Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AllSeen Alliance Wants To Open-Source the 'Internet of Things'

timothy posted about a year ago | from the what's-your-angle-college-boy? dept.

Open Source 86

Nerval's Lobster writes "The so-called "Internet of Things" has rapidly become a buzzword du jour, with everyone from tech-giant CEOs to analysts rhapsodizing about the benefits of connecting everyday objects and appliances to the Web. Despite all the hype, some significant obstacles remain to fulfilling that vision of a massively interconnected world. For starters, all the players involved need to agree on shared frameworks for building compatible software—something that seems well on its way with the just-announced AllSeen Alliance, which includes Sharp, Cisco, LG Electronics, Qualcomm, Panasonic, D-Link, and the Linux Foundation (among many others). In theory, the AllSeen Alliance's combined software and engineering resources will result in open-source systems capable of seamless communication with one another. The Alliance will base its initial framework on AllJoyn, an open-source framework first developed by Qualcomm and subsequently elaborated upon by other firms. Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access," according to the Alliance, whose Website offers the initial codebase. "Open source is the ideal, neutral staging area for collaboration that can provide the interoperability layer needed to make the Internet of Everything a reality," read a Dec. 10 note on the Linux Foundation's official blog. "When everyone jointly develops and uses the same freely available code, companies can develop innovative services on top of it and get them to market faster." However, not all companies interested in exploring the Internet of Things have joined the AllSeen Alliance. For example, Intel isn't a partner, despite having recently created a new division, the Internet of Things Solutions Group, to explore how to best make devices and networks more connected and aware."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Big Data (1, Redundant)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#45651407)

Who wins with the Internet of Things? Corporations and Governments. If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651537)

Who wins with the Internet of Things? Corporations and Governments. If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

So you can throw it in the head of someone who thinks that -exluding "hobbyists"- only "Corporations and Governments wins with the Internet of Things"...

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651951)

So you can throw it in the head of someone who thinks that -exluding "hobbyists"- only "Corporations and Governments wins with the Internet of Things"...

What kind of hobbyist is that? One that sets up a weblink for "My Ex's Vibrator"? Next to a 12 year old's link for "My Big Sister's Vibrator" and "Hey Guys, I added a Camera!"?

Who decides what to exclude? Careful how you spend your $$$ voting on that. Some things better as a hobby then a profession but careful neither become an obsession.

Just what we needed more iNonsense, shall we park them next to the Lisas?

Re:Big Data (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#45651617)

Who wins with the Internet of Things? Corporations and Governments. If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

The thing is, the "Internet of Things" has been toyed around with since the dot-com days. Everyone's been talking about wiring up appliances, toasters and all that.

Heck, even the common scenario has been around for decades - you ask your computer what to make for dinner, and it talks to your fridge and other appliances to figure out what you have, then consults recipes that you can make with what you have.

Then you have the fridge that notices you're running low on some stuff and places an order with the grocer.

Then there are the "smart" fridges that embed screens that let you surf the web and all that (before it was x86 boxes, now it's android tablets) .

It's only now that it's actually possible to do it all. (One of my company's products was to make embedded devices "smart" and that included stuff like vending machines and other appliances around the house - again, the internet of things, over a decade earlier).

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652039)

and it talks to your fridge and other appliances to figure out what you have, then consults recipes that you can make with what you have.

[emphasis added]

Hell, if my appliances are that smart, I want them to make my dinner.

It's almost 2014, where's my kitchen robot?

Re:Big Data (1)

mcswell (1102107) | about a year ago | (#45692309)

David, we're having hash tonight. Again.

Even before Windows 95 (1, Interesting)

jabberw0k (62554) | about a year ago | (#45652085)

Back in 1993 there was Microsoft at Work [wikipedia.org] , "a short-lived effort promoted by Microsoft to tie together common business machinery, like fax machines and photocopiers, with a common communications protocol allowing control and status information to be shared with computers running Microsoft Windows..."

Bad idea then, ... bad idea now?

