Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? (Score 1) 132

by colfer (#47305087) Attached to: Mozilla Introduces Browser-Based WebIDE




Comment: Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (Score 2) 132

by colfer (#47304539) Attached to: Mozilla Introduces Browser-Based WebIDE


As for desktop. Still a good browser, needs one process per tab. Still good to have a compliant rendering engine besides Chrome. Still good to have privacy and security policies competing with Chrome.

Comment: Re:Antitrust...? (Score 4, Insightful) 132

by colfer (#47304507) Attached to: Mozilla Introduces Browser-Based WebIDE

Not that.


Comment: Re:Why so much stupid shit, Mozilla? (Score 2) 89

by colfer (#47289685) Attached to: Mozilla Is Working On a Firefox OS-powered Streaming Stick

TB has some architectural problems and the withdrawal of paid developers by Mozilla makes it unlikely they will be fixed. The problem I ran into is that attachments cannot easily be stored separately from messages. That column showing the attachment count is actually just a guess. The db does not have real info on the MIME situation in messages. All that work is done on the fly whenever you open the message. You can detach the attachments from messages and store them separately, but only by clicking on messages one-by-one. There is an extension that attempts to automate detachment through filters, but it will crash if it encounters too many messages with attachments at one time, since the task is asynch. I confirmed all this with the extension developer - not the crashes, but the architecture and the fact that the db only guesses at the attachment count when you view the message list. Of the 12,000 current extensions, I found two or three that attempted to deal with detachment.

Comment: Re:Choice is NOT ALWAYS good (Score 4, Insightful) 128

by colfer (#47288291) Attached to: Google Forks OpenSSL, Announces BoringSSL

BoringSSL is a great name and directly addresses what got OpenSSL into trouble most recently, implementing a new protocol parameter based on a student's idea for a degree thesis. Innovation for innovation's sake, that was. Hurriedly applied for some reason.

And it's not something a website would "use," if you mean a high level protocol akin to "https." It's a library to implement common standards.

Comment: Re:How will they address the attitude problem? (Score 4, Interesting) 128

by colfer (#47288257) Attached to: Google Forks OpenSSL, Announces BoringSSL

Maybe by assigning people to the project who have not chosen security as a career field. On the Mozilla commits I used to follow, the personalities in the security arena were a different kettle of fish from the other developers. They had to maintain FIPS compliance, so were conservative about changes, but it was more than that. Not to mention, there's a possibility of workers with ulterior motives. All the more reason to develop a wider community than just self-selected specialists.

The billion dollar companies can afford it, and should have a long time ago.

Comment: Re:wrong direction. (Score 3, Insightful) 132

by colfer (#47120387) Attached to: OpenSSL To Undergo Security Audit, Gets Cash For 2 Developers

The big companies probably want more control over the project than LibreSSL will allow them. They've been burned once by relying on old-style Unix community dev. But it's also entirely their own fault for not funding and auditing the open source code they were building their billions on.

Seems to me LibreSSL is the way to go, but I can also see why the corporations would just use it as a side-stream for hints on what to fix. They have enough resources to rewrite openSSL from the inside rather than the the LibreSSL tear-down approach. Having both projects is really a benefit for LibreSSL as longs as it gets sufficient interest and resources.

Comment: Re:now I never looked into it (Score 1) 420

Some actual energy and costs figures are here:
(Concerns a different region in California, but has been put together well.)

In the political battle in Santa Cruz last year, a key contention was that the proposed carbon offsets were not a real benefit to the environment.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson