Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the from-the-research-center-that-brought-us-everything-else dept.
Sandeep writes " PARC announces a new software architecture , named Obje, to establish a device-independent networking system. Essentially, it allows two devices to teach each other how to talk amongst themselves. It does this by sending actual code over the network."
Parent should be "Insightful," not "Funny"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I simply can't imagine that this could be done in a secure fashion between any two arbitrary devices that don't know what the other is.
Re:Parent should be "Insightful," not "Funny"
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Simply enough, you don't trust the other end, and all code is run in a sandbox. If the code does anything strange the session is terminated, if the other system (or peripheral) hands you strange code too many times you just stop listening. I don't think it's really necessary to send code, it would be just as well to send a list of capabilities (shades of my HVAC discussion) and then the sytem decides what you are based on your capabilities and treats you accordingly.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Parent should be "Insightful," not "Funny"
by
The+Spoonman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It would be like if I bought a USB device (say a camera) that Windows didn't support, the camera would be able to bootstrap Windows with some drivers from its own firmware.
I've been saying for years "Flash ram is cheap, put some in every device to contain a BASIC device driver. The real driver can then be loaded to deliver the total package."
This all started years ago when Intel, in their infinite wisdom, started packaging the drivers for their cards with tons and tons of crap, so that I had to download a 9M file just to get a 10K driver file! Uh, schmucks, that won't fit on a floppy, and if I can't get on the network to download it, I have waste a fucking CD to get your driver!
For some reason, it amazes me how few people actually do any thinking.
-- Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Keep in mind I have only SkimmedTFA... This seems like it would be useful for forming ad hoc networks, for example in a disaster or emergency scenario. But for frequent daily use, it seems like it might be a particularly vulnerable protocol.
Are the benefits of high quality and reliable communication in a disaster/terrorism situation worth the potential risks of insecurity in that situation?
that's stupid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
what is wrong with the existing protocol specs and RFCs? As it is, we have enough security problems even with a meticulous protocol specification. So making it more arbitrary will help? I doubt that, unless we are just willing to concede that security is a hopeless quest.
How to use it?
by
tcopeland
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Answer:
Q. What does an equipment manufacturer or service provider need to do to Obje-enable a device, service, or product line? A. Please contact us for co-development and licensing information.
heh - The infinite IS possible with Obje
by
Wingchild
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From the article:
The Obje platform works with all standards, including those that have not yet been defined. It requires no central coordination, pre-configuring, or special set-up, and can be easily used by people with no technical expertise.
It provides users a way to combine devices to build simple solutions for hundreds of problems - easily assembling their particular applications from available devices and services. It offers manufacturers a simple, fast, and timely solution to the increasing requirement to connect products.
The Obje platform works with devices of all kinds - including cell phones, computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), printers, set-top boxes, bar-code scanners, video displays, and others - from any manufacturer.
It works with everything, everywhere - because rather than being some kind of new l33t tech, or even a new technical standard, it's a self-described "meta standard".
In that respect, it reminds me a lot of Microsoft's DNA (Distributed Network Architecture), which I'm not sure anyone remembers. I only do because I built the Mid-Atlantic DNA labs, having worked for one of their Premiere Partners. Basically DNA wasn't new tech of any kind so much as a way of thinking and realignment of existing technologies. Instead of coming up with something really neat and whizbang to sell, Microsoft instead tried selling the process of how to think about how to get work done. Instead of creating apps that are live in the net, say, add a layer of firewalling and some abstraction between the user and the app itself, centralize all of your data in searchable SQL databases, and do other really common stuff!
And they charged people for it, too.:) Obje reminds me of this - standards about standards about actual work.
Re:Only two possible outcomes.
by
Frymaster
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Only two possible outcomes.
you forgot the third option:
3. xerox will let this wither away in the lab just like all those other great parc ideas and we won't see it for another decade when someone with the actual common sense to build and sell the damn thing happens to get a peek at it through the window.
this is the most likely result. i blame it on the fact that the xerox corporate culture has been so built on the "copier" mentality that they can't recognize the value of an original.