Re:Even before Windows 95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652385)

Yeah, pretty bad Since then numerous papers have been written titled something akin to "Towards the Paperless Office".

Re:Big Data (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45652369)

All well and good, but not realistic.
People don't want this. No one wants their fridge to place orders just because that 20 pound turkey is almost gone.
Lets get grocery delivery working before we have fridges ordering food for us.
We would be more successful bar code scanning what cans and packages that we throw in the trash
to create a shopping list, but even the supermarkets can't get bar code scanning fool proof yet.

We need to concentrate on what is practical, not attempt to remake civilization.

Manage power consumption, turn off lights when no one is around, dim them, etc.
Start the coffee pot, but only if its prepped and ready.

The story is about standards, and first and foremost we should start with security.
Then easy of use (how to tell said toaster who owns it, who it should listen to, who it may talk to, etc).

Re:Big Data (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#45654957)

People don't want this. No one wants their fridge to place orders just because that 20 pound turkey is almost gone.

some pretty large silicon companies want this, though. they call it "M2M" (machine to machine). search on it and you may find its going to be a Big Thing(tm) soon. whether we, the people, want it or not does not matter. silicon companies see this as a new high volume way to sell hardware and support and 'service' leverage.

Re:Big Data (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45655225)

It makes perfect sense in industry. Plant automation is a huge field.

To date, this has all been done with limit switches, really simple devices that sense moving parts along conveyors.
Break one of the limit switches and the whole place comes crashing down.
M2M would make a lot of sense in this regard, but its not clear that your average home would benefit all that much,
nor the average home owner.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45655077)

People don't want this. No one wants their fridge to place orders just because that 20 pound turkey is almost gone.

No but they might want their deep freeze to recognize that it is gone, and watch for the price to fall under a set threshold and then order another one to be ready for the next holiday event. And it's not like in the cloud era we can't have an approval system before the orders go out.

You would assume only products that have been set to recurring would ever create an automatic order anyways. Tracking the rest of what is in your fridge would just be for things like the recipes scenario, or maybe to monitor spending/budgets.

Re:Big Data (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45651745)

Who wins with the Internet of Things? Corporations and Governments. If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

Not the consumer.

See, once these things have a digital component, your toaster isn't technically "yours", but is covered under a 'licensing agreement' which says the data about how you use your toaster is theirs, and removing/disabling this is illegal.

I don't see any benefit for the consumer, and I see a lot of downsides.

When the DMCA applies to your toaster and the like, you don't own anything and your information becomes the property of someone else. It's just more scope creep of corporations more or less asserting control and ownership of the things we buy for their own ends, and giving us zero in return.

And then you quickly find there are no devices which don't have this shit in it, and it's a criminal offense to remove it since that would be violating the 'rights' of the companies who sold it to you.

Behold, the dystopian future is upon us. The corporations have all the power, cut our jobs, and leave us beholden to them.

Re:Big Data (1)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#45652621)

That's why I predict that the Open Source protocol will be a bit player in a market dominated by an inferior protocol that does require internet access (it will be called "cloud access" soon enough), is completely insecure, and the developers of which are more interested in data harvesting than making it work better. Because sticker prices will be lower due to offsets from revenue from advertising/market intelligence, and consumers are stupid.

It seems to be the way of the world.

Re:Big Data (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45653231)

That's why I predict that the Open Source protocol will be a bit player in a market dominated by an inferior protocol that does require internet access (it will be called "cloud access" soon enough), is completely insecure, and the developers of which are more interested in data harvesting than making it work better.

This brings up the point I was going to cover: security. Without robust encryption, even if consumers did want this (they don't, at least today), if these devices and protocols did not have robust encryption built in, it would soon become "the internet of other peoples' things."

There is a lot of potential for societal disaster here. Let's definitely not forget that.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652971)

The corporations have all the power

If by "power" you mean coercive authority, then you are omitting the key to all this corruption: corporations (or anyone not part of government) can only gain coercive authority through proxy. Government is still the master, because only government holds the key to coercive authority.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45653211)

Not when corporations hold the key to government.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45653647)

We already live in dystopia.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45657935)

You make a compelling point.
I think I'll switch to tortillas.

