X10 Community Forum
🖥️ActiveHome Pro => ActiveHome Pro General => Topic started by: mike galos on April 12, 2005, 09:40:04 AM
-
Roger, <BR> <BR>No question they need to make it easy. The <BR>problem is they also need to make it safe <BR>for amateurs to use. The last thing they <BR>need is lots of press stories of "Hackers <BR>take over X10 users houses". That would not <BR>only make the trade press, that'd be one of <BR>those "human interest" stories that would <BR>make the evening news around the planet and <BR>set back home automation again. <BR>
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? [3 of 5] (http://www.x10community.com/forums/index.php?topic=12298.msg30401#msg30401)
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...]
-
I guess what I meant is that the operating
system is free. Linux. I would not doubt
that X10 is using some form of free Linux
to run there systems.
T.
-
According to the Netcraft "What's that site
running" page, they're running Apache on
Solaris. (but that report doesn't really
show what's behind the front end servers)
-
And, Tcassio, with all the expenses of
building and running a commercial website
like X10.com, the cost of some Windows
Server 2003, Web Edition licenses is
trivial.
-
Roger H.,
You said that you "don’t think that X10
would want to limit their customer base for
this plug-in to such a small minority."
And that's a very valid point. However, the
premise is wrong. The majority of home
users (and a significant majority of the
type of home users who are techie enough to
play with home automation) are running
Windows XP. Remember even ignoring people
doing upgrades, virtually every computer
sold to home users in the last three years
shipped with XP and even in this lousy
economy, most people change out computers
about every 3-5 years. Yes, there are
people out there running AHP on one of
their old "closet computers". That's fine
and a good market for X10. However, running
an internet facing control panel for your
house is just too attractive a hacker
target (read that as it'd be fun for them)
to be run on an old, insecure system.
-
There do seem to be a number of people who
are running with the older OS's. Not
everyone updates the computer just because
a new OS comes out. The other thing is if
you buy a newer computer you might keep the
older one to use for the kids or as
a "controller" just to keep it from going
to the dump or where ever - after all the
computer is still useable.
-
X10: TIME FOR A NEW THREAD.
I agree with Mike G., besides how many X10
modules would a scrooge bit-fiddler using an
obsolete, non-supported PC system be
inclined to buy? He/she probably would try
to monopolize the Forum and X10 Pro’s time
with very little return.
Et al: The below reams of verbose context
reminds me of two bald men arguing over a
comb. And it’s about as relevant.
X10: Please, New thread… enough of armature
marketing hour, its getting embarrassing.
Release 3.186: Is tomorrow the big day??
-
Realisticaly, the only way X10 could do an
Internet facing control for legacy users
(those running Windows 9x operating
systems) would be to host the actual site
on a seriously secure host and have it
communicate with a very tiny, very
controlled client module that only spoke
via a secured protocol with certs for
authentication over a high port. Even then,
their support costs would be high with the
need to talk users through configuring the
traffic through their and their ISP's
firewalls.
The downside is that it would make all the
really interesting add-on work by 3rd
parties virtually impossible and also be an
expensive operations system with a totally
different business model that is likely to
be way too unprofitable to make sense.
-
Mike G: I didn’t say that a minority of
users are using Windows XP. I said that a
minority of users are Network
Administrators who know how to configure a
web server.
-
X10: PLEASE: TIME FOR A NEW THREAD.
How many X10 modules would a scrooge bit-
fiddler using an obsolete, non-supported PC
system be inclined to buy? He/she probably
would try to monopolize the Forum and X10
Pro’s time with very little return. Et
al: The below reams of verbose context
reminds me of two bald men arguing over a
comb. And it’s about as relevant. X10:
Please, New thread… enough, its getting
embarrassing.
Release 3.186: Is tomorrow the big day??
-
Roger H.,
Right. They're not. But a decent setup
program could configure a secure AHP
website if the system is configured to
support that. Now, if the system isn't
running an NT based OS (like XP) or doesn't
use NTFS or if the users all logon with
Administrator accounts things get
progressively worse no matter how good the
program.
I'm not suggesting that users need to
become website admins or DBAs or know
infrastructure. They do, however, have to
have a system modern enough for the setup
program (and the site itself) to do
configuration, security and maintenance.
-
To answer the "X10 MUST support all
platforms they claim to support!" question,
the X10 requirements for AHP are: "System
requirements: Windows based Personal
Computer, available USB port, and Internet
connection to download software and
updates." which is actually pretty silly.
If taken seriously, I could complain that
it doesn't work on my Windows 1.03 box if I
wrote a USB driver...
Realistically, those requirements wouldn't
fit for an internet plug-in anyway since
they don't require an "always on" internet
connection.
Now, X10 doesn't have a real history of
keeping state of the art on their code (The
old ActiveHome may very well have been the
last 16-bit, Windows 3.x commercial app
sold) but the requirements really do need
to be set realistically so that they aren't
wasting all their dev and support time on
getting it to work with Win95 with
proprietary USB drivers.
-
Mike: Can you tell me what page those
requirements are listed on? They should be
Windows 98 or newer, not just a "... Windows
based Personal Computer...". We definitely
aren't spending time testing Win95
configurations.
By the way, the Internet plug-in will work on
Win98. That's a requirement for us. The
architecture for support the Internet
features is based on the Vanguard software,
and is pretty well defined at this point.
-
It's on the main AHP page at
http://www.x10.com/activehomepro/activehome-
pro.html. Do a search for "requirements"
and you'll find the string I quoted in the
earlier post.
