I've wondered for a long time how nice it would be to have keys without the horizontal staggering. What deters me is the impossibility of getting the same built into a laptop.
Anyone who looks back in my posting history will see that I have long, LONG advocated for tackling the UI and packaging paradigms on FOSS desktops because they choke-off interest from the type of creative person who develops apps. (Even worse, they scare away people who would like to experiment and become budding app developers, so those people cut their teeth on OSX or Windows almost as a rule.)
PC tools are supposed to link the user with the power and features of the underlying hardware, making them at least discoverable in the GUI; In other words, there must be lots of vertical integration. Also... the GUI must have a 'gist' or feel consistent because this is a sign of feature-stability in the OS.
What FOSS has is a bunch of developers who tinker with the OS itself (I include the GUI in this, as it rightfully belongs in the category of OS) and assume that anyone who understands how a system works internally can trivially design GUI features... a big, big flaw in what is not so much an articulated belief as an unhealthy attitude. This is part of the subconscious of the FOSS world, and it results in maladies like not being able to describe fixes and workarounds (or just general usage instructions) as GUI snapshots and walkthroughs (almost always, the user will be directed to the CLI); It means even seasoned tech support personnel will struggle to interpret DEs and other UI features they are not very familiar with. Just getting to the point where your cousin or boss can try out your creations is hell.
App developers should have the power to create exceptions for UI features in their *apps* (I said apps, not OS), because that embodies the two things app developers subconsciously look for: power and feature-stability. The default behavior is always the OS way (i.e. ONE way) out of respect for all users in general; If the default behavior/appearance is ten possible ways, then the app developer feels like they are managing chaos instead of power.
My 'remedy' for the FOSS OS problem would be for a distro like Ubuntu to shed its identity as a "Linux distro" because the Linux moniker just confuses people at this point; and to take full control over the UI design so that it conforms more to a single vision (something that is apparently already under way). Pretty much all of the OS except the kernel should be original to the project or forked and, as Google did for a while with Android, Canonical should threaten to fork the kernel if that is necessary to improve the UX.
I'll also point out that Ubuntu has gotten some meta-features that were typically missing from a Linux distro, like a full-blown SDK and extensive whole-system hardware compatibility tests and searchable database. What would remain to be done beyond this is to standardize on a GUI IDE (with capabilities like Xcode) and extend the hardware program to include a certification process (with licensed emblem) that system and peripheral manufacturers can use in a straightforward way.
Also, packaging is a whole other cup of worms, though I personally think emulating OSX app folders would be a good foundation for easily-redistributed apps. This means that an OS repository would have to stop at some well-defined point instead of trying to mash all the apps and OS together along with the kitchen sink.
It probably has something to do with letting Rupert Murdoch and his cronies run the country, too. Seriously, he controls about 70% of the media there and Abbott would not be in power now if Murdoch hadn't declared war on the Labor party.
You forgot AppArmor, which is one of the most widely-used on Linux. Of course, I'd much rather have Qubes' isolation mechanisms so that my banking, work and leisure activities (and even my NICs) don't even share the same virtual machine -- My data sets are kept separate and the interfaces between those domains are simple and very strong.
When I am designing for "SECURITY" I want to simplify the critical protocols so that they can be described by a state machine and then implement them in silicon.
It would be interesting to see a Xen hypervisor implemented in silicon, as that is what Amazon EC2 and Qubes OS base their security on. Qubes doesn't even use kernel-based permissions for its single-user desktop model; It gives you the means to control dom0 and everything else resides in VMs.
Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?
Easy. For both the homeowner checking his gutters as well as a airplane pilot flying overhead, self-preservation is a big factor.
OTOH, third parties flying vehicles around other people is an inherently callous (and cowardly) act.
Actually, no. Eventually you won't be able to go for a swim because the accompanying Canfield Ocean effect is leading to anoxia and eventually copious amounts of hydrogen sulphide gas being spewed from the oceans into the atmosphere....... You won't be able to breathe.
Its like putting those large golden padlock images on e-commerce pages: Over time, people will absorb them as trust indications and then scammers will increase their success rate by draping their spoof pages in these symbols.
A user has to understand what a browser or email client is, and learn to look for trust indicators in the areas that frame the content.
Adding a PGP interface inside a content area is just STUPID.
The real problem that needs solving isn't hacking PGP into web-mail, it's making certificate management user-friendly. And that's not even that hard to do!
I completely agree. I think cert and key management *would* be a lot simpler if operating systems presented keys and certs as first-class objects instead of little scraps of gobbldeygook texts with an empty-page or question-mark icon.
