(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| schestowitz | >> We can do a fiction piece for sure. Last year I | Jan 16 00:06 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | >> did lots of poetry with fictional scenarios that get some points across. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > Oh that's refreshing. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > Tell me what you think of this if you've time for a 15 min read | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | > http://obiwannabe.co.uk/tmp/software-wars.html | Jan 16 00:06 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-obiwannabe.co.uk | Peak Hack | Jan 16 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | I've just read everything. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | First pass. Complete, but fast. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Spotted no typos. A future pass would possibly catch a few. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Agreed strongly. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | This one stood out: "Universities had dumbed down computer science courses to certificate training." | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Very true, but few exceptions still exist and they're going extinct. | Jan 16 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Story about my day today at "work" (the one that pays for my food etc.): | Jan 16 00:07 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/22322452 | Jan 16 00:07 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: #aws takes simple tasks, wraps them in a #proprietarySoftwarew GUI, and somehow manages to make them even more complicated | Jan 16 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | I now have this added to "cpanel" in my host that covers TR https://docs.cpanel.net/cpanel/domains/dynamic-dns/#/ | Jan 16 02:04 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-docs.cpanel.net | Dynamic DNS | cPanel & WHM Documentation | Jan 16 02:04 | |
| *psydroid4 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 02:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/01/can-amending-description-to-summarize.html?showComment=1641802804414 | Jan 16 02:56 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20) - The IPKat | Jan 16 02:56 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | FragenderThursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:00:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | In German patent law there is § 34 Abs. 7: | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | "Auf Verlangen des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts hat der Anmelder den Stand der Technik nach seinem besten Wissen vollständig und wahrheitsgemäß anzugeben und in die Beschreibung (Absatz 3) aufzunehmen." | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Rough translation: On request of the DPMA the applicant has to state the state of the art to his best knowledge completely and truthfully and include it in the description. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | There is a corresponding paragraph in the PatV (§ 10 Abs. 2 lit. 2) requiring this (for the initial description). | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Many applicants don't name any state of the art (if the examiner finds state of the art by that very applicant often § 124 - duty to truthfulness - is mentioned...). | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Examiners usually require the state of the art found during examination to be added to the description. Using § 34 Abs. 7, a refusal to do so will lead to a rejection of the application. Often, this is a nice shortcut for examiners and also the BPatG, when an applicant gives up on the application but a written decision is necessary, as this is usually the shortest possible decision. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 08:52:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Ok, you have convinced me: it is now time to cancel or at least amend Rule 42(1)(b) EPC and the corresponding German rule so that applicants do not have to USELESSLY amend the description. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | FragenderFriday, 7 January 2022 at 10:46:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | @Patent Robot | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | I see this differently. In German patent proceedings, the claims are construed using the patent publication. The prosecution file could be used only in exceptional cases. So while the public may be informed about the state of the art, the court would not necessarily consider this. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | And, actually, putting the state of the art into the description can be helpful to the applicant, as the BGH states the claims should (usually) be construed to not cover the state of the art, from which the applicant tries to differ. So, without mentioning the state of the art, the claims might be construed wider and the state of the art then lead to invalidity of their matter. As long as the German courts deal with validity-proceedings for EP- | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | patents, I think it would be advisable to mention the state of the art in the description. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Following from this, I think the description of the state of the art could in extreme cases lead to "added matter". To be honest, unless this is done on purpose, I can not imagine a real world case for this happening. | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 09:31:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | @Fragender | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | So we should uselessly (and dangerously) amend a European application to please a national court? | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | FragenderMonday, 10 January 2022 at 10:03:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | @Patent Robot | Jan 16 02:56 |
