●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, January 16, 2022 ●●
● Jan 16
[00:06]	schestowitz	>> We can do a fiction piece for sure. Last year I
[00:06]	schestowitz	>> did lots of poetry with fictional scenarios that get some points across.
[00:06]	schestowitz	> 
[00:06]	schestowitz	> Oh that's refreshing.
[00:06]	schestowitz	> 
[00:06]	schestowitz	> Tell me what you think of this if you've time for a 15 min read
[00:06]	schestowitz	> 
[00:06]	schestowitz	> http://obiwannabe.co.uk/tmp/software-wars.html
[00:06]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-obiwannabe.co.uk | Peak Hack
[00:06]	schestowitz	I've just read everything.
[00:06]	schestowitz	First pass. Complete, but fast.
[00:06]	schestowitz	Spotted no typos. A future pass would possibly catch a few.
[00:06]	schestowitz	Agreed strongly.
[00:06]	schestowitz	This one stood out: "Universities had dumbed down computer science courses to certificate training."
[00:06]	schestowitz	Very true, but few exceptions still exist and they're going extinct.
[00:07]	schestowitz	Story about my day today at "work" (the one that pays for my food etc.): 
[00:07]	schestowitz	https://joindiaspora.com/posts/22322452
[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
[02:04]	schestowitz	I now have this added to "cpanel" in my host that covers TR https://docs.cpanel.net/cpanel/domains/dynamic-dns/#/
[02:04]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-docs.cpanel.net | Dynamic DNS | cPanel & WHM Documentation
[02:19]		*psydroid4 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[02:56]	schestowitz	https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/01/can-amending-description-to-summarize.html?showComment=1641802804414
[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
[02:56]	schestowitz	"
[02:56]	schestowitz	FragenderThursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:00:00 GMT
[02:56]	schestowitz	In German patent law there is 34 Abs. 7:
[02:56]	schestowitz	"Auf Verlangen des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts hat der Anmelder den Stand der Technik nach seinem besten Wissen vollstndig und wahrheitsgem anzugeben und in die Beschreibung (Absatz 3) aufzunehmen."
[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.
[02:56]	schestowitz	There is a corresponding paragraph in the PatV ( 10 Abs. 2 lit. 2) requiring this (for the initial description).
[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...).
[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.
[02:56]	schestowitz	Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 08:52:00 GMT
[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.
[02:56]	schestowitz	FragenderFriday, 7 January 2022 at 10:46:00 GMT
[02:56]	schestowitz	@Patent Robot
[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.
[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-
[02:56]	schestowitz	patents, I think it would be advisable to mention the state of the art in the description.
[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. 
[02:56]	schestowitz	Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 09:31:00 GMT
[02:56]	schestowitz	@Fragender
[02:56]	schestowitz	So we should uselessly (and dangerously) amend a European application to please a national court?
[02:56]	schestowitz	FragenderMonday, 10 January 2022 at 10:03:00 GMT
[02:56]	schestowitz	@Patent Robot
[02:57]	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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 11:18:00 GMT
[02:57]	schestowitz	@Fragender
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	AnonymousMonday, 10 January 2022 at 11:48:00 GMT
[02:57]	schestowitz	And following on from your logic, there is need to follow any laws/directions of courts. 
[02:57]	schestowitz	Following on further from your logic, there is no need to amend claims either given the cited art is known.
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	These arguments fall into the category of mistaking the rule of law for things I do not like. 
[02:57]	schestowitz	Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 15:15:00 GMT
[02:57]	schestowitz	@Anonymous
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:57]	schestowitz	AnonymousThursday, 6 January 2022 at 16:53:00 GMT
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:57]	schestowitz	MaxDreiThursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:52:00 GMT
[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 
[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 
[02:57]	schestowitz	dies, not by the sword, but by words of their own choosing. Long may it continue to be so.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:57]	schestowitz	Replies
[02:57]	schestowitz	Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 09:18:00 GMT
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	IMHO the description should never be amended, unless there are evident mistakes.
[02:57]	schestowitz	AnonymousFriday, 7 January 2022 at 10:35:00 GMT
[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.
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Patent RobotFriday, 7 January 2022 at 14:06:00 GMT
[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.
[02:57]	schestowitz	AnonymousFriday, 7 January 2022 at 15:05:00 GMT
[02:57]	schestowitz	You clearly have an understanding of the EPC at odds with accepted jurisprudence that the description should correspond to the claims. 
[02:57]	schestowitz	You interpret article 84 literally and ignore all BoA decisions who have interpreted it differently (the recent decision doesnt 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 
[02:57]	schestowitz	EPC does not require the opposite as you put it.