Glad to see Jini getting some props
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Glad to see PARC is using the idea of mobile code from Jini. The Jini Community has been doing this for over 5 years now. And it's not just for devices. Quite a few companies have used it as a platform for enterprise computing - in many ways it even competes with J2EE/EJB in this area.
Jini is a great Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) that is VERY secure yet still involves mobile code rather than just RPC calls.
It is a Java-based solution, but is opening up to other languages through the Surrogate Architecture...
Anyway, if we get excited about something new from PARC, we should investigate a fairly mature technology that it is built on top of.
If you think Obje is cool, check out RIO. Not just dynamic networking and mobile code, but dynamic provisioning and Quality of Service...
"Let's see.Net do that!":)
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
If anyone can get this right, it'll be PARC...
by
alispguru
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
PARC has a history of doing things meta before anyone else, and by and large getting it right.
A couple of examples:
Smalltalk - took "everything is an object" to the extreme. Smalltalk's byte-coded portability worked, in 1980.
CLOS - its "meta-object protocol" lets developers change the language's object-model semantics.
This sounds very much like PARC wants to teach machines how to interact more on "human" terms than on strict "computer" terms.
The most useful systems of tomorrow can't simply assume that peripherals/devices conform to their world view in order to work together. Instead, they must spend some time up front talking, listening, communicating, then eventually, cooperating.
Heading in this direction will prevent a technological monoculture from appearing, which wedges itself into a hole dug from its own presuppositions. Instead, I think this would foster a hardware equivalent of Open Source, where anyone who knew how to talk the fundamental protocol could build something interesting and introduce it into a system.
Of course, that's a pretty far-off idea, but I think it is worth pursuing.
You are so right
by
lokedhs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I remember being in the middle of all the Jini buzz a few years ago. I remember talking to some of the Jini designers, asking them for the API's I should use when talking to a distributed file storage service. I was under the impression (still am, actually) that such a service would be one of the first to be defined. It's easy enough, should just be a few interfaces. Could be designed in an hour.
Now, what was the reply? Something in the lines of: "it is not our job to define the standard API's. That's up to the community". Well, at that time I concluded that Jini would never succeed. And, it seems, Obje is falling into the same trap.
Protocols are needed. Regardless of wether they are defined in terms of binary data, XML schemas, or Java interfaces. You need them to be able to know what you are saying to the other party, and what it is trying to tell you.
I had some really neat ideas actually. I wanted to use stuff like distributed file storage. But there was no way I'd be writing my own interfaces that no one else would use. So, in the end, I didn't care much for Jini and apparently it was the right choice.
As far as I can tell, there is no difference between Obje and Jini, the designers are going to fall into the exact same trap. I would love it if someone showed me why Obje would succeed where Jini did not.
By the way, there were a lot of other things that sucked about Jini, but that had more to do with the crappy implementation than the actual concept.
Slashdot Mirror
I simply can't imagine that this could be done in a secure fashion between any two arbitrary devices that don't know what the other is.
Keep in mind I have only SkimmedTFA... This seems like it would be useful for forming ad hoc networks, for example in a disaster or emergency scenario. But for frequent daily use, it seems like it might be a particularly vulnerable protocol.
Are the benefits of high quality and reliable communication in a disaster/terrorism situation worth the potential risks of insecurity in that situation?
what is wrong with the existing protocol specs and RFCs? As it is, we have enough security problems even with a meticulous protocol specification. So making it more arbitrary will help? I doubt that, unless we are just willing to concede that security is a hopeless quest.
So, not an open standard. Well, back to SOAP...
The Army reading list
From the article:
:) Obje reminds me of this - standards about standards about actual work.