This is a security failing that is hard to overlook for projects with far-flung participants. Any time data is downloaded it could be subjected to MITM attack.
Core git coders appear oblivious to the problem. Even so, how hard can it be to replace SHA1 with SHA256?
1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent 2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown) 3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.
If MS comes out of the closet and enumerates #3 and opens a dialoge with the community about them, THEN I will believe their hype about being open-source friendly. Otherwise, they are in the business of growing their Android-derived revenue using submarine tactics.
Also, explain to us why MS shuts out FOSS AV and document formats (the consumer-oriented ones); Not only from their products but from standards-making processes.
1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent 2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown) 3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.
If MS comes out of the closet and enumerates #3 and opens a dialoge with the community about them, THEN I will believe their hype about being open-source friendly. Otherwise, they are in the business of growing their Android-derived revenue using submarine tactics.
Also, explain to us why MS shuts out FOSS AV and document formats (the consumer-oriented ones); Not only from their products but from standards-making processes.
"Microsoft simply wants to support industry standard formats and not hobbyist formats like Ext4 or OGG Vorbis. You are not going to find Ext4 or OGG Vorbis support from your camcorder either."
So those massive datacentres powered by Linux are running a hobbyist filesystem?
And don't forget there are billions of Android devices that can understand Ext* disk formats.
So only MS gets to embrace and extend; Who would have guessed? Break a single rule in Microsoft's.NET standards and they can come at us with both barrels.
The irony here is MS are using licenses that are thought to be the most libre as a cover to keep the developer community fenced-in to their platform with patent threats. Re-purpose any of the patented code and.....
Also, I'd like to remind you that MS still enforces at least two very silly patents against FOSS distributors: The FAT filename-length patent and the subpixel-rendering patent (which has prior art). And IIRC there is a raft of patents they are using to threaten Linux distributors which they still won't reveal, so they are still in the business of wielding shadowy threats which I'm told is actually illegal.
MS needs to make good on their past and current patent trolling. If they don't then we have no reason to believe they are doing "open source" in good faith.
I doubt it is trivial to add EXT2/3/4 support to the windows stack. Consider that ZFS has barely moved in linux space, even though it is fully BSD compatible, opensource, and awesome. Apparently it makes more sense to develop BTRFS.
Its trivial to get Windows to recognize a Linux partition and refrain from telling people to format those volumes.
No kidding. MS still pursues violators of that silly long-filename patent. And they STILL demand a cut from Android distributors for other patents they refuse to disclose to the community!
And that makes them hostile to open software in my book. They insist on treating Linux-formatted disks as essentially blank and have Windows tell the user the volume must be formatted to be used; fixing this would be simple in the extreme and would not even require an ability to read an Ext* volume. They stonewall AV formats like Vorbis when they could be added easily to existing apps. Really, the list goes on. The place where they have capitulated is formats that are intrinsic to the web (while parading their proprietary stuff as "open" hoping enough people will take the bait).
MS still promotes lock-in. And from what I gather even their new.NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.
Vorbis made it into a lot of products that were not Apple or MS, from Sandisk to Samsung.
Daala is shaping up to be excellent as well, but its biggest competition may be VPx in the long run... Google announced they would start 18-month release cycles for major VPx codec revisions after 10. That creates a Chrome-like effect on the mindshare of early adopters, so it should be interesting. Of course, who is backing Daala? Mozilla... who may get dragged into release-cycle competition with Google on another product.:)
Honestly I think those guys are a bunch of hypocrites. They make a big deal about openness and evil binary blobs etc. But last I checked I don't see their board design schematics, layout files, CAD drawings for the chassis, etc. available anywhere under an open source license.
Honestly, I don't think anyone has raised the question with them. They have responded very well to the concerns of Qubes users, developers and other communities. Something tells me they would love to emulate the Apple of the 1970s and supply schematics.
Call me crazy, but I respect IHVs wanting to have the ability to patch hardware issues on devices that have already shipped. Remember the Pentium FDIV bug? Intel has had up-datable microcode ever since then for a reason. Having hardware be patchable like that creates binary blobs of out necessity. I guess I'm just too pragmatic or something.
I don't get this part. You're against closed design for motherboards but not for firmware?
The hypocrisy charge doesn't hold. Purism is a tiny startup and they are not going to be able to deliver the whole kit and kaboodle down to the last transistor to you immediately. In the meantime, we can have hardware whose documentation is thorough and therefore FOSS-friendly with no mystery drivers; We can have all open software and firmware on a powerful system if Intel is willing.