| schestowitz | As long as the national courts decide on validity, it is probably helpful to follow the decisions in the designated states. Unless of course it is a patent for "the stack", which will not be used. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 11:18:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | @Fragender | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | The state of the art is already cited in any B-publication, so there is no need to amend the application for the German courts, unless you want also discuss the cited prior art in the application by ADDING arguments in this respect. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 10 January 2022 at 11:48:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | And following on from your logic, there is need to follow any laws/directions of courts. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Following on further from your logic, there is no need to amend claims either given the cited art is known. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Even further, why file patents at all, the state of the art is known. Just keep a list of your internal inventions and assert them later. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | These arguments fall into the category of mistaking the rule of law for things I do not like. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 15:15:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | @Anonymous | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Ok you convinced me: there is nothing more important in patent law than amending the description to cite the prior art already cited in the search/examination reports. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 6 January 2022 at 16:53:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | It seems to this reader that the best way to acknowledge prior art is for the examiner to cite it such that it appears on the front page of the B-spec, the agent then being free to deal with other matters instead of having to take a case to court to avoid complete revocation over something so minor. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | MaxDreiThursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:52:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | All this talk about the online EPO file as the basis of claim construction strikes me as a distraction. The UK Supreme Court, faced with a claim to construe, asks itself what the skilled reader would conclude from the B publication as answer to the question "What was the writer of the claim using the words of the claim to mean". To perform that task, the court takes the B publication as a single coherent document. Accordingly, it strikes me that | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | it is not just the EPO that wants to see in the B publication conformity, and the invention set in the context of the prior art, but also the court. It's in the public interest too. A patent is a restraint on free trade. It should be granted only when Applicant presents a case persuasive enough to cancel free trade. Applicant protects an invention in words of their own choosing so they'd better be positively persuasive ones. Applicant lives or | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | dies, not by the sword, but by words of their own choosing. Long may it continue to be so. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 09:18:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | There is no need to amend the description to convince an examiner to grant a patent. A letter and claim amendments are usually sufficient. Introducing the discussion on novelty and inventive step in the description is useless and moreover opens a door to art. 84, 123(2) and (3) EPC issues, considering how strict the EPO is on these provisions. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | IMHO the description should never be amended, unless there are evident mistakes. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 7 January 2022 at 10:35:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Your comments focus on the way things should be IYHO, not how they are. Some of us have to live in the the real world where the description and Article 84 EPC just cannot be ignored. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Article 84 EPC needs amended or deleted to achieve your goal. What's stopping you moving this forward yourself? It is you that has the problem with it after all. Perhaps draft and file a test application that will get refused under Article 84 for not amending description, take it to BoA, and request a referral to EB and then explain why Article 84 has been leading us down the garden path for nearly 50 years. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 14:06:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | As I wrote in the other thread, there is nothing in the EPC that requires the description to be supported by the claims (art. 84 requires the OPPOSITE), therefore the description should not be adapted to the claims and in particular there is no need at all to delete subject-matter not covered by the claims. Such a deletion may even raise issues of art. 123(2) and (3) EPC. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 7 January 2022 at 15:05:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | You clearly have an understanding of the EPC at odds with accepted jurisprudence that the description should correspond to the claims. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | You interpret article 84 literally and ignore all BoA decisions who have interpreted it differently (the recent decision doesn’t even address the contradictory decisions, and has some seriously questionable reasoning) Even your literal interpretation has problems. For the description to support the claims, either the description or the claims can be amended for this to occur. Article 84 EPC is silent on how this can occur. So no, Article 84 | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | EPC does not require the “opposite” as you put it. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotSunday, 9 January 2022 at 12:13:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | I do not ignore the interpretation of Art. 84 EPC given by some BoA: I think that it is wrong and I hope that this issue will be solved by the EBoA. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | For some decades, the EDs never asked to delete unclaimed subject-matter from the description, so why should we do it now? | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | It is sufficient to copy the claims in the descrition to satisfy Art. 84 EPC. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | MaxDreiSunday, 9 January 2022 at 14:02:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | With astonishment I read from Patent Robot its dismissive view of Article 84, EPC, that to satisfy it all that is needed is to "copy the claims" into the description. So, form is good enough for Article 84, and substance counts for nothing. Not only those who drafted Art 84 would turn in their graves if that became the established view. | Jan 16 02:57 |
| schestowitz | For one like me, who qualified for the EPO's Register of representatives through a grandfather clause, one of the greatest pleasures of my long career has been the emergence of the EPC and its Implementing Regulations, and the EPO's Estavblished Case Law. Other than in every other jurisdiction (where a Supreme Court makes the law) the law of the EPC is a triumph of substance over lawyerly "form". I never copy the allowed claimsd into the | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | description, believing to this day that it makes no difference to the validity of the patent which the EPO is going to issue to my client. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Or with his newest remark is Patent Robot just making mischief, trolling this thread, being provocative just for the fun of it? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | That said, there is of course an ongoing problem with over-zealous Examiners. What makes them do it? Trying to ingratiate themselves with the EPO's Quality Managers, mistakenly supposing that it will further their career. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 08:20:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | @MaxDrei | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | I was just replying to the curious theory of Anonymous: "For the description to support the claims, either the description or the claims can be amended for this to occur." | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | If there is no support in the description, you should not amend the claims (terrible idea!) for this purpose only, since you can just copy the claims into the description: | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | GL F-IV, 6.6: Where certain subject-matter is clearly disclosed in a claim of the application as filed, but is not mentioned anywhere in the description, it is permissible to amend the description so that it includes this subject-matter. Where the claim is dependent, it may suffice if it is mentioned in the description that the claim sets out a particular embodiment of the invention (see F-II, 4.5). | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 10 January 2022 at 09:45:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | It's only a terrible idea if you want to live in a world where Article 84 EPC does not exist. Your solution would also overcome a classic lack of support of objection - no need to narrow claims to essential features, just copy the broad unsupported claims into the description. Why stop there, we could overcome added-matter objections in the same way. Also if claim 1 as filed requires several features, but the description describes these features | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | all as optional and as the invention, that is a contradiction that needs addressed. Copying the claims back does not help since you still have the rest of the description saying something else. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Lack of essential features, to an extent, is also an objection under Article 83/56. How would your solution address these issues? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | You have omitted the title of the GLs you cite - "Support for dependent claims". I wonder why you did this? Is it because it doesn't help you ignore Article 84 for claim 1? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | This sounds like wanting to have it both way - cite a section of the GLs that (doesn't) supports your view and ignore the current GLs (albeit questionable) that requires substantial description amendments. For the record, I don't agree with the current GLs either but the second part of Articles 84 EPC has to count for something. Not amending the description is as much a solution as the EPO's current GLs, which is to say it is not a solution at | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | all. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Again, the EPO rules are well established and understood. Applicants know this and still file applications where everything is optional, even when it is clear the invention cannot operate otherwise. Some combinations are mutually exclusive. Also claim 1 can be hopelessly broad compared to the description. Then blame the strict EPO's added-matter rules when trying to limit claim 1 to something that is actually supported. Never the drafter's fault | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | for being too greedy, eh? Is improved (for the record not perfect) drafting not a solution? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | I do wonder if it's forgotten that the patent system is also supposed to benefit the public and actually disclose an invention, not something so obfuscated that it hinders the public fining workarounds or improvements. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Serious question, patent robot, are you arguing in good faith? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 6 January 2022 at 19:33:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Reading this thread makes me wonder what role do practitioners have to play in this? | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Ultimately, this line of attack was advanced by a practitioner. Some might say the rules are there to be exploited. That may be true but the choice to do so is entirely yours however. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Proof of the puddingFriday, 7 January 2022 at 12:08:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | It is important to stand back and view this case in context. That is, much like T 1989/18, it is just one decision that may or may not be followed by other Boards of Appeal. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | This means that, unless and until the view of the Board in T 0471/20 is established as "settled" case law, it would make sense for applicants to (continue to) take care not to add any text to even the "Background" section of the description that could arguably be viewed as introducing a subjective interpretation of the disclosures of a prior art document. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | It also means that, despite the ruling in T 1989/18 (and despite how convincing one might find the reasoning of that decision), there is as yet no clear reason for the EPO to abandon its long-established practice of requiring the description to be brought into line with the claims as allowed. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Lastly, it also means that, despite the issuance of Board of Appeal decisions that demanded a "strict" approach to adaptation of the description, the EPO was under no obligation whatsoever to update its Guidelines for Examination to effectively demand adherence to such a strict approach. The decisions in T 1989/18 and T 0471/20 illustrate perfectly why taking such a hard-line stance was not only legally questionable but also extremely "applicant- | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | unfriendly". | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | In this regard, it is noteworthy that the EPO did not consult with its users before introducing changes to the Guidelines that have been strongly opposed by the patent profession. One has to question why this happened, especially now that the EPO appears to be prepared to backtrack at the earliest possible opportunity. Based upon the evidence, my conclusion is that the EPO now rules by diktat, unless it is forced to do otherwise. Other evidence | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | supporting this includes so-called "consultations" that the EPO has recently conducted (such as that on Art 15a RPBA) ... where it seems that the conclusion is predetermined, and where those expressing different or contradictory views are simply ignored. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | francis hagelSunday, 9 January 2022 at 20:42:00 GMT | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | On the general topic of consistency between the description and the claims, an important decision is T 1642/17, which appears to reflect settled case law since it is cited in the 2020 issue of the case law of the BOAs (II.A.6.3.) published in the OJ in 2021. Quote from Reason 3 : | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | “However it is established case law that in cases where the claims and the terms used in them are clear when read on their own, for instance because they have a well established meaning in the art, the unambiguous claim wording must be interpreted as it would be understood by the person skilled in the art without the help of the description. (see decisions T 2221/10 and T 197/10, as well as Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | Patent Office, 9th edition 2019, II.A 6.3.1). As set out in the latter decision, "in the event of a discrepancy between the claims and the description, the unambiguous claim wording must be interpreted as it would be understood by the person skilled in the art without the help of the description". | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | This implies that there should be no requirement to delete from the description an embodiment not covered by the claims, assuming the wording of the claims is clear. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | I recently found a case in which the applicant had deleted a phrase in a claim to overcome an Art 84 objection, only for the ED to withdraw the objection and reinstate the deleted phrase of its own motion as part of the 71(3) communication, citing 123(2) concern. | Jan 16 02:58 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 02:59 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/12/breaking-board-of-appeal-finds-no-legal.html?showComment=1642070805390#c8643827882234031971 | Jan 16 02:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal finds no legal basis for the requirement to amend the description in line with the claims (T 1989/18) - The IPKat | Jan 16 02:59 | |
