X10 Community Forum
🖥️ActiveHome Pro => ActiveHome Pro General => Topic started by: SteveRF on April 10, 2005, 10:50:08 PM
-
We already know how the 1132 works... they <BR>have all reported... works like a charm... <BR>those of us that stay obviously like the <BR>CM15A and I bet the next hardware release <BR>will be really sharp and smart. Wonder if a <BR>bunch of CM15 folks will ease over to the <BR>1132 forum (of they have one) and talk about <BR>the CM15A on their web site ? We will keep <BR>watching... <BR>In the meantime most of us are having fun.
We're starting work on our next plug-in, <BR>which will put control of ActiveHome Pro <BR>(including cameras and video, if you have <BR>iWitness) on the Internet. We have a number <BR>of features in mind, but are looking for more <BR>ideas from our users. <BR> <BR>What kinds of features would you expect or <BR>like to see in an Internet plug-in for <BR>ActiveHome Pro?
Internet Plug-in: what do you want to see? (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=4183.msg30289#msg30289)
Re: Internet Plug-in: what do you want to see? [2 of 5] (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=12297.msg30331#msg30331)
Re: Internet Plug-in: what do you want to see? [4 of 5] (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=12299.msg30458#msg30458)
Re: Internet Plug-in: what do you want to see? [5 of 5] (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=12300.msg31514#msg31514)
[TTA Edit: Experiment to determine whether or not SPLITTING 'Highly-Viewed' / 'Highly-Replied' but currently INACTIVE threads from LONG, LONG AGO (I'm starting with ~2 years) into parts will allow current ACTIVE threads to appear in the Top 10 Topics (by Replies) section of the Statistics Center (aka More Stats) (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?action=stats) Page.
NOTE: I *WILL* address the <BR> problem...]
-
SteveRF
Yes Steve, there is a public forum
http://forums.accessx10.com/, it has Active
HomePro and Smathhome forums, the AHP
section is very busy,mostly complains; the
Smarthome not very active, and some of the
question are about the CM15a(lost souls),
else smarthome has a tech support forum ,
again is filled with simple questions,
nothing strange or upset customers.
This not X10 bashing, but an effort to push
X10 to improve their product.All my
switches and sensor are made by X10 and
working fine, the CM15a is a lemon and
unless is redesigned it is useless. You may
have a clean power supply, actually I
believe you have mostly older appliances,
things like power factor correcting
ballast, and in general any energy
efficient appliances will create noise on
the power line making the clock go faster,
the CM15a clock is identical to the CM11a,
this circuit has worked fine 20 years ago,
but is not longer functional.
My suggestion was simple: instead of adding
additional filter to the clock circuit, is
to add a battery back up external clock, a
tiny button battery would power the clock
for at least 10 years with the power off,
eliminating the need to replace the
battery. The RF transceiver TM751 has a
problem when DIM command is send repeatedly
it lock up and requires unplugging to
reset, by using the Microchip built in
watchdog (adding a simple instruction in
their code) would fix this problem, If I
had the source code it would take me less
than 10 minutes to fix it.
Part 1 of 2
-
Part 2 of 2
Now if you really want reliable, fast
response full 2 way communication you may
want to look at this site
http://www.simply-automated.com/
( UPB Technology), of course this comes
with a hefty price tag.
Some of the nuisance problems are easy to
fix, programmers (and hardware designers)
without industrial experience may not
realize that sometime a simple change can
make the product 100 times better usually
without increasing cost.
-
Carmine...
Good explanations, maybe you should be
talking directly to X10.
Concerning the forums, what I asked was if
the Smarthome folks also offer a direct
website to discusss and disseminate updates
of their products similar to way the X10
folks offer here. I was interested but could
not find a direct site.
regards,
SteveRF
-
Carmine: Be aware NIH is at work! These
people don't want help they want to re-
invent the wheel.
-
X10 Pro: All the requests appear based on
an assumed platform capability and capacity
which has not really been defined. How
about solidifying and expanding the
platform in capacity, communications,
connectivity, reliability, and fault
tolerance/recovery. The fastest and most
economical way is to use existing
facilities that are supported by most host
systems including Internet and the ISP’s.
i.e. 1.External antenna with
greater range like the V572AB. 2.A
Ethernet Port (RJ45) supporting TCP/IP and
DHCP 3.Ethernet and /or RF
communication between AHP and CM15Ax
instead of USB. Remember CM15A is
advertised as not requiring connection to a
PC and iWitness changes that currently. 4.
AHP support for Network cameras
(TCP/IP) and terminals. Sure there is some
non-X10 out there and its growing does X10
wish to forgo that tsunami opportuity? 5.
Add Diagnostic Mode with signal
strength field and a detected X10 PLC error
diagnostic field in the Activity monitor. 6.