Re:Big Data (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45651801)

If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

Perhaps not a toaster, but smart washing machines and dishwashers would be spiffy. An AC and heating as well. How else are you going to take advantage of the spikes in renewable electricity production?

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651945)

If you're not a hobbyist, why do you need a *BSD-powered toaster?

Perhaps not a toaster, but smart washing machines and dishwashers would be spiffy. An AC and heating as well. How else are you going to take advantage of the spikes in renewable electricity production?

By telling your local PUC/PSC to man-up and deny the local electric co's wet dream pleas to change from metered billing to "time of use" billing? Surely you're not so naive as to believe them when they say they'll use TOU billing to charge you less during off peak hours rather than charging existing rates during off peak and raising rates for all other times?

Re:Big Data (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45655777)

Surely you're not so naive as to believe them when they say they'll use TOU billing to charge you less during off peak hours rather than charging existing rates during off peak and raising rates for all other times?

That's exactly what I expect them to do as the prices of fossil fuels continue to rise.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652869)

I built a couple of these and with a tiny bit of software I'm able control any appliance in my house over the internet.

Re:Big Data (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#45652441)

i would think Sauron mostly

Re:Big Data (3, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45652513)

I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this from people on Slashdot of all places.

Why can't my washing machine/dryer/microwave send my cellphone an alert when it's done and I'm in another room?

Why can't I turn on the lights at home from the grocery store so I don't have to carry my groceries in while it's dark?

Why can't I turn on the jacuzzi during a rough day at work so it's ready when I get home?

Why can't my DVD player turn off my lights and close my blinds when it's time to watch a movie and then turn the lights back on when I pause it to get a drink?

Why can't my refrigerator detect what's in it and suggest recipes and tell me what's expired?

Why can't I check to see if I forgot to turn the stove off after I left the house?

Why can't my sprinklers check the weather forcast and put off watering if it's supposed to rain?

Why can't my blinds and windows automatically open and close to regulate the temperature in the house?

There's no reason all of this couldn't be done. TFA describes something I've always thought was needed. If anyone was able to write software to communicate between the things in your house (and the price of automation went down), I think that the popularity of communications-enabled appliances would soar as developers opened up all of these possibilities and more.

Re:Big Data (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45653027)

Of course Slashdot is going to have a lot of naysayers. We're the people that actually understand this stuff. We may have even tried to implement this stuff already.

Or as someone else put it:

> Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.

We just had the scandal break about LG smart TVs. Now I want to neuter mine and have a lot less interest in my other appliances being able to run amok.

Forget about my fridge being able to magically determine it's contents. Thermostats would be a good start.

Re:Big Data (0)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45654223)

If it's open source, you can examine the packets being sent by the device yourself. You're free to put the devices behind a firewall to prevent anything you don't want from getting in or out. TFA also mentions that the devices should be able to communicate with each other completely without the internet so you can just cut them off completely, if you want.

Re:Big Data (1)

Gryle (933382) | about a year ago | (#45654931)

While we're all free to do so, not everyone has the capability to do so. Yes, there are tutorials freely available on the web, but, frankly, not everyone is computer-savy enough or intelligent enough to grasp them. Asking someone else to do it kind of defeats the point of examining it yourself. I imagine it would also be an enormous pain in the ass to examine the washing machine, dryer, microwave, light fixtures, jacuzzi, DVD player, window fixtures, refrigerator, stove, sprinklers, and thermostat each time you have to buy a new appliance or move into a new residence.

Re:Big Data (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45656013)

By the sound of your message, I'm guessing you examine every open source operating system, encryption method, web browser, word processor, music player, image manipulator, etc etc that you use on your computer. Most people don't. However, there are tons of professional security researchers, professors, college students, and hobbyists that can and do. If you're sending messages using an open source protocol, you can't hide it. Someone will notice.