| schestowitz | "Would it be enough to only describe the subject matter of original claim 1 as an embodiment, and leave everything else in the description as optional features? The days of the clearly-delineated numbered embodiments are (mostly) long gone anyway: you're more likely to see every sentence of the description starting with "In some embodiments" which is not really helpful to anyone." | Jan 16 02:59 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/01/tokenization-of-intellectual-property.html?showComment=1642171899811#c8135352922819273785 | Jan 16 02:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Tokenization of intellectual property for IP rights management - The IPKat | Jan 16 02:59 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 02:59 |
| schestowitz | Very much agree with the other two commenters. They will call it "web 3.0" to make you seem like a dinosaur opposing the inevitable but it's just attempts to financialise everything and nothing just to speculate on more and more metaphysical concepts (are financial instruments not abstract enough!). | Jan 16 02:59 |
| schestowitz | NFTs of (to my eyes rather hideous) apes worth five or six figures are already frequently stolen. What happens when a hacker takes the NFT of a patent for a cancer cure? Absurd on its face. | Jan 16 02:59 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 02:59 |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jan 16 05:56 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 06:56 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 06:56 | |
| schestowitz | x https://matt-rickard.com/devops-platform-or/ | Jan 16 08:26 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-matt-rickard.com | Code or Issues in DevOps Platform(s)? | Jan 16 08:26 | |
| *SomeH4x0r has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 08:35 | |
| *SomeH4x0r (~someh4xx@hbb3pgaksxfbq.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 08:39 | |
| *tech_exorcist (~tech_exorcist@774nwuxzfj494.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 09:57 | |
| *psydroid4 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 10:49 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 16 12:06 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 16 12:06 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 12:16 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 12:16 | |
| Techrights-sec | Jan 16 12:34 | |
| Techrights-sec | Jan 16 12:34 | |
| Techrights-sec | set-option mouse on | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | bind -n WheelUpPane if "[[ #{pane_current_command} =~ vim ]]" "select-pane -t = ; | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | tsend-keys -M" "select-pane -t = ; send-keys Up" | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | bind -n WheelDownPane if "[[ #{pane_current_command} =~ vim ]]" "select-pane -t = | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | ; send-keys -M" "select-pane -t = ; send-keys Down" | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | adding those three lines in .tmux.conf allows some of the mouse functions | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | to work, including the wheel scrolling and clicking on panes to focus them. | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | Highlighting however is then shift-click instead of plain click | Jan 16 12:34 |
| schestowitz-TR | Is this still a work in progress (I assume it is based on the relative calm in ytalk) | Jan 16 12:34 |
| Techrights-sec | the .tmux.conf can be used in any context. The chat proof-of-concept is more | Jan 16 12:46 |
| Techrights-sec | or less at a decision point: the idea seems to work but to take it further | Jan 16 12:46 |
| Techrights-sec | would mean impplementing it properly in python or so. | Jan 16 12:46 |
| Techrights-sec | Should it go in Git? It's just a 25 line sketch to see if an idea worked. | Jan 16 12:46 |
| schestowitz-TR | I have been running git pull many times thinking the code might become visibklelt | Jan 16 12:47 |
| schestowitz-TR | e there | Jan 16 12:47 |
| schestowitz-TR | for version control's sake it cannot hurt (reverting back changes( | Jan 16 12:47 |
| Techrights-sec | For example there's not an extra process to monitor the logs and report on | Jan 16 12:47 |
| Techrights-sec | new connections. | Jan 16 12:47 |
| Techrights-sec | I'll have to sanitize it and then add in a way for it t | Jan 16 12:48 |
| Techrights-sec | to still work. | Jan 16 12:48 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 12:55 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 12:55 | |
| Techrights-sec | it needs parameters to launch now, that itself can be scripted or added | Jan 16 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | to a function in the shell rc file: | Jan 16 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | /usr/local/binxxxxxxxh \ | Jan 16 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | localhost xxxxx xxxx xxx bonumcertamencerta | Jan 16 12:55 |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 16 12:56 | |
| Techrights-sec | ok it's in git, but probably should have even more annotations not to | Jan 16 13:05 |
| Techrights-sec | develop the shell script parts further. If done further it should use Python3 | Jan 16 13:05 |
| Techrights-sec | instead and maybe TLS if that can be made to work again with MQTT. | Jan 16 13:05 |
| schestowitz-TR | thanks. | Jan 16 13:06 |
| schestowitz-TR | there are some biuts of code that have git directory names hard-coded | Jan 16 13:06 |
| schestowitz-TR | so it might be worth grep -R those and adding "Chat" | Jan 16 13:06 |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 13:14 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 13:14 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 13:14 | |
| Techrights-sec | which ones? | Jan 16 13:16 |
| schestowitz-TR | gemini-git-update.sh | Jan 16 13:18 |
