Comments for Robotic Tendencies http://robot101.net The personal blog of Robert McQueen Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:23:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Telepathy Q&A from the Boston GNOME Summit by Cliff Wells http://robot101.net/2009/10/14/telepathy-qa/comment-page-1/#comment-42381 Cliff Wells Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:23:51 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=114#comment-42381 I'm glad to hear OTR is back under consideration. I will personally never use an IM client that doesn't support end-to-end encryption. That being said, I'm not tied to OTR and would gladly consider an alternative. However, according to the Telepathy FAQ, the plan is to implement XEP-0246, but that proposed standard has been deferred and not recommended: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0246.html What *is* the current plan for end-to-end encryption? I’m glad to hear OTR is back under consideration. I will personally never use an IM client that doesn’t support end-to-end encryption.

That being said, I’m not tied to OTR and would gladly consider an alternative. However, according to the Telepathy FAQ, the plan is to implement XEP-0246, but that proposed standard has been deferred and not recommended:

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0246.html

What *is* the current plan for end-to-end encryption?

]]> Comment on VP8 rumblings by Robert McQueen http://robot101.net/2010/05/21/vp8-rumblings/comment-page-1/#comment-42330 Robert McQueen Mon, 24 May 2010 00:49:18 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=123#comment-42330 Sean: Sure, H264 can and will live on in many of the places it's deployed, and I know Google provides no indemnification, but it's interesting for more than the reasons you say. If Google start flipping the appropriate switches, there will be a few companies who will end up in the position to choose between allowing their end-users to access Google's VP8 only content, or a video codec IPR licensing revenue. Other people's patents might very well be applicable to VP8, and people can (and very most likely will) license those via the MPEG-LA or similar, but if any of those people want to license Google's IPR on the codec standard themselves, they are obliged not to initiate any litigation or they lose their right to Google's IPR and are at risk of an incoming lawsuit from Google. So for people who want to produce or consume VP8 content, it turns the video codec IPR into something you can pay for, but not make any money from, which adjusts the game slightly and means there's likely to be more industry backlash and pooling of resources against patent trolls, like the OIN. Sean: Sure, H264 can and will live on in many of the places it’s deployed, and I know Google provides no indemnification, but it’s interesting for more than the reasons you say. If Google start flipping the appropriate switches, there will be a few companies who will end up in the position to choose between allowing their end-users to access Google’s VP8 only content, or a video codec IPR licensing revenue. Other people’s patents might very well be applicable to VP8, and people can (and very most likely will) license those via the MPEG-LA or similar, but if any of those people want to license Google’s IPR on the codec standard themselves, they are obliged not to initiate any litigation or they lose their right to Google’s IPR and are at risk of an incoming lawsuit from Google. So for people who want to produce or consume VP8 content, it turns the video codec IPR into something you can pay for, but not make any money from, which adjusts the game slightly and means there’s likely to be more industry backlash and pooling of resources against patent trolls, like the OIN.

]]> Comment on VP8 rumblings by ginger's thoughts » VP8/WebM: Adobe is the key to open video on the Web http://robot101.net/2010/05/21/vp8-rumblings/comment-page-1/#comment-42323 ginger's thoughts » VP8/WebM: Adobe is the key to open video on the Web Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:21 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=123#comment-42323 [...] I believe the threat is really minimal. You should also read these thoughts of a Gnome developer, these of a Debian developer and the emails on the Theora mailing list. 11 [...] [...] I believe the threat is really minimal. You should also read these thoughts of a Gnome developer, these of a Debian developer and the emails on the Theora mailing list. 11 [...]

]]> Comment on VP8 rumblings by Sean http://robot101.net/2010/05/21/vp8-rumblings/comment-page-1/#comment-42320 Sean Fri, 21 May 2010 20:42:37 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=123#comment-42320 Given that the MPEG-LA makes a ton of money from contexts that VP8 is totally worthless for and has zero cash flow for the contexts VP8 is targeted at, I doubt that the MPEG-LA cares all that much. I'm sure they plan on attacking VP8 any way they can just out of principle and opportunity, but in no way is Google going to harm their actual business model. VP8 is only targeted at low to mid quality Internet video streaming, where as .h264 and friends are used for very high quality streaming as well as traditional media and archiving. Also, keep in mind that Google's license does not guarantee zero royalties in the event that VP8 actually is found to be infringing on some patents. Google gives you a grant to use the licenses it owns; it is not legally capable of granting you a license to other parties' patents. Google does not indemnify WebM license recipients, so a user of VP8 could still be sued by MPEG-LA (assuming that they actually do have patents that cover VP8, of course). It's probably safe for a hobbyist to assume that Google did its research here, but a corporation might want to wait a while and see if the MPEG-LA has any teeth backing up its bark or not first. Honestly, though, the only reason VP8 stands to be interesting at all is that it may bring on a few more companies to the Open Internet Video Club that Theora couldn't pull in, purely for political and marketing reasons. Perhaps it's a slightly better codec than Theora, but in the end it doesn't really do anything for the Internet that Theora didn't already do. It's just got Google's money and reputation backing it up. The problem where several major players said "we're using .h264 for our tag support, and that's it" isn't magically going away just because of VP8/WebM. Given that the MPEG-LA makes a ton of money from contexts that VP8 is totally worthless for and has zero cash flow for the contexts VP8 is targeted at, I doubt that the MPEG-LA cares all that much. I’m sure they plan on attacking VP8 any way they can just out of principle and opportunity, but in no way is Google going to harm their actual business model. VP8 is only targeted at low to mid quality Internet video streaming, where as .h264 and friends are used for very high quality streaming as well as traditional media and archiving.