With an open source protocol, it becomes simple to create (and open-source) fire wall software specifically for these systems that blocks messages based on type, source, destination, etc. Don't want messages getting out that reveal what you're using? Filter them. Don't want someone messing with your blinds from outside your network? Stop those messages. If you want to make it simple for people, give them a slider that lets them set, for the entire network, how open or closed their system is.

Because if you can do that to your property... (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about a year ago | (#45653035)

then so can someone else.

Re:Because if you can do that to your property... (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45654165)

The devices are a part of a network like any other. Put them behind a default-deny firewall, strong password accessible only through some random high-numbered port. With an open protocol, it would be trivial to tie all of it together. Hackers stand to earn exactly $0 by playing with your light switches so all you're going to attract are trollish script-kiddies and they're not that hard to defend against.

Re:Because if you can do that to your property... (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about a year ago | (#45654657)

What you said is gibberish to most of America, and that's the problem. YOU would be able to construct an adequate defense against scriptkiddies, but for the majority of America, a packaged security platform sold by the likes of Kaspersky or McAfee is going to be necessary. And that's even assuming people install, use, and update those packages appropriately. You're failing to account for the power of human stupidity.

Re:Because if you can do that to your property... (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45655939)

A packaged security platform? An OS or email virus scanner has to check an arbitrary file and determine if the intent of that file is to harm you or if it's a legitimate tool you want installed. It's WAY more complicated than what this requires. With an open source protocol, we're talking about well-defined packets flowing from one device to another. A packet gets sent to your thermostat that says "Hey you! Turn on!". Don't want that to happen? Filter those messages. A reliable and open source firewall could easily be created along those lines.

As for people being stupid, I didn't realize we should stop all progress because some people are irresponsible. I guess we better turn off the internet, get rid of all computers, take away everyone's car... we should probably just roll back all technology to before man first created fire because, you know, someone could burn themselves. And besides, what's the penalty for being irresponsible here? Having to pay a larger electric bill? Big whoop.

Re:Big Data (1)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | about a year ago | (#45653183)

I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this from people on Slashdot of all places.

Why can't my washing machine/dryer/microwave send my cellphone an alert when it's done and I'm in another room?

Why can't I turn on the lights at home from the grocery store so I don't have to carry my groceries in while it's dark?

Why can't I turn on the jacuzzi during a rough day at work so it's ready when I get home?

... etc.

Why can't hackers turn my microwave/dryer/jacuzzi heater on when I'm not home and burn up the heating elements (and possibly my house)?
Why can't they open the blinds and windows while I am in my undergarments?
Why can't they set my fridge to 70 degrees and spoil all my food (then set it back down to normal before I get home, so I won't know until I eat the food) ?
Why can't they turn the sprinklers on and flood my backyard?
Why can't they make my lights randomly flash on and off at 2AM to annoy me (while the surround-sound blasts Barry Manilow and ignores my volume remote) ?

Re:Big Data (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45654633)

Because they're firewall protected inside a LAN? Everything you described will earn the hacker exactly $0. A determined attacker stands to gain nothing from cracking your security and playing with your light switches. At best, you'll have to defend against bored script kiddies and that's not that hard.

Re:Big Data (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#45653419)

Why can't my washing machine/dryer/microwave send my cellphone an alert when it's done and I'm in another room?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.washer&hl=en [google.com]

Why can't I turn on the lights at home from the grocery store so I don't have to carry my groceries in while it's dark?

http://www.smarthome.com/android_apps.html [smarthome.com]

Why can't I turn on the jacuzzi during a rough day at work so it's ready when I get home?

http://www.balboawatergroup.com/iphone-Application [balboawatergroup.com]

Why can't my DVD player turn off my lights and close my blinds when it's time to watch a movie and then turn the lights back on when I pause it to get a drink?

