I just want Cuba! Great cigars, food, song, sports, culture, weather... -----Original Message----- From: Alan Quinlan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm
Would you have any objections if I used your core files TO take over the world myself? I promise to sign a waver that you had nothing to do with it. :) -----Original Message----- From: hal helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm It's no good, Jeff. Those guys have discovered our secret plan to take over the world by giving stuff away! Drat those conspiracy-busters! ;-) Seriously, I have been working on the issue of security for a long time now, mainly discarding promising ideas that ultimately didn't handle everything I thought needed to be handled. I think we're very close, with thanks to Steve Nelson who has listened to me prattle on about security for lo, these many months, and who has offered invaluable criticism, advice, and suggestions. My real goal is not to take over the world (too many problems!), but to make Fusebox so compelling simple to use, powerful, and complete that corporations will adopt it even more widely. That has got to be a benefit to each one of us. I think the recent election of the Advisory Committee and the pending formation of a Standards Committee will help in this immensely. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chastain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm You guys love conspiracy theories don't you ;-) Both John and Hal have stated several times (and I bet we will be hearing it again shortly) - anybody is free to add on to the core files with additional functionality as long as the original functionality of the core files is not altered. With the techspedition core file you can do everything in the exact same method as you can do it with the standard core file - you can just do a lot more as well. I don't see them doing it, but if John and Hal wanted to start charging for their core file, they could very well do so. Whether we wanted to pay for the extra functionality or not is up to us - either way the original core file put out by the FuseBox committee is sworn to always be free. So if you want to build your own core file (and even charge for it, although I would be surprised if you got many takers), go right ahead, the only requirement is that the original functionality of the core file must remain in place. On the other comment, yes Hal has a new security method he has been working up that from the initial plans I saw looks to be so much simpler than the secure tag. Unfortunately he has not back-doored me a copy so I am still waiting to see the final version. -- Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Nando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Secure.cfm No worries Alan, i got the posts on my hard drive where John insisted again and again that the core files would always and forever be FREE! i got the hunch that they are going to continue on the lines they always have, share the code they developed and charge for training. And i think that's a much better business plan than the other way around, charge for the code and undermine their training base - somewhat. Especially at this point. how much could they ask, anyway? If they asked a lot for it, I don't think many people would adopt it. Sure, there seems to be some nice things you can do, but nothing we couldn't manage another way. and what would prevent people from passing it around behind their backs, especially if a few people got a little pissed? I think this is all part of their mystery marketing plan. Keep 'em guessing until they get all wired up curious, anxious, starting to spread rumors of their duplicity, and just as it reaches fever pitch, they spring out of hiding with all these cool things you can do, John insisting that even the PRIVATE releases of the core from techspedition will always be FREE! Hal mumbling about how they really could use a PR person to handle these things for them ... And they put up some more training events on their site to help us learn all these cool new techniques they worked out ... i also think the broken links on the techspedition site to certain articles - the error message you get - the basic contradiction that you point out of John Q hammering for months Don't touch the core! Don't touch the core! and then he's the first one ... it's all in their mystery plan. Alan McCollough wrote: > Now this does make me think of my whole use of the term "Illuminati" > when > relating to those who are at the head of the FB movement. And here is > why. I > coulda swore that the common mantra around FB3 is "Don't mess with the > core > files". > > So then how is it that if certain folk (i.e. members of the Illuminati) > alter the core, it's okay? > > This touches a lot of areas, redistribution, pay-vs-free, etc. I can't > be > the only guy interested in this... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nando [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:14 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Secure.cfm > > > > I'm not 100% on this, but if you study the techspedition core a bit, > > you'll notice Hal's got some code in there relating to security / > > permissions. These guys have nearly got the marketing through mystery > > gig aced. ;-) No? > > > > R Vosmeer wrote: > > > Does this mean there is a new tag coming? > > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > > Van: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Verzonden: 30 May 2002 04:42 > > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Onderwerp: Re: Secure.cfm > > > > > > I think it's worth waiting the extra few weeks until Hal's new stuff is > > > released. I found it significantly easier to understand than the what > > > was > > > proposed last summer. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:33 PM > > > Subject: Re: Secure.cfm > > > > > > > > > John Beynon wrote: > > > > > > > As for Hal's proposal becoming part of the fusebox spec, it could > > > > happen but I think it's more likely to become a 'best practices' - I > > > > know he's got something new up his sleeve at the moment. Since > > > > everyone has their own stand point on security coming up with a > > > > 'standard fusebox' methodology would be a huge challenge. > > > > > > Understood. > > > > > > Anyway, assuming that I wish to follow Hal's proposal, is the > > > implementation of the code that should be responsible for traversing the > > > circuit path (reading the FBX_Permissions.cfm files and updating the > > > fusebox.permissions structure along the way) available somewhere or > > > would I have to write my own? > > > > > > > And yes, apart from hard coding your userpermissions, looks like > > > > you're on the right lines, > > > > > > > > There ya go, I answered all your questions, > > > > > > Thank you :) > > > > > > -- > > > Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino > > > Media and Technology Laboratory > > > Campus Computing Centre > > > United Nations University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