| schestowitz-TR | by the way the shellscript has no way of showing if it has disconnected | Jan 16 13:18 |
| schestowitz-TR | as mentioned it was just a proof-of-concept test | Jan 16 13:18 |
| schestowitz-TR | gemini-git-update.sh is a gemini-related script | Jan 16 13:18 |
| Techrights-sec | by the way the shellscript has no way of showing if it has disconnected | Jan 16 13:18 |
| Techrights-sec | as mentioned it was just a proof-of-concept test | Jan 16 13:18 |
| Techrights-sec | gemini-git-update.sh is a gemini-related script | Jan 16 13:18 |
| schestowitz-TR | there are also static references | Jan 16 13:20 |
| schestowitz-TR | I think of those are absemt, no big deal | Jan 16 13:20 |
| schestowitz-TR | it is in git | Jan 16 13:20 |
| schestowitz-TR | but not ppublicly visible | Jan 16 13:20 |
| schestowitz-TR | which is maybe OK given that you consider this early for public consumption | Jan 16 13:20 |
| Techrights-sec | Git has been public via Gemini for a while now | Jan 16 13:21 |
| *psydroid3 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 13:33 | |
| Techrights-sec | there are some tmux oriented libraries for python but the APIs they use only | Jan 16 13:51 |
| Techrights-sec | cover a small fraction of the capabilities. | Jan 16 13:51 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 16 14:29 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 16 14:29 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 14:53 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 14:53 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 15:39 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 15:40 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 16 15:41 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 16:02 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 16:02 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 16:03 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 17:17 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 16 17:18 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 17:25 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 17:25 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 16 17:26 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 17:27 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 17:27 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 17:28 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 17:31 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@t3phqsdfxhjau.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 17:31 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@649vp4tpz9j66.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 18:01 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jan 16 18:54 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 19:31 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 16 19:32 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 16 19:33 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 19:54 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 19:54 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 19:54 | |
| schestowitz | > I'll trim it a bit in the middle, part2 is too long, | Jan 16 20:47 |
| schestowitz | > and then I'll link you to a copy that's ready to | Jan 16 20:47 |
| schestowitz | > publish if you like | Jan 16 20:47 |
| schestowitz | > cheers, | Jan 16 20:47 |
| schestowitz | yes, part 2 was a bit long, a split into two would likely help. I'll wait for your go-ahead. | Jan 16 20:47 |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@c6f2nzqiwd2bc.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 21:24 | |
| schestowitz-TR | https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482766629536772099#m | Jan 16 21:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482766629536772099#m ) | Jan 16 21:51 | |
| schestowitz-TR | https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m | Jan 16 21:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m ) | Jan 16 21:52 | |
| schestowitz-TR | https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m?2 | Jan 16 21:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m?2 ) | Jan 16 21:52 | |
| schestowitz-TR | https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482763364707225601#m | Jan 16 21:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482763364707225601#m ) | Jan 16 21:52 | |
| *psydroid4 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jan 16 21:55 | |
| *psydroid4 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 21:56 | |
| *psydroid3 has quit (connection closed) | Jan 16 22:03 | |
| *tech_exorcist has quit (Quit: Disconnecting) | Jan 16 22:51 | |
| schestowitz | > Did you do something to restore *comments* being shown, or did it fix | Jan 16 22:53 |
| schestowitz | > itself, as sometimes happens? | Jan 16 22:53 |
| schestowitz | I did not even access the admin panel :-) | Jan 16 22:53 |
| schestowitz | GAFAM is shite | Jan 16 23:11 |
| schestowitz | it's getting access to too much data | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | It looks like there's an option of letting the devs getting the files, as shown in the screenshot, but even though the URL would be secret and expire hours later it might be wiser to also encrypt/password-protect this file first. | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | Any thoughts? | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | -me | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | colleagues don't even encrypt anything on the clown | Jan 16 23:12 |
| schestowitz | curl or wget running from the datacentre can retrieve the said file quickly. | Jan 16 23:13 |
| *Osthanes (~Osthanes@2s6zvsudxxtui.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 16 23:42 | |
| *Osthanes has quit (Quit: Quit) | Jan 16 23:48 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.