DVD player? What decade are you living in?
http://wiki.team-mediaportal.com/1_MEDIAPORTAL_1/15_Customization/Home_Automation [team-mediaportal.com]

Why can't my refrigerator detect what's in it and suggest recipes and tell me what's expired?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50364798/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ [nbcnews.com]

Why can't I check to see if I forgot to turn the stove off after I left the house?

http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2816405/samsung-smart-oven-android-app-control [theverge.com]

Why can't my sprinklers check the weather forcast and put off watering if it's supposed to rain?

http://gigaom.com/2013/10/10/smart-lawn-sprinklers-cut-down-on-water-waste/ [gigaom.com]

Why can't my blinds and windows automatically open and close to regulate the temperature in the house?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_glass [wikipedia.org]

Are there any other inventions of the past 20 years that you missed and want me to google for you? Or do you think you've got it now? Tech tip: Put the world "Smart" in front of whichever thing you're looking for in your search and generally the first link will be the one you want.

Re:Big Data (3, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#45653635)

I'm perfectly aware that these things already exist. The problem is that you have to buy 20 different proprietary apps that only let you control your devices in the way they want you to. The point of the proposal in TFA is that this no longer has to be the case.

Re:Big Data (2)

BullInChina (3376331) | about a year ago | (#45653373)

What I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.

Re:Big Data (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#45654139)

Not a toaster, but I can think of many things at home. Like my home security system - it would be nice to be able to control it from my cellphone. Or, have it on my garage, so that if after driving a few miles, my wife reaches home and needs it opened since she's misplaced the key, I can remotely open it. Or remotely access my home TV to set it up to TiVo something I forgot to set to record.

Get IPv6 @ home, assign a bunch of routable addresses to everything, and then access it from your cellphone.

What could possibly go wrong? (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45651423)

Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"

Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.

This internet of things is a bloody stupid idea to me, and I see precisely zero benefit in having it. Especially if it means everything now becomes a tool for the marketing bastards.

This isn't enhancing our experience with these things, just making them tools for someone else to exploit.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651545)

This isn't enhancing our experience with these things, just making them tools for someone else to exploit

Exactly. You need to have a 'value add' for your end user. Otherwise why would I pay an extra 5 bucks for my toaster? An extra 100 for my fridge? Just so it can say 'hey you are out of milk'. I can see that quite easily.

If you wanted to sell me on something like this you would create a good rack/storage system where I can get my stuff and have it all fit in my cupboards and help me find it all.

Turning on and off lights is way too simple of a task to be automated.

They do have a point though. If we want 'connected homes' 'm2m' or whatever we are calling it today the software needs to be 100% interoperable and open for anyone to use. The second you close source it you lose a benefit and *maybe* gain monopoly position.

I am just not sold on if we really need it. As the other infrastructure (the public one) is not built for it at all. So yeah I may be out of milk. But guess what I either have to pay someone to deliver it and pack it away myself or go get it myself anyway.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45651895)

Exactly. You need to have a 'value add' for your end user.

No, you just have to convince them how awesome it is, or stop giving them other options.

This is just more corporate greed cramming stuff down our throats which mostly benefits them.

As they exist, 'markets' have nothing to do with consumer choice, but what the corporations are telling we're getting whether we want it or not. The invisible hand has the world collectively by the balls, and doesn't give a damn about what we want.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45651709)

This internet of things is a bloody stupid idea to me, and I see precisely zero benefit in having it.

Oh please, think of all the free targeted advertising you could get, and once you consider the benefit of the NSA knowing exactly how much laundry detergent you use it's just unbelievably good.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about a year ago | (#45652001)

This isn't enhancing our experience with these things, just making them tools for someone else to exploit.

I can hear it already....

What's that smell?
The toaster has malware, go back to sleep we were almost out of bread anyway.
I told you an internet toaster was stupid idea.
Don't worry the fridge will remind you to pick up bread.
I don't like the fridge either it keeps saying we are out of cheese because I didn't buy right brand.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652087)

This internet of things is a bloody stupid idea to me, and I see precisely zero benefit in having it. Especially if it means everything now becomes a tool for the marketing bastards.

gstoddart; you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45652153)

gstoddart; you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute.

Fuck that, you fucking fuck. ;-)

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652549)

gstoddart; you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute.