Make selectable the size of the log
buffer for the Activity Monitor and whether
it stops or wraps as selectable. Doing that
not only opens some currently unavailable
markets and compatibility markets that will
expand your module sales and create a much
broader professional market. Take a lesson
from IBM’s PC Open flexible architecture
took it to the hundreds of millions and
closed proprietary bus (microbus) blew them
out of the market they created.
-
SteveRF
The only direct page is tech support
http://smarthome.custhelp.com/cgi-
bin/smarthome.cfg/php/enduser/entry.php
I find this site http://www.simply-
automated.com/upb_technology.htm
Fascinating, maybe some day X10 will offer
UPD, at an affordable price.
-
Carmine: The UPB at first glance looks like
quite an improvement until you start adding
up the overhead. The community transformer
based coupling requires security with
encryption and opens up some possible
eavesdropping concerns. The claimed 0.1
second latency vs. 0.75 of X10 is impressive
until you start adding up the overhead of
encryption and addressing multi homes under
a community transformer and then house codes
and unit ID’s per each household. Compound
this by two (2) for 2-way (bidirectional)
communication. Not sure how much the “real
net improvement” would be.
The current systems appear unable to handle
a burst of motion sensor ON’s and OFF’s only
2 to 3 deep!
Lets face it the slow, high latency, power
line protocol looks good for slow predefined
stuff that you can optimize commands for
i.e. switch on/off, scene control, TOD
environmental control adjustment, etc. It
just can’t keep up with real-time stuff
like “people movement”, video/picture
capture on external event, etc., which takes
low latency quick response systems with
plenty of bandwidth; Defiantly not PLC
applications. With some use of a hybrid of
available communications and smart
distributed processing modular, reliable,
responsive, and cost effective systems can
be accomplished. Most today are
a “patchwork” of rehabbed past generations
of technology.
Any thoughts on that?
-
1. Security
2. XML Web Service interface for ALL
functions
3. Security
4. Multiple account levels tied to NTLM
users
5. Security
6. 2-way support
7. Security
Just off the top of my head.
-
I need basic AHP to be able to monitor room
temperature with Templinc from Smarthome or
similar, so that this would be accesible via
internet, for example, to monotor
temperature in a vacation home or a
business.
I would also like the accesibility of real
time video, which would be of great benefit
for checking up on my business when I am not
there.
-
More general questions: How many people can
you see giving access to your
Internet-connected AHP/AHP+iWitness setup?
What kinds of things would you *not* want
remotely accessible?
Mike Galos: I'm sensing that Internet
security is important to you. How would you
use an XML Web service for AHP?
-
I'd use the XML web service to integrate
the AHP server into custom client apps that
could access AHP over the net. That way the
functionality isn't tied to a web form and
can vary depending on the device's
capabilities.
More but simpler pages on a Smartphone and
less but more complex pages on a full PC
for example. It also allows for
intellegence on the client that doesn't
have to be present on the server and sent
over the wire.
-
As for how many and what...
I don't see limiting the number of people
that could talk to AHP. In some cases I
could see it limited to just 2 or 3 but in
other cases I could see it being used by
literally dozens of users. That's why it is
critical to NOT do your own authentication
and authorization system and just properly
hand it over to the built in systems.
-
Mike: Built in authorization systems? I
didn’t think Win98 had much if any built-in
authorization system. Are you suggesting
that it only work on 2000, XP and 2003
server? My preference would be to let the
user choose whether to use the "built-in"
system or use one provided by X10. Letting
the OS control authorization by default
could leave home automation control wide
open on the internet for people who
haven’t/don’t want to set up the built-in
authorization system (if any).
-
Roger H.
"Mike: Built in authorization systems? I
didn’t think Win98 had much if any built-in
authorization system. Are you suggesting
that it only work on 2000, XP and 2003
server? "
Got to agree... X10 MUST support all
platforms they claim to support!
But then again, I also think it's a really
foolish move to add plugins for a base
platform with users in there current state of
"unhappyness", who are seeing little progress
in sw updates, and recognize that some won't
be fixed until there's a HW/FW fix to the
cm15a...
"If you put caviar on dog poop, it still
smells like dog poop" (author unknown)
-
OK. Time to get real. Do you really want to
trust exposing your home's control system
to a system without ACLs? Sure, AHP should
support legacy systems but that doesn't
mean something like an Internet facing
system should have to. There's nothing
wrong with saying that the Internet Plug-in
requires XP or 2003.
Frankly, anyone putting an Internet facing
server out without reasonable security
these days is being either naieve or
foolish. IIS in XP and 2003 on an NTFS
ACL'd system is the minimum you should
consider. Less than that and you're just
inviting people to have "fun" with you some
night.
And, nothing personal to the X10 people,
but writing a new, secure web server that
will run on a non-secure system like
Windows 9x would involve a VERY significant
effort. MUCH more effort than writing AHP
itself in the first place.
Even doing it reasonably well on XP or 2003
would require doing SSL/HTTPS, Certificate
managment, WS-Security, SOAP-SEC, WSE (or
WSE2) and more. Do you really think they're
going to devote those resources just to
reinventing the wheel. And that would
include adding a security system on files,
registry and IPC on top of that while
running on an OS that supports none of it?
