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

Tox: secure messaging for everyone

tox.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#91

Post by eps »

jessaustin wrote: post #81
latitude wrote: post #47

Oh, I see you helped yourselves to my Secure Chat logo - http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo - first page hit too Not cool at all, "cool guys around the world". -- (edit) Regardless of whether this was copied, over-inspired or independently conceived (but let's be realistic here), the generally accepted rule of the game…

An hour in, a complaint about icon-plagiarism-via-anonymous-bikeshedding-session is still the top comment on HN for a software project with ambitious technical goals. That in itself is a strong argument for doing one's own work and creating original icons. Assuming for the sake of discussion that Tox is or could be a technically superior solution, do they really want that obscured by this sort of extraneous bullshit?…

Agreed. Though it's a Litmus test of how willing they are to cut corners. Imagine having this discussion if it were Linux kernel.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#92

Post by tptacek »

banachtarski wrote: post #72
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not invested in this issue enough to argue about it. I look at a lot of systems like this and was struck by the novelty of the logo, is why I commented. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

If you aren't invested, how can you open with "strong disagree." Seems like you're invested up to the point when you're wrong, which is a pattern I've observed on this site in general. Incidentally, your anecdotal "feelings" about whether something feels original or not make for a pretty weak argument.

If you extrapolate my comment into points I wasn't trying to make, I think you'll find those arguments very easy to tear down. If that's a productive exercise for you, be my guest.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#93

Post by moneyrich2 »

latitude wrote: post #47

Oh, I see you helped yourselves to my Secure Chat logo - http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288 https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo - first page hit too Not cool at all, "cool guys around the world". -- (edit) Regardless of whether this was copied, over-inspired or independently conceived (but let's be realistic here), the generally accepted rule of the game…

hamachi kicked ass :D

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#95

Post by latitude »

Daiz wrote: post #89
latitude wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your basically claiming I am not claiming this, this is how things work in the logo design industry. There are of course copyrights, trademarks and legal matters, but there are also professional ethics. Ideas and concepts are getting recreated all the time, that's life. But it's also why people post sketches and ask if anyone has seen anything similar, only to discard them and move to another concept.

You don't actually seem to be using the logo anywhere, though. On your site you write that "I had (have) plans to write an Instant Messenger client with proper support for privacy. This was the logo concept for the project"[1], but this project does not actually seem to exist (at least not in any public manner). As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? Especially since it's a FOSS project with noble goal…

> As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace?

I have plans for it. It wasn't just an idle doodle.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#96

Post by NotUncivil »

unknownian wrote: post #71
NotUncivil wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The list of (supposedly substantial) things /g/ has made as compiled by /g/, today [1], is as follows: 1. http://aloonix.neocities.org/ 2. https://github.com/notuncivil/host-as-image [2] 3. https://github.com/KittyKatt/screenFetch 4. https://4chan-x.just-believe.in/ 5. http://tox.im/ 6. http://biebian.sourceforge.net/ The above list is in no particular order. [1] https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S35615929#p35616305 [2] Full…

I had forgotten about some of those. The various sites /g/ has put up are pretty good too.

That list doesn't have http://logicalincrements.com/, which may be the best thing to come out of /g/. It's great for picking PC configurations.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#97

Post by shin_lao »

tptacek wrote: post #62
shin_lao wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, my usage of designed was a little bit liberal here. Mr. Diffie is one of the authors of the first paper to introduce the concept of PFS, but the DH key exchange algorithm hasn't been designed for PFS but rather for 0-knowledge key exchange. Nevertheless, I stand by my remark regarding the pertinence of DH in that case.

DH is also not a zero-knowledge key exchange algorithm. I think what's confusing you is that DH (a) is a useful building block for forward-secret protocols and (b) generates secrets that often require zero-knowledge proofs. I'm not sure what paper you're referring to but wouldn't be surprised if Diffie's name was on one of the first "forward secrecy" papers; that stuff is/was kind of Whit Diffie's beat (not "privacy"…

DH is zero-knowledge in the sense that the two peers have no knowledge of each other, and yet share a knowledge at the end.

Again, I admit my word usage is a little bit liberal, but although I haven't done serious crypto for a couple of years now, I have the strange feeling you are nitpicking. Is it just a feeling? :)

I'm referring to this paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00124891

Curiously, although I've always preferred DLP-based crypto, I actually never implemented any. So I gladly admit my knowledge of DH key exchange might not be as profound as I would like it to be.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#98

Post by banachtarski »

tptacek wrote: post #92
banachtarski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't invested, how can you open with "strong disagree." Seems like you're invested up to the point when you're wrong, which is a pattern I've observed on this site in general. Incidentally, your anecdotal "feelings" about whether something feels original or not make for a pretty weak argument.

If you extrapolate my comment into points I wasn't trying to make, I think you'll find those arguments very easy to tear down. If that's a productive exercise for you, be my guest.

I don't really see the straw man here, but my larger point wasn't about this particular argument at all. Just the fickle commitment to the discussion.

Re: Tox: secure messaging for everyone

#99

Post by Craigpd »

latitude wrote: post #95
Daiz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually seem to be using the logo anywhere, though. On your site you write that "I had (have) plans to write an Instant Messenger client with proper support for privacy. This was the logo concept for the project"[1], but this project does not actually seem to exist (at least not in any public manner). As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? Especially since it's a FOSS project with noble goal…

> As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? I have plans for it. It wasn't just an idle doodle.

And I'm quite sure that the logo's in the link below are intended to be used or are IN use. So, tell me, why are these companies with many highly experienced legal advisers not fighting eachother over a logo?

http://img.ctrlv.in/img/51f6b5b849ebf.jpg

Post reply on HN