Fuck that, you fucking fuck. ;-)

Your repeated violation of the verbal morality statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652091)

Just like the term 'Cloud'? Executives love the 'Cloud'. It's the politically correct term for 'Outsourcing'.

I'm going to try something. I'm going to introduce my CIO to the term IoT and let me team in on the secret. I have no doubt he'll parrot the word ceaselessly. Maybe even replacing his understanding of 'Cloud'.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about a year ago | (#45653605)

Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"

Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.

In order to use this light bulb, and before it can be turned on, you must first agree to this EULA...

Candles anyone?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45655735)

Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"

Anyone else think this sentence works just as well when used to describe a couple of computers on a LAN with no connection to the outside network? Did they just zazz up tcp/ip again?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

mcswell (1102107) | about a year ago | (#45692331)

I think Arthur C Clark anticipated you.

"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."

Along with communication satellites and

hahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651475)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

So when is the Year of the Desktop for Linux again?

Linux? It's shit..

Re:hahaha (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45651773)

It's never going to be the year of Linux on the desktop, because the desktop is dying. Last week was about laptops, yesterday was about phones and today is about tablets.

Re:hahaha (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45653089)

Next week is going to be all about embedded Linux devices but since they are embedded devices, you don't actually have any control over them. So they will run amok and remote exploits will remain unpatched due to corporate neglect.

lead balloon (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#45651509)

wow, talk about bad timing.
I don't see how they can sell this in our post-Snowden world.
Who wants some creepy NSA intern SEXINT'ing all over your pharmacy purchases?
Much like "the cloud", the NSA's killed this idea deader than a doornail.

So much for American innovation creating new industries to lead us out this great recession.

Re:lead balloon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651609)

Alljoyn is not a cloud based system, and your data never is exposed more than you allow it to. Look at the design of Alljoyn. It's really just dbus extended outside of a single system - they even are compatible with the dbus API. It's backend transports include bluetooth and UDP, so it's no less (or more) secure than using your smartphone for anything else.

Re:lead balloon (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#45651743)

it's no less (or more) secure than using your smartphone for anything else.

While your point is well made, I have to say that you chose a very unfortunate example for comparison.

Where things are more important than people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651627)

Funny, I can remember when the big thing about the internet was that it was an internet of PEOPLE. Guess we all learned that people are dicks, quickly gave up on that naive, hippy idea of "but if we only connect people more, we'll spread UNDERSTANDING!!!1!", and decided things are more important than people, and putting THEM on the internet will help make each individual "us" feel better in our own little bubbles. And thus we further dive headlong into a culture of shiny gadgetlust and self-centered attitudes.

call me a luddite, but I do not want this (1)

lyapunov (241045) | about a year ago | (#45651661)

Quite frankly, why would anyone? There are places where automation and real time data feeds make sense, like an ICU for example. I have to honestly ask myself, what would this bring me? Happiness? Peace of Mind? Not really. I'm already connected enough. I don't want my appliances, car, whatever... jacked in. I see no real benefit, but a lot of risk.

When I upgraded my phone the decision not to get a smart phone was easy. What is the payoff? I give easier access to corporations and/or government easier ways to keeps tabs on me. What would the benefit be? More access to email? Woohoo! That is exactly what I'm striving for. I've long accepted the fact that I'm really not that important and perpetual access is not something that I really need or want. I have a gps in my car. It gets me in the ballpark without being a transmitter. I'm not scanning UPCs to see what a better deal I can find at the spot. If it's that important, I will do the research and make a decision. Plus, I also like brick and mortar stores. I knowingly pay extra in the hopes that I can help keep them around. In particular, I fear the demise of bookstores. I've found some real gems going into a local book store and perusing.

That is not to say that the internet doesn't have its place either. This last weekend I was able to replace the stepper motors in the instrument cluster of my truck thanks to youtube and finding the parts on the internet.

Re:call me a luddite, but I do not want this (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | about a year ago | (#45651777)

You an I are very much the same, here.