The Obje platform works with all standards, including those that have not yet been defined. It requires no central coordination, pre-configuring, or special set-up, and can be easily used by people with no technical expertise.
It provides users a way to combine devices to build simple solutions for hundreds of problems - easily assembling their particular applications from available devices and services. It offers manufacturers a simple, fast, and timely solution to the increasing requirement to connect products.
The Obje platform works with devices of all kinds - including cell phones, computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), printers, set-top boxes, bar-code scanners, video displays, and others - from any manufacturer.
It works with everything, everywhere - because rather than being some kind of new l33t tech, or even a new technical standard, it's a self-described "meta standard".
In that respect, it reminds me a lot of Microsoft's DNA (Distributed Network Architecture), which I'm not sure anyone remembers. I only do because I built the Mid-Atlantic DNA labs, having worked for one of their Premiere Partners. Basically DNA wasn't new tech of any kind so much as a way of thinking and realignment of existing technologies. Instead of coming up with something really neat and whizbang to sell, Microsoft instead tried selling the process of how to think about how to get work done. Instead of creating apps that are live in the net, say, add a layer of firewalling and some abstraction between the user and the app itself, centralize all of your data in searchable SQL databases, and do other really common stuff!
And they charged people for it, too.
you forgot the third option:
3. xerox will let this wither away in the lab just like all those other great parc ideas and we won't see it for another decade when someone with the actual common sense to build and sell the damn thing happens to get a peek at it through the window.
this is the most likely result. i blame it on the fact that the xerox corporate culture has been so built on the "copier" mentality that they can't recognize the value of an original.
2 1337 4 u!
Glad to see PARC is using the idea of mobile code from Jini. The Jini Community has been doing this for over 5 years now. And it's not just for devices. Quite a few companies have used it as a platform for enterprise computing - in many ways it even competes with J2EE/EJB in this area.
.Net do that!" :)
Jini is a great Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) that is VERY secure yet still involves mobile code rather than just RPC calls.
It is a Java-based solution, but is opening up to other languages through the Surrogate Architecture...
Anyway, if we get excited about something new from PARC, we should investigate a fairly mature technology that it is built on top of.
If you think Obje is cool, check out RIO. Not just dynamic networking and mobile code, but dynamic provisioning and Quality of Service...
"Let's see
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
A couple of examples:
Smalltalk - took "everything is an object" to the extreme. Smalltalk's byte-coded portability worked, in 1980.
CLOS - its "meta-object protocol" lets developers change the language's object-model semantics.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
This sounds very much like PARC wants to teach machines how to interact more on "human" terms than on strict "computer" terms.
The most useful systems of tomorrow can't simply assume that peripherals/devices conform to their world view in order to work together. Instead, they must spend some time up front talking, listening, communicating, then eventually, cooperating.
Heading in this direction will prevent a technological monoculture from appearing, which wedges itself into a hole dug from its own presuppositions. Instead, I think this would foster a hardware equivalent of Open Source, where anyone who knew how to talk the fundamental protocol could build something interesting and introduce it into a system.
Of course, that's a pretty far-off idea, but I think it is worth pursuing.
Now, what was the reply? Something in the lines of: "it is not our job to define the standard API's. That's up to the community". Well, at that time I concluded that Jini would never succeed. And, it seems, Obje is falling into the same trap.
Protocols are needed. Regardless of wether they are defined in terms of binary data, XML schemas, or Java interfaces. You need them to be able to know what you are saying to the other party, and what it is trying to tell you.
I had some really neat ideas actually. I wanted to use stuff like distributed file storage. But there was no way I'd be writing my own interfaces that no one else would use. So, in the end, I didn't care much for Jini and apparently it was the right choice.
As far as I can tell, there is no difference between Obje and Jini, the designers are going to fall into the exact same trap. I would love it if someone showed me why Obje would succeed where Jini did not.
By the way, there were a lot of other things that sucked about Jini, but that had more to do with the crappy implementation than the actual concept.