The vast majority of PC buyers will never want the missing feature, and will be protected from social engineering attacks that would turn it off. As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
I think you mean its better for MS and vendor bank accounts, not ours.
There should be a permanent sh!tlist pinned to the top of Slashdot with any vendor that promotes this scheme for "PCs".
Microsoft's long-time disruptive technology shark in the water was that they promoted a platform that was just open enough to let techies (and 3rd party vendors) on a budget customize the systems however they need. This is the essence of a "personal computer", for the MS camp at least. Now MS has jumped their own shark.
Their tepid claims of being FOSS-friendly are being shown as ultimately false. Like Apple, they still won't incorporate open A/V formats into their products and their OSes will tell you an inserted Linux-formatted volume "must be formatted before use". Heaven forbid if I ever give an EXT3 formatted flash drive to an Android user, and they decide someday to look at it with Windows. They are similarly hostile when it comes to Linux multiboot setups. Its wilful negligence that still reigns in Redmond and must be fought with tooth and nail to gain any concession.
And how necessary for security are these firmware-level lockouts?? They are not! Qubes OS employs a scheme that, in combination with a TPM, prevents a computer from being able to reproduce a chosen passphrase if its been tampered-with. No doubt, the MS excuse will be that the consumer or administrator can't be bothered to remember a sentence to verify system integrity.
I suggest rallying around vendors like this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/pu... Eventually, we should pressure the market to open up the whole damn stack; We will probably be forced to.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Chris is talking about this: https://www.trulyergonomic.com...
I've wondered for a long time how nice it would be to have keys without the horizontal staggering. What deters me is the impossibility of getting the same built into a laptop.
I would buy a Unicomp if they still made the spacesaver model; the usual 104 key boards are too wide for me.
The Matias mini I opted for is a pleasure to type on, however. I can see why the OP likes them.
Modding down. Leaders of an organization are not just random rank-and-file members.
Anyone who looks back in my posting history will see that I have long, LONG advocated for tackling the UI and packaging paradigms on FOSS desktops because they choke-off interest from the type of creative person who develops apps. (Even worse, they scare away people who would like to experiment and become budding app developers, so those people cut their teeth on OSX or Windows almost as a rule.)
PC tools are supposed to link the user with the power and features of the underlying hardware, making them at least discoverable in the GUI; In other words, there must be lots of vertical integration. Also... the GUI must have a 'gist' or feel consistent because this is a sign of feature-stability in the OS.
What FOSS has is a bunch of developers who tinker with the OS itself (I include the GUI in this, as it rightfully belongs in the category of OS) and assume that anyone who understands how a system works internally can trivially design GUI features... a big, big flaw in what is not so much an articulated belief as an unhealthy attitude. This is part of the subconscious of the FOSS world, and it results in maladies like not being able to describe fixes and workarounds (or just general usage instructions) as GUI snapshots and walkthroughs (almost always, the user will be directed to the CLI); It means even seasoned tech support personnel will struggle to interpret DEs and other UI features they are not very familiar with. Just getting to the point where your cousin or boss can try out your creations is hell.
App developers should have the power to create exceptions for UI features in their *apps* (I said apps, not OS), because that embodies the two things app developers subconsciously look for: power and feature-stability. The default behavior is always the OS way (i.e. ONE way) out of respect for all users in general; If the default behavior/appearance is ten possible ways, then the app developer feels like they are managing chaos instead of power.
My 'remedy' for the FOSS OS problem would be for a distro like Ubuntu to shed its identity as a "Linux distro" because the Linux moniker just confuses people at this point; and to take full control over the UI design so that it conforms more to a single vision (something that is apparently already under way). Pretty much all of the OS except the kernel should be original to the project or forked and, as Google did for a while with Android, Canonical should threaten to fork the kernel if that is necessary to improve the UX.
I'll also point out that Ubuntu has gotten some meta-features that were typically missing from a Linux distro, like a full-blown SDK and extensive whole-system hardware compatibility tests and searchable database. What would remain to be done beyond this is to standardize on a GUI IDE (with capabilities like Xcode) and extend the hardware program to include a certification process (with licensed emblem) that system and peripheral manufacturers can use in a straightforward way.
Also, packaging is a whole other cup of worms, though I personally think emulating OSX app folders would be a good foundation for easily-redistributed apps. This means that an OS repository would have to stop at some well-defined point instead of trying to mash all the apps and OS together along with the kitchen sink.
