Disqus - Latest Comments for dewittclinton

Re: Scripting News: Using DNS as the thin ID system

DeWitt Clinton — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:12:56 -0000

Interesting, but I don't believe this asserts what it sounds like it does.

All that it asserts is that the person at the keyboard knows the location of an arbitrary resource on a an arbitrary domain. I'm not sure this has practical applications.

By way of comparison, what Google is doing with Webmaster Tools is providing a challenge (the opaque token) and asking you (the user signed into Google) to put the token in a place that only the owner of a domain could place it (as a file named for the token, in a txt record, in a meta tag, a cname, etc). By doing so, this proves that the given user controls the domain. I.e., it draws a connection between a user known to Google and a domain, so that user can subsequently do things on Google that only the domain owner should be able to do.

The mechanism you suggest does _not_ prove that the person at the keyboard owns the domain (because the challenging site didn't issue the token, rather the arbitrary user did), nor does it produce a shared secret that can later be used as stable identifier (because the way you described it, the token could be observed in transit between the client and the server). If all you want to do is share a secret between the user and the client, that's just called a password, and you just described the typical username/password signup flow.

OpenID offers a related assertion, but it's more subtle than most people think. OpenID provides a) a mechanism for a user to point to a URL, b) a way for that URL to state who "speaks" for it, and finally c) a means for the client to ask that URL (or it's delegate) if the user was authorized to claim it. In practice, this draws the connection between the URL and the user. Incidentally, while this is sufficient to claim (at least part of) a domain, people don't use it for that purpose very often.

However, it turns out you can layer a whole bunch of interesting things on top of that connection once it has been made, because the user gets to pick the URL, and because the URL gets to point to all sorts of useful things (like profile information), and if you trust the URL not to do something stupid (which it shouldn't, because the user picked it), then no one else can use that URL without the user's permission. We call this "user-centric" because the user gets to make that choice.

Hope this was helpful.

Re: http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/Borthwick/~FYfrU

DeWitt Clinton — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:17:01 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

First let me say that I have nothing but respect for the bit.ly team, which I feel not only established the bar for URL shorteners, but continues to innovate and improve on the concept every day. I have no doubt that they will do everything possible to keep the service alive and running. Your team does a great job, and should be commended.

When you say, "if you dont like short links dont use them," that's all well and good, but if you want to tweet, it's hard to avoid using short links, isn't it? Twitter imposes an artificial limitation of the length of messages, and that in turn created a need for short URL redirects. Bit.ly was the best of the companies to recognize that opportunity, but keep in mind that the opportunity only exists at all because Twitter is essentially unusable without short URLs. So it's either shorten or don't use Twitter.

Incidentally, I choose goo.gl not because out of brand loyalty or because it is any better or more reliable than bit.ly or the alternatives, but simply because I know who to page if something goes down. It's the same reason you use bit.ly over goo.gl or tinyurl, I imagine.

The funny thing is, we're on the same side on at least one major issue — I think Twitter shouldn't begin wrapping all links in t.co. We probably have different reasons for this: it will be bad for bit.ly's business, vs. my not liking URL shorteners to begin with, but I imagine we both agree about the outcome.

I've written a lot in the past about the problems with URL shorteners, so I won't rehash all that here. But let me be crystal clear, I'm not criticizing bit.ly in particular; I think all URL shorteners face the same challenges — a centralized point of failure, unfriendly to the end user who sees the short URL, hidden vectors for click tracking, etc. I think bit.ly does as much as it can to mitigate those risks (301's, escrow, redundancy), but the problems are endemic to the redirects themselves, so there's only so much any URL shortener can do to fix them.

Your portfolio companies do a wonderful job, and I've enjoyed working with many of them in the past, both as an end-user and as a partner. I think you have a great track record of building winning products and winning teams, so please don't misunderstand my particular technical concerns as a critique of the overall businesses.

Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit. Thanks again,

-DeWitt

Re: Scripting News: May the source be with you! :-)

DeWitt Clinton — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:04:05 -0000

Cool idea -- I love that you're linking to the OPML source behind the content.

Looking at the RSS feed, you can probably do this with the <link> element as well, no?

I.e., instead of:

<scripting2:source>http://scripting.com/storie...

How about:

<link rel="alternate" type="application/opml+xml" href="http://scripting.com/storie...">

The cool thing is that this would work just like the link to the HTML page. The OPML version is just another alternate view of the content.

Done this way, existing clients can find the different content versions without even needing to learn something new. We'd need to teach them to speak OPML of course, but many clients already can do that.

*Update*: Oops, Edited because I found the correct mime-type.