Also, keep in mind that Google’s license does not guarantee zero royalties in the event that VP8 actually is found to be infringing on some patents. Google gives you a grant to use the licenses it owns; it is not legally capable of granting you a license to other parties’ patents. Google does not indemnify WebM license recipients, so a user of VP8 could still be sued by MPEG-LA (assuming that they actually do have patents that cover VP8, of course). It’s probably safe for a hobbyist to assume that Google did its research here, but a corporation might want to wait a while and see if the MPEG-LA has any teeth backing up its bark or not first.

Honestly, though, the only reason VP8 stands to be interesting at all is that it may bring on a few more companies to the Open Internet Video Club that Theora couldn’t pull in, purely for political and marketing reasons. Perhaps it’s a slightly better codec than Theora, but in the end it doesn’t really do anything for the Internet that Theora didn’t already do. It’s just got Google’s money and reputation backing it up. The problem where several major players said “we’re using .h264 for our tag support, and that’s it” isn’t magically going away just because of VP8/WebM.

]]> Comment on Telepathy Q&A from the Boston GNOME Summit by robotfan101 http://robot101.net/2009/10/14/telepathy-qa/comment-page-1/#comment-42277 robotfan101 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:40:06 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=114#comment-42277 Telepathy is teh awesome. I want yr babys. Telepathy is teh awesome. I want yr babys.

]]> Comment on Telepathy Q&A from the Boston GNOME Summit by nelson http://robot101.net/2009/10/14/telepathy-qa/comment-page-1/#comment-42276 nelson Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:39:44 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=114#comment-42276 It would be cool to build an online board game framework on top of telepathy based on the design of GtkBoard, see http://gtkboard.sourceforge.net/indexold.html It would be cool to build an online board game framework on top of telepathy based on the design of GtkBoard, see http://gtkboard.sourceforge.net/indexold.html

]]> Comment on Today’s the day by foo http://robot101.net/2009/08/27/todays-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-42258 foo Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:45:46 +0000 http://robot101.net/2009/08/27/todays-the-day/#comment-42258 Ewwwww, flash. And why not Debian on your mobile device?? Ewwwww, flash. And why not Debian on your mobile device??

]]> Comment on Top acts by Toby http://robot101.net/2009/03/13/top-acts/comment-page-1/#comment-42221 Toby Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:08:46 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=104#comment-42221 On the 'top' theme, there is also mytop (and innotop). http://www.xaprb.com/innotop/ http://jeremy.zawodny.com/mysql/mytop/ On the ‘top’ theme, there is also mytop (and innotop).

http://www.xaprb.com/innotop/
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/mysql/mytop/

]]> Comment on Top acts by Alban http://robot101.net/2009/03/13/top-acts/comment-page-1/#comment-42217 Alban Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:19:00 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=104#comment-42217 Also mtop, for mysql Also mtop, for mysql

]]> Comment on This is a local mail for local people, we’ll have no trouble here! by Colin Thomson http://robot101.net/2009/03/06/local-mail/comment-page-1/#comment-42210 Colin Thomson Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:39:05 +0000 http://robot101.net/?p=86#comment-42210 I'm a bit late here, and I know your problem is solved, but do you need local mail to run through dspam? Postfix can have different local and virtual delivery systems. Why not use the mailbox command for local mail, delivering directly to dovecot, and specify virtual_transport = lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock to send virtual users mail through dspam? I’m a bit late here, and I know your problem is solved, but do you need local mail to run through dspam? Postfix can have different local and virtual delivery systems. Why not use the mailbox command for local mail, delivering directly to dovecot, and specify virtual_transport = lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock to send virtual users mail through dspam?

]]>