[02:57]	schestowitz	Patent RobotSunday, 9 January 2022 at 12:13:00 GMT
[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.
[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?
[02:57]	schestowitz	It is sufficient to copy the claims in the descrition to satisfy Art. 84 EPC.
[02:57]	schestowitz	MaxDreiSunday, 9 January 2022 at 14:02:00 GMT
[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.
[02:58]	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 
[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.
[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?
[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.
[02:58]	schestowitz	Patent RobotMonday, 10 January 2022 at 08:20:00 GMT
[02:58]	schestowitz	@MaxDrei
[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."
[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:
[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).
[02:58]	schestowitz	AnonymousMonday, 10 January 2022 at 09:45:00 GMT
[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 
[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. 
[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? 
[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?
[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 
[02:58]	schestowitz	all.
[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 
[02:58]	schestowitz	for being too greedy, eh? Is improved (for the record not perfect) drafting not a solution?
[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. 
[02:58]	schestowitz	Serious question, patent robot, are you arguing in good faith?
[02:58]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:58]	schestowitz	AnonymousThursday, 6 January 2022 at 19:33:00 GMT
[02:58]	schestowitz	Reading this thread makes me wonder what role do practitioners have to play in this?
[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.
[02:58]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:58]	schestowitz	Proof of the puddingFriday, 7 January 2022 at 12:08:00 GMT
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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-
[02:58]	schestowitz	unfriendly".
[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 
[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.
[02:58]	schestowitz	Reply
[02:58]	schestowitz	francis hagelSunday, 9 January 2022 at 20:42:00 GMT
[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 :
[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 
[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".
[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.
[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.
[02:59]	schestowitz	"
[02:59]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/12/breaking-board-of-appeal-finds-no-legal.html?showComment=1642070805390#c8643827882234031971
[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
[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."
[02:59]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/01/tokenization-of-intellectual-property.html?showComment=1642171899811#c8135352922819273785
[02:59]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Tokenization of intellectual property for IP rights management - The IPKat
[02:59]	schestowitz	"
[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!). 
[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.
[02:59]	schestowitz	"
● Jan 16
[05:56]		*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving)
● Jan 16
[06:56]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[06:56]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[08:26]	schestowitz	x https://matt-rickard.com/devops-platform-or/
[08:26]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-matt-rickard.com | Code or Issues in DevOps Platform(s)?
[08:35]		*SomeH4x0r has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[08:39]		*SomeH4x0r (~someh4xx@hbb3pgaksxfbq.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[09:57]		*tech_exorcist (~tech_exorcist@774nwuxzfj494.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[10:49]		*psydroid4 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[12:06]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
[12:06]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
[12:16]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[12:16]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	                                                                               
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	set-option mouse on
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	bind -n WheelUpPane if "[[ #{pane_current_command} =~ vim ]]" "select-pane -t = ;
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	tsend-keys -M" "select-pane -t = ; send-keys Up"
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	bind -n WheelDownPane if "[[ #{pane_current_command} =~ vim ]]" "select-pane -t =
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	 ; send-keys -M" "select-pane -t = ; send-keys Down"
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	adding those three lines in .tmux.conf allows some of the mouse functions
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	to work, including the wheel scrolling and clicking on panes to focus them.
[12:34]	Techrights-sec	Highlighting however is then shift-click instead of plain click
[12:34]	schestowitz-TR	Is this still a work in progress (I assume it is based on the relative calm in ytalk)
[12:46]	Techrights-sec	the .tmux.conf can be used in any context.  The chat proof-of-concept is more
[12:46]	Techrights-sec	or less at a decision point: the idea seems to work but to take it further
[12:46]	Techrights-sec	would mean impplementing it properly in  python or so.
[12:46]	Techrights-sec	Should it go in Git?  It's just a 25 line sketch to see if an idea worked.
[12:47]	schestowitz-TR	I have been running git pull many times thinking the code might become visibklelt
[12:47]	schestowitz-TR	e there
[12:47]	schestowitz-TR	for version control's sake it cannot hurt (reverting back changes(
[12:47]	Techrights-sec	For example there's not an extra process to monitor the logs and report on 
[12:47]	Techrights-sec	new connections.  
[12:48]	Techrights-sec	 I'll have to sanitize it and then add in a way for it t 
[12:48]	Techrights-sec	to still work.
