Re: Internet Plug-in: what do you want to see? [4 of 5]

[mike galos]

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)

[coder since cp290]

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....

[mike galos]

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.

[Observer]

Ok Guys,  Now that the futere is secure HOW
ABOUT THE PRESENT DISASTER.  LETS GET THAT
FIXED.

[X10 Pro]

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.

[coder since cp290]

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!

[X10 Pro]

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.

[mike galos]

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.

[dick collier]

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.

[dick collier]

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.

[greg]

"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.