Also, the guy at Jolla have a slightly better history on open tecnologies and alike - AFAIK, they tend to reuse a lot of technologies, instead of suffering from NotInventedHere sindrome. Interoperability looks pretty promising too.
I also think they may have taken some (potential) customers from Ubuntu Edge, since their goals overlap a bit, and Jolla opened up pre-ordering first.
Youtube? Ads? Ever heard of adblock?
Well, as I said, with OpenID the providers knows exactly what sites you logged in to, while with Persona they just sign a certificate your browser gives them, vouching for your identity, without getting the site.
If you care about privacy, you can host your own OpenID provider, otherwise, just use one you trust. What's the issue there?
In terms of UI, Persona uses email addresses instead of URLs, which are easier for non-techies to grasp as an authentication identifier.
Why are they easier? People type URLs every day, what's so hard about them?
So, how is this an improvement over OpenID?
If the browser can read them, then they're readble.
I haven't done much research on IE in particular, but this works for any browser:
-Set up a DNS server. Spoof everything to localhost and proxy the real stuff.
-Set up a web server (with TLS with your own CA if you want).
-Install your custom CA
-Open the browser, have it autocomplete the password.
-Log traffic.
-Profit.
So once you've logged in, it's accesible.
Others OSs encrypt your home directory with the user password, so the same would apply. Doesn't mac have disk encryption as well?
I've never seen this outside the US, and I don't think it's frequent for ISPs to block this elsewhere.
As for me, I'm in Argemtina, and I've had several ISPs in the last decade, and none of them block or forbade hosting server (including web servers, vnc servers, game servers, etc).
Anyone else from another country care to add their experiences? For what I can see, this is pretty much US-only (as is capping GB-per-month, which only seems to have taken of in canada as well).
I like the idea of spreading the knowledge around so that no one source knows everything. This essentially puts a middle-man in the Auth process, but that man knows very little.
Why spread that knowledge? OpenID doesn't require you to make any information available to any third party - unless you pick a third party provider, but still, you've a large amount of options from where to pick.
I trust mozilla, but why should I have them in the middle of my authentications? Why would I allow them to know where I'm logging in? Why should anyone else trust them?
I'd much rather use something like OpenID. I don't have to use any intermediate I don't want to. I trust mozilla (today), but I still think it's wrong to have them in the middle when there's no strict need. I also respect that other may wish not to trust mozilla with the mentioned data.
Actually, is this any different for ANY browser?
If the password is available (without being prompted for any master password), then it's accesible one way or another. Period.
Quake 3 is quite unique, and still popular.
Quake Live is, technologically, quite innovative too (a browser plugin that internally uses XMPP for online FPS?). I'm not sure why the idea never took off.
Sure, sony made a u-turn and is being friendly. But since it's a closed hardware with a close ecosystem, there's no garantee that they won't get back on their usual [evil] track once they've sold enough PS4.
For me to buy a PS4 from them, they need to convince me they'll NEVER go bad. And that I'll get better-than-PC games, of course.
I think the 90% piracy rate on PCs had something to do with it (piracy on Xbox360 was around 10% for comparison).
I know plenty of 360 owner, and only a couple have one or two legit games.
Piracy might be that low in the US, but it's a different thing outside the US. The 360 sold a lot more than the PS3 at some point because of the cost of games and the fact that the former could be pirated.
Then publishers put on DRM and you had the whole SecuROM fiasco that burned out optical drives.
All the Xbox did was show that between the Xbox and PS2, consoles were getting "good enough". The PS3 and Xbox360 basically said that things were pretty much there and consoles were no longer the huge compromises they once were when compared to PCs.
Publishers switched over because you could develop for PCs and load it up with DRM crap, or develop for consoles (which were "good enough") suffer less piracy and get more people paying for it. And people were buying consoles as well because it was more "social" and fun to play on the big screen TV than the little monitor.
What's happened since then is the universal DRM for PC now - Steam. And the proliferation of Intel graphics cards (around the time of the Xbox, people still used external video chips) which basically meant 90% of PCs sold were doing fairly poorly in the graphics department (and NVidia and AMD/ATi saw their marketshare dwindle as people rushed for cheaper Intel graphics).
But, the PC adapted - no longer were AAA titles going to PCs, which meant indie games rose in prominence - a good indie game (most are crap, still) now has a huge hungry base to which people would buy them and play with. And since these were low-budget productions, DRM wasn't really an issue, since piracy tended to help. And these games worked even on piss-poor Intel graphics, which meant huge market. Plus the rise of mobile gaming helped.
Consoles this round took notice and if you're paying attention, you'll see both Sony and Microsoft are trying hard to attract indies to their consoles.
The (few) most popuar indie games have pretty good graphics, and are pretty good AND successful. AAA games don't exist any more (on any platform), all those franchises have been brought by EA or alike and burnt to the ground (Simcity? Mass Effect? C&C The list is endless!).
Except the PS3, of course, which sold a lot for clusters and researchers due to their unique processor.
Bad luck if they didn't fix their site to be secure. Mixed content (with insecure JS), is just as sufe as non-https content, since JS can basically inject anything it wants to, redirect the user, etc.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