I can't see myself wanting to turn the lights on and off, or adjust the temperature, or start the dish washer from the other side of the earth. Also, not only will there by the tracking etc., but if i can do these things from anywhere - so can some guy with the latest zero day exploit.

I just don't see the value here and I see a lot of reasons why it is a BAD thing.

Re:call me a luddite, but I do not want this (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45652063)

I can adjust my house temperature when I am away. I love it. Turn it down while on vacation, even if I forgot to before I left, then an hour before getting home, turn it up so it is comfortable.

Access control is another good one. Allow someone in your home if you are not there.

There are useful implementations.

Re:call me a luddite, but I do not want this (1)

mattie_p (2512046) | about a year ago | (#45652157)

Access control is another good one. Allow someone in your home if you are not there.

We have that now. They are called robbers. Usually not that great a thing when it happens.

What are you even talking about? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#45651721)

"The so-called "Internet of Things" has rapidly become a buzzword du jour, with everyone from tech-giant CEOs to analysts rhapsodizing about the benefits of connecting everyday objects and appliances to the Web.

Putting stuff on the internet besides computers is a popular idea today among people selling things you can put on the internet. They say those things will be good for you.

"The internet of things" is such a fucking stupid phrase, but what's worse is that people seem to be talking more about the idea in vague terms. The summary doesn't list one single actual thing that will go on the internet. Are we talking tracking chips for people's kids? Coffee makers that you can turn on remotely so that you don't have to waste minutes upon getting to the office in the morning pressing a button and waiting?

I realize that the specific summary here is focusing on a group that wants to open source the software, but in any article, when "internet of things" is used, there are no examples. The plan always seems to be
1. Say you will put more things on the internet
2.???
3.???
4. PROFIT!!!!

Re:What are you even talking about? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45651787)

1. Say you will put more things on the internet
2.???
3.???
4. PROFIT!!!!

1. Say you will put more things on the internet
2. Collect information about everything everybody does and lock them in with EULAs
3. Analyze and sell, and enjoy that you've convinced people to 'buy' things they don't technically 'own'. Share with law enforcement as needed.
4. PROFIT!!!!

Re:What are you even talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651871)

This effort is from Qualcomm, who manufactures semiconductors for mobile devices. They are also a publicly traded company, so profit is always the primary motivator - however that doesn't make Alljoyn evil. The real plan is probably:
1. Say you will put more things on the internet
2. Actually do #1 by producing a non-proprietary extension to dbus
3. Open source said solution, and offer it to everyone for [F|f]ree
4. Create an industry alliance in hopes of this technology gaining marketshare
5. Knowing that the master control for all of these devices is probably the device in your pocket, hope that this leads to increased mobile device sales
6. Profit

It seems like a pretty good plan to me, and looking at QCOM stock charts it seems like they are doing #6 quite well!

Is that an actual phrase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651727)

I work in IT and follow the news pretty regularly and I've never heard of "the internet of things".

not quite du jour (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#45651751)

The so-called "Internet of Things" has rapidly become a buzzword du jour

The "internet of things" was one of the old buzzwords of Sun Microsystems (R.I.P.), along with "the network is the computer" and "write once, run everywhere".

Re:not quite du jour (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45652089)

I'm ready to move on to the 'internet of cloudy things"

Java's failed first-draft name (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | about a year ago | (#45652303)

"Write (Hopefully) Once, Run Everywhere" just did not make a good acronym.

how does this differ from TCP/IP stack? (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | about a year ago | (#45651791)

FTFA: 'communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"'

can anyone explain how AllJoyn differs from the TCP/IP stack?

Re:how does this differ from TCP/IP stack? (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | about a year ago | (#45651845)

found more on the allSeen website:
https://allseenalliance.org/allseen/framework [allseenalliance.org]

"can communicate over various transport layers, such as Wi-Fi, power line or Ethernet"
"enable fundamental activities such as discovery of adjacent devices, pairing, message routing and security"
"onboarding to join the user’s network of connected devices; user notifications; a common control panel for creating rich user experiences; and audio streaming for simultaneous playback on multiple speakers."

