11–20 of 166 posts
I enjoyed building and playing with the code, and I hope that there is a much improved version in the future.
They could've really saved themselves some grief is they'd been far more explicit about saying that it's Alpha and months from being production ready. All this 'there's bugs! omfg!' hoo-ha could've been headed off at the pass
It's great that they're getting so much open-source help, but I'm going to ask the obvious question: if a "complete overhaul" is what's needed, as the author seems to imply, and the FOSS community performs said overhaul, then what of the $250k that was given to the Diaspora guys? Is it still even "Diaspora" anymore, as opposed to a FOSS project?
This code was released to developers as an incomplete preview. I'm not sure why people are holding it to the same standards as a finished product that's being released to end users. Seems like a pretext to talk trash.
I'm afraid that Diaspora might be in an impossible position. If they release something early, they'll get a lot of bad press from knuckleheads like this one that the quality is no good. If they release late, everyone will be clamoring over the wasted $250k in the interim, demanding: "when will we see something?".
"Feel free to try to get it running on your machines and use it, but we give no guarantees. We know there are security holes and bugs..."
This code was released to developers as an incomplete preview. I'm not sure why people are holding it to the same standards as a finished product that's being released to end users. Seems like a pretext to talk trash.
I don't think anybody is "holding it to the same standards as a finished product." I haven't read the code myself, but the OP is claiming "really, really bad security holes", and calls out the encryption code. Security is not something that can be bolted on after the fact; it needs to be baked in from the start, in a product like this. And, remember, security/privacy was Diaspora's raison d'etre. No one expects the f…
In fact, this is how it happens in the vast majority of cases, including the case of Facebook.
Judging from the noise their release makes here on HN i think the diaspora guys did well opening up their repo 'early'.
And to steve: i think you hold 'professional programmers' (which i interpret as programmer that get paid) waaay too high..
They (Diaspora staff) said this as they released it: "Feel free to try to get it running on your machines and use it, but we give no guarantees. We know there are security holes and bugs..."
"Release early, release often" (an open source mantra). Here on HN i also find the 'getto launch' being preached -- "if you not embarrest by your product at lauch-time, you should have released earlier". Judging from the noise their release makes here on HN i think the diaspora guys did well opening up their repo 'early'. And to steve: i think you hold 'professional programmers' (which i interpret as programmer that…
Their entire reason for existing is "Facebook but private". At the moment, they are delivering on that like ROT13Snap delivers on secure backup. And due to a programming bug, ROT13 was applied twice, and indexes are on in Apache. It is a cluster flop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anybody is "holding it to the same standards as a finished product." I haven't read the code myself, but the OP is claiming "really, really bad security holes", and calls out the encryption code. Security is not something that can be bolted on after the fact; it needs to be baked in from the start, in a product like this. And, remember, security/privacy was Diaspora's raison d'etre. No one expects the f…
Security is not something that can be bolted on after the fact In fact, this is how it happens in the vast majority of cases, including the case of Facebook.
...which is Diaspora's claim to existence.