Re: Setting the record straight. (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:13:17 -0000

I touch on the rss cloud stuff in the FAQ. Simple answer? The people who tried to make it work at scale say it doesn't work. : / I'm not really sure how to say it any other way than that, but that's the truth, and I guess I just have to ask you to believe me (as an individual and a friend, and as someone who has never lied to you or tried to mislead you).

And true, I'm not an officer of the company. So I /can't/ make binding promises on Google's behalf, no matter how much anyone here trusts me personally.

But what I /can/ do is get the officers of the company to sign legal agreements like the OWFa for all of the technologies we're using. And that /is/ a binding promise.

So even when I leave Google someday, even I'll still get the benefit of their patent licenses.

This is self-interest, too. : )

Re: Setting the record straight. (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:36 -0000

Hey Dave,

So, I have to say, I really disagree with the advice you're giving here regarding the patent stuff. (I partly agree, partly disagree about the rest, but that's not as important.)

Regarding the patents, the license *is* the most important thing, as the /perceived/ absence of a patent claim frankly is not sufficient to ensure protection for the implementors. This isn't a big company vs little company vs individual thing, it's just the sad consequence of our patent system.

I couldn't easily fit everything I wanted to say into the comments, so I wrote up a longer response to your post here:

http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/GjE3BinJZuT/

We should really talk sometime. You've promoted this line of reasoning on several occasions, but honestly (and respectfully), I don't think it is very good advice to give to your readers. And it's a little frustrating, because I know you have a large audience that cares deeply about such things, and I can see in the comments that people were already getting confused.

Best,

-DeWitt

Re: I’ve Been a Little Rough on Google Lately

DeWitt Clinton — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:16:24 -0000

I trust that Jesse won't hold back on critique. : ) At least I hope not, it is essential for us to hear it.

(And believe it or not, the companies do listen. Especially since even the biggest companies are still made up of regular people like you and me.)

Re: I’ve Been a Little Rough on Google Lately

DeWitt Clinton — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:04:35 -0000

Thanks for the nice post. Apology accepted, and I offer one right back to you. Water under the bridge and all that, and no harm done.

Looking forward to continuing to read your blog, your Twitter stream, and all the rest, Jesse.

Buzz account re-followed. Welcome back.

-DeWitt

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:42:55 -0000

You might have to read the mailing list.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:42:28 -0000

And equally good for Yahoo, Microsoft, and everyone else who wants to build a search engine.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:38:52 -0000

I happily admit that all the time, Jesse. Supporting open protocols is good for the web, and what's good for the web is good for Google. There's no shame in that.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:36:17 -0000

Please see http://activitystrea.ms/ and http://groups.google.com/gr... for the full history of the protocol.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:31:15 -0000

Oh, one more thing I wanted to add. Even if Google doesn't directly clone the Facebook API or the Twitter API, etc., there's nothing stopping someone else from providing a bridge between things like AS and Portable Contacts, etc., and those other formats.

Someone might even find that to be a potentially lucrative business. (Though they should obviously check with Twitter and Facebook to see if it was okay first.)

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:21:58 -0000

Not sure what you mean by "giving into Google a little".

Remember, Activity Streams were created by MySpace, Microsoft, and Facebook, not by Google. We're following their lead here. (Which we're allowed to do, because those protocols were openly licensed).

The last thing we want to do is reinvent the wheel.

That's the whole point.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:16:58 -0000

Now we're getting somewhere!

Unless Facebook says it is okay for Google (and other people) to clone their APIs by releasing them under an open license, we're simply not allowed to.

I too want all of these APIs to be released under an open license. I really do.

Re: Did Google Reinvent the Wheel by Adopting the Protocols They Chose?

DeWitt Clinton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:54:29 -0000

[Copying my comment from your Buzz feed over here.]

@Carsten Pötter is correct -- the OWF is comprised of only individuals, not companies. So Facebook isn't a member, nor is Google, Microsoft, etc. A lot of employees from those companies are members, though.

The OWFa is a license (http://openwebfoundation.or... produced by the OWF, and the OWFa can be applied to specifications to help make them open.

Activity Streams, authored by MySpace, Microsoft, Facebook, and others, is indeed covered by the OWFa. Activity Streams form the basis of the Google Buzz APIs, so we're already converging. Here's a link to how Facebook uses Activity Streams over Atom: http://wiki.developers.face...

Some parts of the Facebook platform, like Facebook Connect, aren't licensed for others to use (yet?), so Google didn't have a choice on that one. Actually, it's not quite clear whether or not Facebook wants other people to clone all of their platform, or if they will ever allow for it, so we're all waiting to see what happens with that. (Personally, I think it would be great if they licensed the whole thing, but that's up to them of course.)

