World: r3wp

Never mind about what I said about ARM6. Apparently some devices 
were ARM6 but claiming to be ARM7. Progressive support for ARM6 and 
maybe even ARM7 might be a good idea to add to the ARM5 binaries.

BrianH: forget the phones of the past. Noone should care about "most 
phones running 2.2 or below". The release cycle is really fast. I 
would not care for pre 2.3 devices at all, just believe me ....

http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

2.1: 10.7%
2.2: 40.7%
2.3: 43.9%

Anything else is big waste of time. Just recently, there are two 
top Android phones - Samsung Galaxy SII and HTC Sensation. Both 2.3.4. 
Those are going to be upgraded to ICS. Before you finish the job, 
pre 2.3 falls into absolute irrelevancy, no matter how many tens 
of millions devices out there you claim.

Because only supporting the latest Windows version has worked so 
well for REBOL?

Not supporting phones was part of what killed rebols momentum, imo. 
Being the first alternative is hugely more valuable position than 
being a late coming alternative.

Kaj - you should know, what you are talking about ...

Whether I know what I'm talking about or not makes no difference 
in what people think of me

I think nothing bad of you :-) For me, it is easy - you can't compare 
PC world, which I would assign 3+ years of lifecycle easily, with 
mobile world. In mobile world, I would say it is 2- lifecycle, or 
even shorter. If each day 300K of Android phones is activated, then 
I would pretty much decide to start supporting the almost latest 
models, which is - 2.3. Even my girlfriend HTC Wildfire S, which 
was published on 15.2.2011, is 2.3 version. Before Doc finishes the 
product, it will be old, and unsupported phone by its vendor. Of 
course, it depends upon the featureset you are going to support - 
if supporting pre 2.3 is a no brainer, why not. But - if 2.3 contains 
some real anhancements you want to utilise,then based upon the above 
usagedata, forget at least pre 2.2 ...

Pekr, the top Android phones are the ones people already own, not 
the ones they haven't bought yet. And most of the ones they already 
own (in my country) are bought with 2-year contracts, not qualifying 
for a hardware upgrade until after that, and aren't able to be upgraded 
very much in software because that would compete with new phone purchases. 
It's good to see 2.2 adoption so high though. I am stuck on 2.2, 
btw.

Kaj, when has REBOL only supported the latest version of Windows? 
Even R3 doesn't support features in Windows newer than Win2k.

I thought Petr was exaggerating, so I responded in style :-)

I do think that in practice, REBOL has usually been a Windows-only 
technology. Especially because its biggest draw is the easy GUI, 
and this is not (R3) or not well (R2) supported on anything but Windows. 
And because it still pretends to be cross-platform, there are even 
serious deployment problems on Windows

Though to be fair, most of the deployment problems on Windows (for 
R2) come from it using the registry in a Win9x style.

We're getting a little off-topic here though. Go Red!

Yes, my response was imperfect in that REBOL doesn't support the 
latest Windows well :-/

Doc, that's some amazing progress.

Thanks James.

Sorry if this is off topic, but maybe this is relevant to Red/System:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2010365

I always liked explicit lengths more than the NULL terminator, but 
Red/System has to interface with C code, so the choice has been made 
there

Interesting read though.

It's a choice we can reconsider once Red/System will be rewritten 
in Red. But we'll probably end up choosing the same option, because 
of the overheads of deviating from the format C libs and OS API expect. 
Anyway, it should be an interesting debate. :-)

Probably the best you could do would be to support both types

Sure, but the biggest issue is having to deal with a length header 
when passing to (and returning from) an external function.

Tamas sent me a link today about a nice little SSL/TLS library (http://polarssl.org). 
The bad thing is that it's GPL, but the license extends to FOSS License 
Exception: http://polarssl.org/license_exception


As I understand it, it would be possible to use it for Red but every 
future Red binary publicly distributed would have to come with also 
the PolarSSL source code and a copy of the GPL library. I think that 
burden would be too high for future Red corporate users. What do 
you think?

Isn't it possible to use similar code from PuTTY? As I see it, PuTTY 
has better licence.

License: sure MIT is better, but does PuTTY supports SSL? I thought 
it was only doing SSH.

Hm, yeah, I'm not sure. I guess, I had zlib in my mind, which PuTTY 
also do a reimplementation of. I'm not too much into SSH and SSL. 
PuTTY also have code for SFTP, if that helps in any way to make a 
SSL implementation.

Some code for hashing and encrypting could be borrowed from PuTTY. 
Anyway, those algorithms are well documented and some of them even 
have public domain implementations (like MD5).

The RFC for TLS (Transport Layer Security) is 100 pages:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246


Is it necessary to implement TLS these days, or is its predecessor 
(SSL) enough?

Too bad, it's such a load to implement some security. :/

Would it make more sense to implement such protocols in REBOL, which 
may be easily portable to Red? (Instead of doing a C implementation.)

I think it would be doable to implement SSL/SSH in REBOL, but it's 
a big task (at least for SSL).

What would be cool would be to implement all the low-level encryption 
routines in Red/System.

Have you looked at the way, REBOL do it? The REBOL/SDK at least have 
some of that security.

REBOL provides all the low-level encryption routines required, but 
they are coded in C.  REBOL SSL implementation is also done in C 
(by Holger IIRC).

ok

The REBOL SSL port might also be using some REBOL code for higher 
level protocol support, but it's not accessible, so we can't check 
that.

IIRC, Cyphre once said, that idea for R3 was to add some port or 
other low level encryption functionality, and that https etc would 
be done in REBOL level, using thow low-level facilities ...

Geomol, the recent exploits of SSL don't affect TLS (at least 1.1 
iirc). So yes, we need to implement TLS, but maybe not SSL.

Has the PuTTY code been updated to patch the latest exploits?

Some serious bugs seem to have been fixed in the latest release: 
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/changes.html

Including PolarSSL in Red would not only require every Red program 
to provide the library source code, it would require every Red program 
to be open source. That's unacceptable for business purposes

As far as I know, OpenSSL is the only TLS implementation under BSD, 
but it's the old BSD licence with advertising clause. This makes 
it incompatible with GPL software such as libraries one may want 
to use with Red, if they don't have an explicit exception for OpenSSL

Much GPL software that is relevant has that exception, so it's a 
limited problem

From a technical standpoint, Jaromil has advised me that GNU TLS 
is of higher quality. It is LGPL, so it's acceptable as long as you 
agree to provide the source code to GNU TLS only, as with many other 
libraries

It would be great to eventually implement many libraries in Red, 
but this is a gargantuan task, and security code is very specialised 
and critical

GnuTLS is indeed of _much_ higher quality than OpenSSL. It is not 
as widespread, though.

Kaj: you're right, I misunderstood the extend of article 2.4 in License 
Exception. We can't use it.

Apparently, PuTTY has its own BSD SSL implementation, so that's interesting. 
But it's not structured as a library, but entirely integrated in 
the other protocols, seems somewhat limited and lacking in portability. 
The only way to use it would be to rip out the source code and make 
a portable library out of it, or reimplement it in Red