●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 ●● ● Apr 24 [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] " [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Debian Chat in Context [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Before we can fix chat on Debian, we need to consider where we are today and how we got here. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] The beginnings [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] The traditional chat solution for Debian Developers and the wider world of free software developers is Internet Relay Chat, denoted by the acronym IRC. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] IRC began in a period when most people were using a desktop, few people were using a laptop and virtually nobody had a wireless device such as a mobile phone. The main competitors were dial-up bulletin board systems, each of them being an island. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] The size of the Internet in that era meant that only a limited number of servers were necessary and username collisions were not a major problem. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Where we are now [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] We won't go through the evolutionary changes step by step. Rather, we will simply fast forward to the problem today. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Today, many people already have a range of chat services before they even begin participating in free software. For example, somebody may have created accounts using social media during their teenage years. These users already have a critical mass of friends on those platforms and they are comfortable with the user interfaces on their mobile phones. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Asking them to start using IRC requires a big jump and a steep learning curve. It is obvious they can't bring their old friends with them. Using IRC means trying to maintain an entirely new persona alongside their existing personas on other platforms. This in itself is a burden on the mental capacity of any user. Many people only use the most basic features of IRC and only when they have to. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Where we are going [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] There have recently been attempts to coordinate multiple chat programs into a single interface. The popular Matrix chat software attempts to provide full integration for legacy IRC. Nonetheless, the Matrix developers themselves admit that they don't have a comprehensive solution to federation and identity, in other words, Matrix is marginally better than some alternatives but it is not a silver bullet. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Federated solutions are not new: both SIP and XMPP are federated real-time protocols that support chat messaging. It raises the questions, why didn't Matrix simply extend one of those existing protocols? [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] In parallel, while Matrix has pursued a federated approach, other developers have explored peer-to-peer and blockchain oriented solutions. One example of this is the Ring platform, now known as Jami. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] The peer-to-peer nature of Jami complements the federated strategy behind Matrix. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] In the world of SIP, we also have SIP RELOAD, a peer-to-peer, serverless technology that is another alternative to Jami. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] Next steps [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] The above comments attempt to clarify the current situation. In the next blog, we will examine strategic considerations for Debian and other open source users to move forward productively in the world of chat and IM. [01:12] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Apr 24 [02:22] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:25] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:32] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:43] *parsifal_ has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Apr 24 [04:05] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 24 [06:07] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 24 [07:18] schestowitz[TR2] "'Eventually I Had to Loosen Up': Bill Gates Memorised Employee Car Plates To Track Attendance" [07:18] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eventually-i-had-loosen-bill-gates-memorised-employee-car-plates-track-attendance-1724398 [07:18] schestowitz[TR2] # bill sez [07:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ibtimes.co.uk | 'Eventually I Had to Loosen Up': Bill Gates Memorised Employee Car Plates To Track Attendance | IBTimes UK ● Apr 24 [14:04] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:50] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 24 [15:20] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 24 [16:01] *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 24 [17:32] *jacobk (~quassel@pxkcyhnm2d6r4.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:44] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 24 [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    Profiling apps installed from apt-get
    [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]

    Do you ever want to profile some Ubuntu/Debian apps installed with apt-get, to see why they're slow, but all your symbols come out as [unknown], or there are stack frames missing? I'll explain how to fix these issues.

    [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [18:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [18:19] schestowitz[TR2] [18:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.markhansen.co.nz | Profiling apps installed from apt-get [18:24] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 24 [19:02] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713892747456#c7147626128322405111 [19:02] schestowitz[TR2] "Sorry, the end of my comment was missing. This is the complete comment.

