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."
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?
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: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.'"
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.
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.'"
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.