It probably has something to do with letting Rupert Murdoch and his cronies run the country, too. Seriously, he controls about 70% of the media there and Abbott would not be in power now if Murdoch hadn't declared war on the Labor party.
You forgot AppArmor, which is one of the most widely-used on Linux. Of course, I'd much rather have Qubes' isolation mechanisms so that my banking, work and leisure activities (and even my NICs) don't even share the same virtual machine -- My data sets are kept separate and the interfaces between those domains are simple and very strong.
When I am designing for "SECURITY" I want to simplify the critical protocols so that they can be described by a state machine and then implement them in silicon.
It would be interesting to see a Xen hypervisor implemented in silicon, as that is what Amazon EC2 and Qubes OS base their security on. Qubes doesn't even use kernel-based permissions for its single-user desktop model; It gives you the means to control dom0 and everything else resides in VMs.
'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.
You're missing the point.
Quadcopters are dangerous
Sure, just like countless other objects. But if the FAA was worried about safety, they'd be expecting the recreational users of them to also be subject to the regulations they're putting on commercial operators using exactly the same 3-pound plastic quadcopter in exactly the same way. A guy checking out his own roof gutters with a consumer-grade quad, and a roofing contractor using exactly the same device in exactly the same way present exactly the same safety risks ... but the FAA only considers one of those two people to be subject to a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile that?
Easy. For both the homeowner checking his gutters as well as a airplane pilot flying overhead, self-preservation is a big factor.
OTOH, third parties flying vehicles around other people is an inherently callous (and cowardly) act.
This isn't about safety.
'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.
Quadcopters are dangerous, and those are just the toys that don't carry packages across town.
This is a question of public safety being sacrificed to suit Amazon's corporate goals and customers who will pay premiums for faster service.
Actually, no. Eventually you won't be able to go for a swim because the accompanying Canfield Ocean effect is leading to anoxia and eventually copious amounts of hydrogen sulphide gas being spewed from the oceans into the atmosphere....... You won't be able to breathe.
Its like putting those large golden padlock images on e-commerce pages: Over time, people will absorb them as trust indications and then scammers will increase their success rate by draping their spoof pages in these symbols.
A user has to understand what a browser or email client is, and learn to look for trust indicators in the areas that frame the content.
Adding a PGP interface inside a content area is just STUPID.
The real problem that needs solving isn't hacking PGP into web-mail, it's making certificate management user-friendly. And that's not even that hard to do!
I completely agree. I think cert and key management *would* be a lot simpler if operating systems presented keys and certs as first-class objects instead of little scraps of gobbldeygook texts with an empty-page or question-mark icon.
This is a security failing that is hard to overlook for projects with far-flung participants. Any time data is downloaded it could be subjected to MITM attack.
Core git coders appear oblivious to the problem. Even so, how hard can it be to replace SHA1 with SHA256?
Cases in point:
1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent
2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown)
3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.
If MS comes out of the closet and enumerates #3 and opens a dialoge with the community about them, THEN I will believe their hype about being open-source friendly. Otherwise, they are in the business of growing their Android-derived revenue using submarine tactics.
Also, explain to us why MS shuts out FOSS AV and document formats (the consumer-oriented ones); Not only from their products but from standards-making processes.
Have a nice day, mods! :)
Cases in point:
1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent
2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown)
3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.
If MS comes out of the closet and enumerates #3 and opens a dialoge with the community about them, THEN I will believe their hype about being open-source friendly. Otherwise, they are in the business of growing their Android-derived revenue using submarine tactics.
Also, explain to us why MS shuts out FOSS AV and document formats (the consumer-oriented ones); Not only from their products but from standards-making processes.
"Microsoft simply wants to support industry standard formats and not hobbyist formats like Ext4 or OGG Vorbis. You are not going to find Ext4 or OGG Vorbis support from your camcorder either."
So those massive datacentres powered by Linux are running a hobbyist filesystem?
And don't forget there are billions of Android devices that can understand Ext* disk formats.
So only MS gets to embrace and extend; Who would have guessed? Break a single rule in Microsoft's .NET standards and they can come at us with both barrels.
The irony here is MS are using licenses that are thought to be the most libre as a cover to keep the developer community fenced-in to their platform with patent threats. Re-purpose any of the patented code and.....
Also, I'd like to remind you that MS still enforces at least two very silly patents against FOSS distributors: The FAT filename-length patent and the subpixel-rendering patent (which has prior art). And IIRC there is a raft of patents they are using to threaten Linux distributors which they still won't reveal, so they are still in the business of wielding shadowy threats which I'm told is actually illegal.