Get real. It'll either be insecure or be
restricted to run on only modern operating
systems. Those who think you can run on a
10 year old OS (with enhancements) that
wasn't designed for a secure distributed
environment are in fantasy land.
Sorry but the world is different than 1995.
-
OK. Time to get real. Do you really want to
trust exposing your home's control system
to a system without ACLs? Sure, AHP should
support legacy systems but that doesn't
mean something like an Internet facing
system should have to. There's nothing
wrong with saying that the Internet Plug-in
requires XP or 2003.
Frankly, anyone putting an Internet facing
server out without reasonable security
these days is being either naieve or
foolish. IIS in XP and 2003 on an NTFS
ACL'd system is the minimum you should
consider. Less than that and you're just
inviting people to have "fun" with you some
night.
And, nothing personal to the X10 people,
but writing a new, secure web server that
will run on a non-secure system like
Windows 9x would involve a VERY significant
effort. MUCH more effort than writing AHP
itself in the first place.
Even doing it reasonably well on XP or 2003
would require doing SSL/HTTPS, Certificate
managment, WS-Security, SOAP-SEC, WSE (or
WSE2) and more. Do you really think they're
going to devote those resources just to
reinventing the wheel. And that would
include adding a security system on files,
registry and IPC on top of that while
running on an OS that supports none of it?
Get real. It'll either be insecure or be
restricted to run on only modern operating
systems. Those who think you can run on a
10 year old OS (with enhancements) that
wasn't designed for a secure distributed
environment are in fantasy land.
Sorry but the world is different than 1995.
-
Sorry for the double post. It DID make my
point, though. The system errored out but
posted anyway and I'd bet that X10.com is
running something more sophisticated than
PWS on Windows 9x...
-
"Mike Galos 4/11/2005 09:02 PM
OK. Time to get real. Do you really want to
trust exposing your home's control system
to a system without ACLs?"
You have a very limited view of the computing
world... What if you have an apache server
on your windows box? In that case, the
"ACLS" aren't imbedded in windows, but are
based on the web server and it's config.
That, to me, seems the best for folks that
don't want to trust IIS or may have a
platform suppoted by AHP that don't want or
need to upgrade to XP!
There are many network devices that provide
html access without requireing IIS or apache
- they provide a "stand-alone" web server.
Ever used a cisco box?
"Sure, AHP should
support legacy systems but that doesn't
mean something like an Internet facing
system should have to. There's nothing
wrong with saying that the Internet Plug-in
requires XP or 2003. "
You havent a clue......
"Frankly, anyone putting an Internet facing
server out without reasonable security
these days is being either naieve or
foolish."
I agree, BUT, that doesn't mean focrcing
folks to use XP or 2003... It means
providing the proper security in such a way
that old systems will work, not not PROHIBIT
things like IIS! I, personally, wouldnt
really consider any MS web server "secure"!
I sure don't see many sites on the web that
use it (in comparison to something like Apache!)
-
"Mike Galos 4/11/2005 09:17 PM
Sorry for the double post. It DID make my
point, though. The system errored out but
posted anyway and I'd bet that X10.com is
running something more sophisticated than
PWS on Windows 9x..."
And you trust them to build a reliable web
interface to the cm15a? Seems they cant't
even get their own website to work right!
-
BTW...
X10 isn't even using IIS - check out the
error messages:
"Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.x10.com Port 80"
Why force users into a web server that even
X10 doesn't use?
-
coder since cp290,
Get real, obviously they're running CGI on
Apache. And underneath it, no matter what
runs their http daemon, the system files
and resources are ACL'd.
I'll bet you they're not running X10.com on
an unsecured 9x box no matter what they're
using as a web server on top of it.
As for having a clue, I'm not the one
thinking that a 9x web server can be made
secure...
Oh, and if you do your homework, you'd know
that while Apache is more popular than IIS,
IIS is the leading server for large
commercial, secure websites. (Do your own
homework rather than listening to people on
Slashdot next time)
And, yes, I do this for a living and have
since before the CP290 was announced by BSR
for the Ohio Scientific Challenger series...
-
"Why force users into a web server that
even X10 doesn't use?"
So, you're saying X10 shouldn't support
Windows 9x since they obviously don't run
it on their website?
OK. That's the right conclusion for a silly
reason...
-
This is not intended to champion either
appache or iis, but perhaps X10 uses apache
because its FREE, and iis is not.
Hee Hee.
T
-
Wow! This is turning into quite the
debate. I will confess I am not a network
administrator and I suspect that the vast
majority of X10’s customers also aren’t. I
don’t think that X10 would want to limit
their customer base for this plug-in to
such a small minority. In order to support
a larger customer base they need to balance
the trade off between making it easy to
install and making it secure.
-
Tcassio,
IIS comes with the operating system. It
doesn't cost anything.