?

Log in

No account? Create an account
logjam's future - LogJam [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LogJam

[ website | LogJam ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

logjam's future [Jun. 26th, 2004|11:26 am]
LogJam
logjam
[evan]
As some people have noticed, I now have a real job, and so I don't expect to have as much time to work on LogJam. I'm sorta happy with where it is right now, though; even though I probably only use the program a few minutes a week, it seems to get the job done for me. Though, arguably, even version 0.1 did that. :)

But because I now work for a company that heavily uses both Linux and Blogger, I've been seriously considering finishing the Blogger support. gaal just posted in logjam_dev about supporting a comments sync. And I've heard rumors of extending smartquotes support for other languages (er, edit: I see someone has posted a patch? argh, I don't even have time to read LiveJournal anymore...).

In any case, expect development to slow down, but hopefully not stop completely. (But also expect nothing to happen anytime soon: I'm currently living in a two-bedroom apartment with six people... I hardly have a place to sleep, let alone a computer to use.)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: quirrc
2004-06-26 06:35 pm (UTC)
do you think that blogger support is good for lj client? in such poll about semagic not long ago about 30% for some reason said No.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: evan
2004-06-27 04:31 am (UTC)
all the code and necessary abstractions (multiple servertypes, users, protocols, etc.) are already there, just #ifdef'd out.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: redcountess
2004-06-26 06:58 pm (UTC)
Congrats on the day job, and thanks for Logjam (am about to try it on Windows as I already have GTK 2 installed for Gaim)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nilbus
2004-06-26 08:08 pm (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for logjam ^_^ You are awesome!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: discordian
2004-06-27 12:00 am (UTC)
I'm with you. This latest version has absolutely everything I ever use when updating LJ. Thanks a lot for a great product and the best of luck with Google. I don't doubt they are a fun bunch to work with.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tar_miriel
2004-06-27 11:55 am (UTC)

logjam is wonderful

and stable and good, Thanks for making it.

Although as the author perhaps you can think of many things more you would do, for my $0.02 it's a very complete work.

and congrats on the new job!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: exabyte
2004-06-27 03:52 pm (UTC)

wowo

"two-bedroom apartment with six people".

That will be temporary I hope. Anyway dude many thanks for all the work you have done. I have been using logjam since the begining and it always suited my purposes. Way back, after loosing a few entries, I moaned about 'Save', but learned how to select the text before I clicked submit :). Not long after than automatic save was implemented...

Anyway, good luck with the new job and thanks for your time and effort. I really appreciate it!

-Aaron
(Reply) (Thread)
From: xsteadfastx
2004-06-27 06:41 pm (UTC)
you made livejournal so great for linux users and i always enjoy logjam. and i hope your job is great and all that....you amde a great job here too anyway
(Reply) (Thread)
From: davidcougle
2004-06-29 09:14 am (UTC)
Is it possible to get a secure login(that would do fine over wireless in a coffeehouse) with logjam? the website has https://www.livejournal.com login, just wondering if logjam supports somthing similar.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: evan
2004-08-03 04:10 pm (UTC)
by default, the latest version uses a challenge-response mechanism that ought to keep at least your password safe. i haven't tested it extensively, though, and i know there used to be a bug where if your login failed for any reason (bad password, etc.) it would assume the server didn't support chal-resp and would fall back to plain logins.

if you're using lj wirelessly, your best bet is to set up an ssh tunnel and proxy over that. even if logjam does https, livejournal itself doesn't for most pages.
if you're just concerned about keeping your password secure, the default logjam behavior ought to be enough.

(note: the chalresp stuff may only be running on livejournal.com and maybe deadjournal.com)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)