Re:how does this differ from TCP/IP stack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45652439)

Yeah, it's actually zeroconf, plug, discover and play; multimodal, distributed, context-aware interfaces; osgi-like, auto-configuring, self-arranging, service-composing stuff.

Too much hassle (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45651851)

Most homes today don't come with "smart" appliances unless someone specifically requests them during the building phase. That means if you want to have sensors and wifi in all your appliances, you'll have to install and replace them one by one. I might do that if a specific appliance breaks, but I'm not going to do it wholesale as long as any given appliance is still working.

Sun Tried this a few years ago with Jini (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45651911)

I saw a talk by Bill Joy of Sun (Author of Vi) several years back where they were pushing Jini (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/J/Jini.html) as a driver-less standard for interconnected devices. This linked blurb talks about printers and storage, but Bill's speech was focused on more general household appliances and the like. It could obviously be convenient for automation of the home allowing standards based apps to manage a variety of devices, but we know our corporate overloards wouldn't stop there and would have to have devices reporting all kinds of behaviors back to central servers with various trivial to serious impacts on privacy.

This is already a thing (2)

DeeEff (2370332) | about a year ago | (#45652435)

It's already open source, and a draft implementation is available on github. (https://github.com/OGC-IoT/ogc-iot-api)

Arguments against the Internet of Things seem to be based on the idea that you'll lose privacy and only big money / governments will reap the rewards from your privacy loss. However, if you look at it from a different perspective, that is, not implementing the Internet of things as household items but as automated sensors for safety and analytics in the workplace, then many of the complaints no longer exist. I think the Internet of things as a buzzword has been stretched top far, but I don't outright oppose adding sensing capabilities and easier information exchange to some machines and devices.

Step 1: use IPv6 (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about a year ago | (#45652915)

Seriously, this is 2013 already, how much longer do we have to wait for our ISPs and biggest websites to make the switch?

Re:Step 1: use IPv6 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45653439)


Seriously, this is 2013 already, how much longer do we have to wait for our ISPs and biggest websites to make the switch?

About five years. Most of the network gear deployed today does not handle IPv6 in ASICs, just CPU, which is too intense. Almost all of the Internet needs to be replaced.

Re:Step 1: use IPv6 (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#45653819)

The reason that in 2013 IPv6 isn't the simple answer is IMHO conspiracy. This new alliance reeks of "don't look over there at just obviously using the 'internet protocol' as designed and intended and independent of our existing transnational corporate influence. Instead, use this shit we 'invent', and in a few years, the ISPs will be filtering everything else because they consider it 'reasonable network management', and they are fellow establishment players like us.". This is just an extra taxation of the internet by an establishment rightfully afraid of 'disruptive technologies' such as IPv6 combined with any sense of an ISP as an agent of free speech, rather than mainstream media control (as the internet was supposed (/long advertised) to do to the prior cable network).

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/ [arstechnica.com]

Fuck IPv6! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45653857)

Why do you need IPV6? It's useless crap and only good for 3 letter agency to track your fat ass.
Fuck "Internet of Things" and assholes who think every appliance must me under third party control.
I understand, it super nerdy and what not. Still, fuck you all for promoting this nightmare.

Your toaster is watching you (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45652989)

And reporting you to the NSA!

Based on history, this won't last (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#45653023)

The first one of this 'alliance' to gain significant market share will start tinkering with the standards and taking those changes private to try and lock their customers in.

creepy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45653525)

AllSeen Alliance sounds really creepy. Will our future generations know what privacy really is? Do we even know now?

aka how to remotely exploit everything (1)

johnrpenner (40054) | about a year ago | (#45654419)

aka how to remotely exploit everything that was never previously exploitable — and how your toaster now spies on you.

I'd think twice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45654863)

With the current state of security I'd think twice before connecting something, thus giving a free uncontrollable access. If something like NSA or local police accidentally sets your home on fire you even wouldn't to know.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?