Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

urbanists.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 493 posts

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#91

Post by userbinator »

bombcar wrote: post #37
JohnFen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the protocol I thought I was going to read a rant about by the title, and I was all ready to agree wholeheartedly with the author. But it was a different protocol that I have no experience with. It might be a crock of shit, too, but it's hard to tell from that rant. Interestingly, the original modem AT protocol was reasonable. Then as modems became more featureful, the protocol kept getting extended, and ext…

I’ve always wondered if a cable/DSL modem is an actual AT-style modem somewhere in there, but I’ve been way too scared to ask.

Not sure about DSL but cable is DOCSIS which resembles Ethernet more than telephony.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#92

Post by [deleted] »

iptq wrote: post #56

It seems to me that a lot of the problems discussed in this thread (it's using a new protocol that doesn't work with existing tools, it uses crypto, handles auth in the protocol, server can goes down) are just frustrations that don't have to do with the core innovation that Bluesky promises to deliver, and are instead confusing the AT protocol to be another ActivityPub-related protocol, rather than something complete…

[deleted]

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#93

Post by bb010g »

pfraze wrote: post #60
iptq wrote: post #56

It seems to me that a lot of the problems discussed in this thread (it's using a new protocol that doesn't work with existing tools, it uses crypto, handles auth in the protocol, server can goes down) are just frustrations that don't have to do with the core innovation that Bluesky promises to deliver, and are instead confusing the AT protocol to be another ActivityPub-related protocol, rather than something complete…

The DID method has to satisfy a lot of requirements. I did a ton of research on DHT and blockchain approaches and none of them give the right performance, reliability, and cost outcomes while also supporting key rotation. DNS isn't far off but it's a little obtuse to cram it into, so we're starting with did:web and did:plc. We'll add others if they have the right characteristics. The only options that seem reasonable…

What are your thoughts on KERI? Some of Phillip's slide decks are weird to go through, but I really like its security & usability goals (key rotation needs to be realistic!) and the fact that it's going through the IETF RFC process. (Also, it avoids cryptocurrency-related blockchain baggage. It's disappointing how much blockchains have infested decentralized identity efforts.)

https://github.com/WebOfTrust/keri>

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#94

Post by tsuujin »

epicsponge wrote: post #64
pfraze wrote: post #54

Okay well. I work on Bluesky and helped build the AT Protocol. I'm sorry Sam differs with us on this, and I'm glad that Activity Pub is already there for him. However, Sam doesn't understand the ATProto very well and I want to clear it up a bit. Before I do, let me just say: Bluesky and the AT Proto are in beta. The stuff that seems incomplete or poorly documented is incomplete and poorly documented. Everything has m…

Hi, original author here. Some comments: > We sign the records so that authenticity can be determined without polling the home server, and we use a repository structure rather than signing individual records so that we can establish whether a record has been deleted (signature revocation). Why do you need an entirely separate protocol to do this? Email had this exact same problem, yet was able to build protocols on t…

I think it’s important to say this: I think asking questions is great, and I’m glad that we’re not just taking statements at face value because making social suck less is a worthy goal.

However, you are coming across as highly adversarial here. Mostly because you immediately follow your questions with assertions, indicating that your questions may be rhetorical rather than genuine.

I’m not accusing you of anything per say but I very much want a dialog to happen in this space and I think your framing is damaging the chances of that happening.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#95

Post by numlock86 »

anticristi wrote: post #83

Anyone else read "AT protocol" and thought of old modems?

Yes, me. But old modems? Two months ago I was integrating a 5G modem into a bare metal embedded application. AT is also used for the WiFi and Bluetooth chips/modems we use. AT commands on two- or four-wire RS232. Not everything is Linux and PCI/USB.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#97

Post by tsuujin »

pfraze wrote: post #54

Okay well. I work on Bluesky and helped build the AT Protocol. I'm sorry Sam differs with us on this, and I'm glad that Activity Pub is already there for him. However, Sam doesn't understand the ATProto very well and I want to clear it up a bit. Before I do, let me just say: Bluesky and the AT Proto are in beta. The stuff that seems incomplete or poorly documented is incomplete and poorly documented. Everything has m…

Thanks for taking the time to write this up. I’m thrilled that there is some motion happening to make social a bit less terrible and your write up is maybe the most objective, least rhetorical commentary I have seen on bluesky so far (side note, is it too late to change the name? I always end up calling it “BS”).

I’m still waiting for an invite to try it myself but I’m excited to see how it compares to mastodon.

I’m also curious to know if AT Protocol can be used for multiple service types. I’m more interested in a reddit replacement (lemmy) than a Twitter replacement (mastodon) and I’m hoping we can see another full scale fediverse come to fruition.

Re: The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of shit

#100

Post by a2800276 »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #18

It's not that bad. ATZ and ATDT are the main two you have to remember. Wait, is that not what we're talking about? So, it has a confusing name too?

Came here to see if anyone else was thinking of Hayes commands! Agree, those suck too. Might be worth it to keep this thread in mind next time I have to deal with them to remind myself that new shiny things can be even shittier :)

While I am here: is anyone aware of a solid client library for handling AT commands? Ideally, suited for an embedded environment so C, no POSIX, no malloc, but really anything would do. Even just a solid implementation of handling the client to steal ideas & code from?

Post reply on HN