I think X10 is making a really bad mistake
with Win98 support for a web server with
this kind of security risks for your
customers but we can take that offline.
-
"Mike Galos 4/12/2005 01:07 PM
It's on the main AHP page at
http://www.x10.com/activehomepro/activehome-
pro.html. Do a search for "requirements"
and you'll find the string I quoted in the
earlier post.
I think X10 is making a really bad mistake
with Win98 support for a web server with
this kind of security risks for your
customers but we can take that offline."
what you don't unserstand is there might very
well be a bunch of folks with a win98 box
connected to the cm15a in a basement, or
attic, etc. that just want to admin it locally.
They might not want to control it from the
internet, but only from the home office, on a
lan local to the house (used for printer
sharing, etc) with only dialup access to the net!
If I had to take a computer and dedicate it
to HA, I do think I'd take my slowest/oldest.
So, what you suggest is that this win98 box,
be upgraded with xp (and memory and disk) so
that I can access the host with the cm15a
attached, from my home office? (including
getting IIS working and keeping current on
the MS updates so that IIS doesn't get hacked!)
BTW, Apache does run win win NT/2k/XP, and is
free, so IIS isn't the only way to go on
windows 32. (never used it on win 16, but it
may work!)
Personally, I would NEVER use IIS to host a
public website, as that's the one that
hackers go after!
-
Coder, of course I understand there are
people using their old "Closet Computers"
as X10 controllers. I even said so in a
post you must have skipped. That has
nothing to do with whether they should use
them as Internet facing web servers. Flat
out, if they're running a non-secure OS
they shouldn't. Period. And no reasonable
company should tell them to if their own
reputation was on the line.
As for your "I wouldn't run IIS" statement.
Well, given that most of the large websites
on the planet including most of the e-
commerce sites run it. I'm guessing your
opinion isn't that valid. But, feel free to
add on an extra web server that requires an
extra authentication and authorization
system and then make sure you configure all
three (OS, Apache and typically Kerberos)
correctly. I'm sure after checking with all
the sites involved you'll never miss out on
a configuration change needed for security.
I, on the other hand, will tell Windows
Server 2003 that I'm running a web server
and it'll do most of the base
configuration. Then I'll let Windows Update
keep the entire system updated for me. (And
running at 99.999% uptime if I spend the
money for good, certified hardware)
-
Mike, it's clear that you've got you MS hat
on, and don't really understand the
enviroment for this plug in...
How can you say that "most of the big
websites use IIS"... Does that mean "most of
the sites"? I guess not, as IIS is prone to
attacks....
How many home users will faithfully run MS
update? 5%? Running IIS on the other 95% is
the bigest security hole you can imagine!
The last two (wall street) firms I worked for
wouldn't even consider IIS (and this was suit
types that wouldn't know a router from a
hedge trimmer!). But they knew enouh to say
"no IIS"!
It seems you've only experienced the MS view
of the world... Let me guess, you have your
MS certs hanging on the wall where you can
see them....
-
Coder,
How many will run Windows update? A LOT
more than will go to dozens of unrelated
project sites, check the deltas and rebuild
the components.
As for your Wall Street suits, that's why
smart organizations don't let non-technical
types make technical decisions on software.
A non-techie friend tells them something
and they believe it.
-
Ok Guys, Now that the futere is secure HOW
ABOUT THE PRESENT DISASTER. LETS GET THAT
FIXED.
-
I don't generally like to limit topics of
conversation here, but I think it would be
good to shift the MS v. *nix discussion to
another venue.
-
X10 pro.. it's not MS vs *nix... It's what
should be used to serve up the stuff provided
by the plugin!
I'm saying that it should be "independant" of
IIS, yet my foe is balls to the wall saying
it should be IIS (and therefore restricting
the AHP supported boxes it can be used on!)
This is debating a BASIC question for the
plugin... How are pages "served up"? We all
know that they will be "served up" on a
windows box!
X10 Pro.. Seems you are lost in the
technology discussion, and if you really want
info for the developers, maybe they need to
join in the discussion!
-
coder: It may be that the context of the
discussion is how to implement AHP, but most
of the content is not turning out that way.
In any case, the basic architecture for the
plug-in is already in place -- it's based on
what we did for the Vanguard Internet Control
Center, which doesn't use IIS. I understand
the discussion here, but really wanted to
hear ideas for features and uses for an
Internet plug-in for ActiveHome Pro.
-
Returning then to the basic conversation...
If we don't get a local hostable
programmable object to use on our own
website or a direct XML Web Service option,
then support for small screen devices and
their browsers (such as PIE on Smartphone)
I really need full interaction on mobile
devices. Ideally, I'd just write my own
client to handle the UI issues but, if
that's not an option, the website should
detect the BrowseCaps and provide different
UIs as necessary.
-
when it comes to Internet (Big I)
accessability, I would prefer all code be
scaled down to W3 standards. In other
words, if it can't run on Apache, it
shouldn't run.
-
when it comes to Internet (Big I)
accessability, I would prefer all code be
scaled down to W3 standards. In other
words, if it can't run on Apache, it
shouldn't run.
-
"If X10 is listening I would suggest to use
CY8C24794 instead of the CY7C63723, Among
the many pluses this part has to offer the
ability to field upgrade the firmware"
To say nothing of the built in UART(s).
Problem is the CY8C24794 is going to
vapourware for some time still and quite
expensive to boot (compared to the $1 encore
part). Plus it's a totally different
toolchain from the encore.