[12:55]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[12:55]		*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[12:55]	Techrights-sec	it needs parameters to launch now, that itself can be scripted or added
[12:55]	Techrights-sec	to a function in the shell rc file:
[12:55]	Techrights-sec	/usr/local/binxxxxxxxh \
[12:55]	Techrights-sec	localhost xxxxx xxxx xxx bonumcertamencerta
[12:56]		*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
● Jan 16
[13:05]	Techrights-sec	ok it's in git, but probably should have even more annotations not to
[13:05]	Techrights-sec	develop the shell script parts further.  If done further it should use Python3
[13:05]	Techrights-sec	instead and maybe TLS if that can be made to work again with MQTT.       
[13:06]	schestowitz-TR	thanks.
[13:06]	schestowitz-TR	there are some biuts of code that have git directory names hard-coded
[13:06]	schestowitz-TR	so it might be worth grep -R those and adding "Chat"
[13:14]		*liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[13:14]		*rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[13:14]		*rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[13:16]	Techrights-sec	which ones?
[13:18]	schestowitz-TR	gemini-git-update.sh
[13:18]	schestowitz-TR	by the way the shellscript has no way of showing if it has disconnected
[13:18]	schestowitz-TR	as mentioned it was just a proof-of-concept test
[13:18]	schestowitz-TR	gemini-git-update.sh is a gemini-related script
[13:18]	Techrights-sec	by the way the shellscript has no way of showing if it has disconnected
[13:18]	Techrights-sec	as mentioned it was just a proof-of-concept test
[13:18]	Techrights-sec	gemini-git-update.sh is a gemini-related script
[13:20]	schestowitz-TR	there are also static references
[13:20]	schestowitz-TR	I think of those are absemt, no big deal
[13:20]	schestowitz-TR	it is in git
[13:20]	schestowitz-TR	but not ppublicly visible
[13:20]	schestowitz-TR	which is maybe OK given that you consider this early for public consumption
[13:21]	Techrights-sec	Git has been public via Gemini for a while now
[13:33]		*psydroid3 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[13:51]	Techrights-sec	there are some tmux oriented libraries for python but the APIs they use only
[13:51]	Techrights-sec	cover a small fraction of the capabilities.
● Jan 16
[14:29]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
[14:29]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
[14:53]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[14:53]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6pxtd49npuduw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[15:39]		*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[15:40]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[15:41]		*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
● Jan 16
[16:02]		*rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[16:02]		*rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[16:03]		*liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[17:17]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[17:18]		*u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
[17:25]		*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[17:25]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[17:26]		*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
[17:27]		*rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[17:27]		*rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[17:28]		*liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[17:31]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@joseon-rmogvn.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[17:31]		*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@t3phqsdfxhjau.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[18:01]		*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@649vp4tpz9j66.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[18:54]		*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving)
● Jan 16
[19:31]		*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[19:32]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[19:33]		*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
[19:54]		*rianne (~rianne@joseon-jhg.17c.k31cok.IP) has joined #boycottnovell
[19:54]		*rianne_ (~rianne@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[19:54]		*liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[20:47]	schestowitz	> I'll trim it a bit in the middle, part2 is too long,
[20:47]	schestowitz	> and then I'll link you to a copy that's ready to
[20:47]	schestowitz	> publish if you like
[20:47]	schestowitz	> cheers,
[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
[21:24]		*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@c6f2nzqiwd2bc.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[21:51]	schestowitz-TR	https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482766629536772099#m
[21:51]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482766629536772099#m )
[21:52]	schestowitz-TR	https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m
[21:52]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m )
[21:52]	schestowitz-TR	https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m?2
[21:52]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482764378252455951#m?2 )
[21:52]	schestowitz-TR	https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482763364707225601#m
[21:52]		-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nitter.eu/GyroWaveGen_TM/status/1482763364707225601#m )
[21:55]		*psydroid4 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[21:56]		*psydroid4 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
● Jan 16
[22:03]		*psydroid3 has quit (connection closed)
[22:51]		*tech_exorcist has quit (Quit: Disconnecting)
[22:53]	schestowitz	> Did you do something to restore *comments* being shown, or did it fix
[22:53]	schestowitz	> itself, as sometimes happens?
[22:53]	schestowitz	I did not even access the admin panel :-)
● Jan 16
[23:11]	schestowitz	GAFAM is shite
[23:12]	schestowitz	it's getting access to too much data
[23:12]	schestowitz	"
[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.
[23:12]	schestowitz	Any thoughts?
[23:12]	schestowitz	"
[23:12]	schestowitz	-me
[23:12]	schestowitz	colleagues don't even encrypt anything on the clown
[23:13]	schestowitz	curl or wget running from the datacentre can retrieve the said file quickly.
[23:42]		*Osthanes (~Osthanes@2s6zvsudxxtui.irc) has joined #boycottnovell
[23:48]		*Osthanes has quit (Quit: Quit)