My guess is that it will be a little bit of a lot of protocols, with all of us working together. The Atom+AtomPub+Activity Streams+OAuth+OpenID+Media RSS+PSHB approach is the one that everyone seems be converging on—those parts aren't controversial, everyone from Microsoft to Facebook to Yahoo to MySpace to Google to Status.net to Cliqset seem to agree there.

There might be some details that differ between the implementations, but it is wrong to paint this as a divergence. On the contrary, we're all working together on these protocols. If anyone says otherwise, feel free to ask them where they'd like to see further alignment, and please point them my way.

Re: The Web is No Longer Open

DeWitt Clinton — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:24:30 -0000

Hey Jesse,

In reply to your comment above, promotion of an open web is very much to our (and to the web's, and to the user's!) benefit. Not only do we not deny that, we say that all the time. : )

Cheers,

-DeWitt

Re: An open letter to Google. (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:03:39 -0000

Fair enough, I can see your perspective about RSS relative to Atom.

I will disagree that Atom didn't add several very important technical improvements. I wrote about a few of them here a few years ago (before joining Google, in fact) and it turns out that those improvements are essential to enable certain advancements in the federate stream:

http://blog.unto.net/work/o...

Hope that helps clarify why I think Atom is important, and why I think it would be awesome if you'd support it as well.

Thanks, Dave!

-DeWitt

Re: An open letter to Google. (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:36:40 -0000

Hey, I'm that "Google guy," so I should probably respond...

Here's the Twitter comment that started this: http://twitter.com/dewitt/status/5898801781

It read, "If @davewiner stopped equating distributed open networks with RSS and OPML specifically, he'd immediately unify a huge community."

But first I want to clarify something. I was speaking as a technologist and software engineer, as someone who is working to build a distributed open web (http://openwebfoundation.org/2009/11/introducin...), and as someone who is actually a rather ardent supporter of Dave Winer and his work.

What I wasn't doing, however, was speaking on behalf of my employer, at least not intentionally.

So I frankly found it more than a little disconcerting that Dave immediately responded with "To @dewitt -- your employer is out of synch with the world, not the other way. I'm doing you a favor by pulling you back to where we all are."

I hadn't mentioned Google at all, so I felt it unfair to attack my employer rather than respond to me as an individual.

That said, I actually disagree with a number of the sentiments Dave raises here, regardless of who signs my paycheck.

My point with the tweet that started this all (again, having nothing to do with Google), is that so many of the exciting advancements around syndicated and distributed open networks are based on Atom, isn't it time for Dave to start acknowledging them too?

Re: How Google got left behind (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:31:44 -0000

@Mike - sorry the results weren't what you were hoping for.

Out of curiosity, what results did you expect to see, vs. what you did see? I'll take the feedback back with me.

Re: How Google got left behind (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:09:49 -0000

Mike, please see my comment below (http://www.scripting.com/st....

Re: How Google got left behind (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:16 -0000

Dave, does this link work for you:

http://www.google.com/searc...

That should include results for [dave winer] over the past hour. Play with the options on the left. You can restrict to all sorts of time intervals.

And here's a search for your name, sorted by date:

http://www.google.com/searc...

Cheers,

-DeWitt

Re: Alex Bosworth's Weblog - Google App Engine - Read the maximum request quota...

DeWitt Clinton — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:23:08 -0000

Hey Alex,

Have you seen this form?

http://code.google.com/supp...

"App Engine's quota system allows for efficient applications with billing enabled to scale to around 500 queries per second (qps) or more than 40 million queries per day. This is a substantial amount of traffic and should easily suffice for even the heaviest of Slashdottings. But if you expect your application will need to handle even higher qps, please complete this form so we can assist you."

We probably don't make that form, or the reasoning behind the policy, visible enough. Discussing that with the team now.

Re: US-POLITICS-BUSH

DeWitt Clinton — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:04:47 -0000

[Thought better of my comment here...]

Re: How to include a thumbnail in the HTML source of a web page (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:17:14 -0000

Understood.

Re: How to include a thumbnail in the HTML source of a web page (Scripting News)

DeWitt Clinton — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:01:41 -0000

I wonder what would have been wrong with <link rel="alternate" type="image/jpeg"/>.

Why invent a new rel value, especially one with an underscore ('_') of all characters. Just looking at even the W3C's draft HTML5 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/..., 'alternate' would have been perfectly appropriate. Their definition of that value is "Gives alternate representations of the current document.".