7 ms·
People who dismiss this effort so quickly should actually spend a little time to discover what is actually happening here. It is really disheartening to see so
by st3fan 9y ago
People who dismiss this effort so quickly should actually spend a little time to discover what is actually happening here. It is really disheartening to see so many negative comments about Mozilla without any substantial deeper comments about this specific project.
To me the big news here is not the gateway, it is the "Web Thing API" that you can read at https://iot.mozilla.org/wot/ https://iot.mozilla.org/wot/
This is a W3C draft about something that is badly missing currently: a common language that devices can speak.
"This document describes a common data model and API for the Web of Things. The Web Thing Description provides a vocabulary for describing physical devices connected to the World Wide Web in a machine readable format with a default JSON encoding. The Web Thing REST API and Web Thing WebSocket API allow a web client to access the properties of devices, request the execution of actions and subscribe to events representing a change in state. "
This is meaningful work that can impact you in a big way. Don't dismiss it too quickly.
- lomnakkus 9y agoSo, I just searched for "security" in that page you linked to and... not a single mention. As I see it the problem with IoT isn't features, it's the absolutely abysmal security record. I mean, it's abysmal in home ADSL routers, what are expecting of companies just churning out one-off IoT things? Maybe they should start out by mandating an update policy[1]? ... but then of course nobody would join, so what to do...? [1] I'm not talking about a concrete schedule, just a documented human-readable policy of what their usual schedule would be (if any), and how severity levels work (for them), etc. ------------------------------------- EDIT: HN won't let me post again "too soon", so here's my reply to "st3fan": > Ok, what does this actually mandate and how many actual devices adhere to this standard? What is the motivation for any particular device manufacturer to adhere to this "standard"? (etc. I'm sure you can come up with your own questions.) Also, shouldn't this other standard at least be mentioned in the IoT standard and match the key word "security"? This whole IoT thing is an omnishambles.
- ianburrell 9y agoThere is a big need for open API for internet of things. Currently, each company has proprietary protocol for talking to their gateways or service. Which means need to have separate app. Can integrate with IFTTT, Google Home, or Alexa, but those need integrations for each service. Open API would allow the open source home automation systems like Home Assistant to have integrate with the services. Or make easier for Google Home and Alexa to control the open source systems. Or apps that control devices and gateways from different companies.
- EGreg 9y agoHow do you prevent this phenomenon though: https://www.xkcd.com/927/ https://www.xkcd.com/927/
- yeukhon 9y agoNow we are back to regulations. /s It takes more than two decades for browser implementers to recognize the need to follow specs as much as possible. The only way to replicate that without the two-decade mistake again would be a compelling toolsets available. Docker got people interested in containers, so Docker has the influence in driving the standard, although I am not really sure how many implementers will participate and willing to bend. In general, the dominant one has to be willing to let go of its "pride" so others will "follow" to beat the dominant one. Otherwise everyone will be busy beating everyone and forget about consumers (which includes developers).
- pjmlp 9y agoGiven how things are going with Chrome taking IE's place, I doubt it.
- imtringued 9y agoThere are a lot of alternative container runtimes to docker. The problem is that you still need to use docker to build your container images.
- samstave 9y ago
- TeMPOraL 9y agoTrying not to dismiss it, but IoT is, frankly, a total mess. Consider that: - It's mostly done by companies that use hardware as a delivery platform for their cloud services, trying to vendor-lock you, in delusion that they'll be The Next Platform. This results in an extremely user-hostile ecosystems. - Said companies develop IoT devices with little or no regard to security and protection of user data. - The business strategy of tying everything into my butt means things are not interoperable by design. I don't see much incentive for IoT vendors to accept standard protocols that go against the core of their business. - Now W3C wants to tie IoT into the web. The web is a total clusterfuck. JavaScript is not a language suited for this task, and its ecosystem is doubly not suited to working on this. Maybe I'm just grumpy, old (by web standards; I'll be 30 this year) programmer who desperately tries to turn an unstoppable tide. One who believes IoT should stand for Intranet of Things. I can believe this is "work that can impact me in a big way". I'm not convinced this impact will be in any way positive.
- djsumdog 9y agoI really agree that Mozilla/W3C can attempt to make a standard, but I highly doubt we'll see Google/Apple/MS devices support it. It'd be nice if there was one standard, and you could buy devices that use your local server or phone home (but not both), but for all the reasons you stated, I don't see that happening. The average consumer just don't care enough.
- dmd 9y ago> The business strategy of tying everything into my butt what...
- icebraining 9y agohttps://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> The business strategy of tying everything into my butt Do you, by chance, have a browser extension that automatically modifies instances of "the cloud" into "my butt"?
- kps 9y ago> … something that is badly missing currently: a common language that devices can speak. <hat type=cynical> Like SNMP, but Invented Here. </hat>
- mcguire 9y ago1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoThus demonstrating the utter uselessness of SNMP without the appropriate MIB database.
- kuschku 9y agoHuh? http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.html http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.html
- notyourday 9y agoPlease remember that SNMP is a Star Wars Network Management Protocol. That's how R2D2 managed to control everything.
- IncRnd 9y ago> This is a W3C draft about something that is badly missing currently: a common language that devices can speak. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Protocol
- paulsutter 9y agoYou may be right, but you’ve said nothing to support your position. Most of HN mistakenly assumes IoT == putting cameras and microphones on televisions with no security (eg, super stoopidity), when in fact IoT is a powerful way for businesses to monitor/diagnose/control remote devices (like jet engines, vending machines, stop lights,...) But I don’t see what Mozilla has to do with that, nor why we need some kind of “gateway” or json spec when it’s just yet another internet device.
- RyanZAG 9y agoPlease don't connect jet engines to the internet and use a REST API to control them.
- paulsutter 9y agoHaha Actually of course it’s about collecting data for predictive maintenance and to help in making design improvements.
- littlestymaar 9y agoYeah, that's when things work well. But soon someone finds a use-after-free in that code et voilà now he has full control[1] over the engine. [1] OK, maybe not full control over the engine because that's not how it works, but it has full control over the embedded monitoring system, which is still pretty bad.
- gkya 9y ago> jet engines, vending machines, stop lights IoT means different devices connecting to internet and/or each other. A jet engine is part of a closed system, there is no need to use a standard protocol to communicate to it. You don't just pick one and plug into a multi-million-dollar plane. Vending machines need no special protocols to connect to other things, because why would they? And stop lights. These things may connect to some server or maybe each other, but no standard protocol is needed, if a traffic light isn't supposed to talk to a random device passing by (and it isn't supposed to).
- _pmf_ 9y ago> It is really disheartening to see so many negative comments about Mozilla without any substantial deeper comments about this specific project. Mozilla has a) no track record of doing small embedded systems b) a very negative track record of failed projects, so it very much makes sense to be very skeptical. Keep your cancerous web trash off my metal!