MS needs to make good on their past and current patent trolling. If they don't then we have no reason to believe they are doing "open source" in good faith.
I doubt it is trivial to add EXT2/3/4 support to the windows stack. Consider that ZFS has barely moved in linux space, even though it is fully BSD compatible, opensource, and awesome. Apparently it makes more sense to develop BTRFS.
Its trivial to get Windows to recognize a Linux partition and refrain from telling people to format those volumes.
And exFAT.
No kidding. MS still pursues violators of that silly long-filename patent. And they STILL demand a cut from Android distributors for other patents they refuse to disclose to the community!
And that makes them hostile to open software in my book. They insist on treating Linux-formatted disks as essentially blank and have Windows tell the user the volume must be formatted to be used; fixing this would be simple in the extreme and would not even require an ability to read an Ext* volume. They stonewall AV formats like Vorbis when they could be added easily to existing apps. Really, the list goes on. The place where they have capitulated is formats that are intrinsic to the web (while parading their proprietary stuff as "open" hoping enough people will take the bait).
MS still promotes lock-in. And from what I gather even their new .NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.
Vorbis made it into a lot of products that were not Apple or MS, from Sandisk to Samsung.
Daala is shaping up to be excellent as well, but its biggest competition may be VPx in the long run... Google announced they would start 18-month release cycles for major VPx codec revisions after 10. That creates a Chrome-like effect on the mindshare of early adopters, so it should be interesting. Of course, who is backing Daala? Mozilla... who may get dragged into release-cycle competition with Google on another product. :)
http://www.nojitter.com/post/2...
That stat about VP9 meeting 60% of Youtube delivery is interesting.
I suggest rallying around vendors like this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/pu...
Honestly I think those guys are a bunch of hypocrites. They make a big deal about openness and evil binary blobs etc. But last I checked I don't see their board design schematics, layout files, CAD drawings for the chassis, etc. available anywhere under an open source license.
Honestly, I don't think anyone has raised the question with them. They have responded very well to the concerns of Qubes users, developers and other communities. Something tells me they would love to emulate the Apple of the 1970s and supply schematics.
Call me crazy, but I respect IHVs wanting to have the ability to patch hardware issues on devices that have already shipped. Remember the Pentium FDIV bug? Intel has had up-datable microcode ever since then for a reason. Having hardware be patchable like that creates binary blobs of out necessity. I guess I'm just too pragmatic or something.
I don't get this part. You're against closed design for motherboards but not for firmware?
The hypocrisy charge doesn't hold. Purism is a tiny startup and they are not going to be able to deliver the whole kit and kaboodle down to the last transistor to you immediately. In the meantime, we can have hardware whose documentation is thorough and therefore FOSS-friendly with no mystery drivers; We can have all open software and firmware on a powerful system if Intel is willing.
Also if an alternative to SecureBoot were offered by a small security firm or FOSS project, how would they get their boot code signed??
The vast majority of PC buyers will never want the missing feature, and will be protected from social engineering attacks that would turn it off. As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
I think you mean its better for MS and vendor bank accounts, not ours.
There should be a permanent sh!tlist pinned to the top of Slashdot with any vendor that promotes this scheme for "PCs".
Microsoft's long-time disruptive technology shark in the water was that they promoted a platform that was just open enough to let techies (and 3rd party vendors) on a budget customize the systems however they need. This is the essence of a "personal computer", for the MS camp at least. Now MS has jumped their own shark.
Their tepid claims of being FOSS-friendly are being shown as ultimately false. Like Apple, they still won't incorporate open A/V formats into their products and their OSes will tell you an inserted Linux-formatted volume "must be formatted before use". Heaven forbid if I ever give an EXT3 formatted flash drive to an Android user, and they decide someday to look at it with Windows. They are similarly hostile when it comes to Linux multiboot setups. Its wilful negligence that still reigns in Redmond and must be fought with tooth and nail to gain any concession.
And how necessary for security are these firmware-level lockouts?? They are not! Qubes OS employs a scheme that, in combination with a TPM, prevents a computer from being able to reproduce a chosen passphrase if its been tampered-with. No doubt, the MS excuse will be that the consumer or administrator can't be bothered to remember a sentence to verify system integrity.
I suggest rallying around vendors like this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/pu...
Eventually, we should pressure the market to open up the whole damn stack; We will probably be forced to.