    Instead of referring to general statements, please consider the current practice of the parties in parallel proceedings before the UPC and the opposition division of the EPO. In the Imagotag vs Hanshow case (EP3883277), opponent Hanshow referred in the notice of opposition to the claim interpretation laid out by patent monopoly owner Imagotag in its [19:02] schestowitz[TR2] PI appication before the UPC (see citation D16/MSW19). Hanshow took advantage of the broad interpretation used by Imagotag before the UPC to show a lack of novelty and IS. This shows the significance of consistency as to claim interpretation before infringement and validity assessment. It is noteworthy that the notice of opposition begins with an interpretation of claim features, inspired after arguments submitted before the UPC. [19:02] schestowitz[TR2] In brief, EPO and UPC proceedings are already intertwined.
    Intertwined proceedings also occur in the 10X Genomics vs Nanostring case (decision of the UPC Appeal Court of 26 Feb 2024, EP4108782)). Opponent Nanostring filed additional arguments shortly after the UPC decision explicitly based on the debate before the UPC." [19:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] "Instead of referring to general statements, please consider the current practice of the parties in parallel proceedings before the UPC and the opposition division of the EPO. In the Imagotag vs Hanshow case (EP3883277), opponent Hanshow referred in the notice of opposition to the claim interpretation laid out by patent monopoly owner Imagotag in its PI appication before the UPC (see citation D16/MSW19). Hanshow took advantage of t [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] he broad interpretation used by Imagotag before the UPC to show a lack of novelty and IS. This shows the significance of consistency as to claim interpretation before infringement and validity assessment. It is noteworthy that the notice of opposition begins with an interpretation of claim features, inspired after arguments submitted before the UPC. In brief, EPO and UPC proceedings are already intertwined.
    Intertwined proceed [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] ings also occur in the 10X Genomics vs Nanostring case (decision of the UPC Appeal Court of 26 Feb 2024, EP4108782)). Opponent Nanostring filed additional arguments shortly after the UPC decision explicitly based on the deb" [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] "Daniel, I agree. The way I explain to Americans why prosecution amendments are scrutinised for added matter more strictly in Europe than at the USPTO is that the courts in the USA have not yet had many years of adjudicating "priority contests" between rival filers under a "First to File" (FtF) patent monopoly system. When two powerful corporate filers file on much the same blockbuster subject matter on interla [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] ced filing dates, and the courts are required to decide which of them filed first, then every word of every prosecution amendment can be decisive.

    Under a "First to Invent" (FtI) patent monopoly system, it is not so decisive what wording Applicant files at the Patent Office, and in the USA there haven't yet been enough decades of case law under FtF to bring home to patent monopoly jurists in the USA that lax tr [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] eatment of prosecution amendments can have the consequence under FtF that a party who was not the first to file ends up with the dominant patent monopoly position.

    A nice example for academic study might be the blockbuster CRISPR-Cas9 (Charpentier et al) priority contest, ongoing at the EPO and in the USA (interference proceedings). But I expect the parties to settle: and that would be a pity, not only for this observer [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] but also for the educational benefit which the contest in Europe could deliver to US patent monopoly practitioners.

    Thinking about the reasons for having a patent monopoly system at all, it seems to me that FtF is better than FtI for (as the US Constitution has it) promoting progress in the useful arts.' [19:03] schestowitz[TR2] "" [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] "Dear Mr Hagel,

    I may happily acknowledge that you did not want to make the EPO practice of requiring description amendments the centre of the debate, but this is what you actually did by referring to at least one decision in which it was the topic.

    I cannot see why the case law of the UPC should play an eminent role. The UPC has vis--vis the EPO the same standing as a national court. National courts and th [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] e UPC on the one side and the boards of appeal of the EPO on the other side, are independent and will keep their independence.

    I therefore cannot see how a strong mutual influence between the EPO and the UPC will occur. The UPC may look at infringement and at nullity=validity. The EPO looks at validity=nullity. When looking at my reply to Fragender, you will see why, for historical reasons, the EPO is not primarily conc [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] erned by infringement. The interpretation by the UPC of Art 69 and its Protocol may thus take a totally different turn when it comes to infringement. If the patent monopoly is valid, equivalents will play a role. Free evaluation of evidence applies in full and diverging decisions may well occur when it comes to validity.

    In case of parallel actions on infringement/validity before the UPC and opposition before the EPO, [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] the last word on validity will be on the boards of appeal of the EPO. If a board revokes a patent monopoly any discussion on infringement at the UPC becomes moot. If the patent monopoly is severely limited, there might not be any infringement at all at the UPC.

    What should be avoided are diverging decisions on validity between the UPC and the EPO. It might however be difficult to achieve this. The UPC is geared for quic [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] k decisions and oppositions at the EPO take longer, be it only because of the built in periods for filing an opposition and/or an appeal.

    In a panel discussion between Sir Robin Jacob and the Chair of the Legal board, Sir Robin wanted the chair of the legal board to acknowledge/accept that the EPO will follow the case law of the UPC. The chair of the EPO never acknowledged it, he simply replied it depends.
    [19:04] schestowitz[TR2]
    During the same discussion one of the panellists considered that the number of oppositions being filed at the EPO will not decay, be it only for the much lower costs and the time opened, for instance to generic manufacturers of medicines, to keep the fate of a granted patent monopoly in limbo.

    When you see the rate of survival of patents after opposition and appeal (20%), it might well be that some infringement ac [19:04] schestowitz[TR2] tions before the UPC are started on the basis of a shoddily granted European patent. In 90% of the cases, the opponent brings PA, also under Art 54(3), which was available in the search files of the EPO. " [19:36] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 24 [21:40] *Moocher5254 has quit (Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.) ● Apr 24 [22:31] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)