12-Apr-2011 [7964] | Not really, but then I haven't gotten a straight answer about why 2.99.4 was flagged either. If you still have a copy of 2.99.4, put it in a password-protected compressed archive or else many antimalware products will delete it without asking you. |
older newer | first last |