Poll: Do you have an OpenID?
I'm reconsidering the authentication that I'm using in my Rails application, and I have a simple question for you all: Do you have an OpenID?<p>My application is targeted to developers, so the response here should be similar to what it would be for potential users of my web application (I'd think).<p>Remember that services like Google, Yahoo, AIM, etc are OpenID providers, so if you have an account with them, you have an OpenID.<p>Thanks!
42 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 97.5 ms ] threadI hope openid becomes mainstream some day, I really like logging in once, and I really like being able to log in to a new site without having to register.
And the provider implementation is my own, running on a server I have physical access to, with a self-signed certificate.
I toyed with the idea of adding OpenID to my various projects, but haven't, and don't intend to, but my apps are targeted towards a different audience than yours.
That is OpenIDs big flaw... How many average web users do you know that remember a url? Most of them head to google to find sites they know well.
This is why facebook connect and the like are more popular; they are easy.
I'm currently building an app that relies solely on OpenID for user auth. I chose to enable only these sites, so that (a) users are not required to supply/complete a URL, and (b) there isn't the "which OpenID did I use this site?" when a user returns to it after a while.
I have used it and logged on to stackoverflow.com. It does work.
It's fine if that's what you expose by default, but you really do need to give the user a checkbox or something so they can input their own if they have one. I have an OpenID I use everywhere, if I come to one of your sites and end up using my google ID instead it will cause me nothing but frustration and end up being less secure.
In fact I'd probably not login to your site because of this if I didn't have a compelling reason to do so.
Google uses a singular URL for all identities that OpenID consumers use to discover the true user identity, which is unique per user per consumer domain.
Even for an OpenID-savvy user, why would it be frustrating or less secure to login via Google? If someone got my Gmail password, sites like mine would be the least of my worries..
I always use Facebook Connect (via Facebooker plugin) over OpenID authentication. The adoption rate and viral advantages of Facebook are unmatched.
From a website owner standpoint, it's so hard to implement, both technically and conceptually (tying into my sites regular registration flow) that it just convolutes the process for the user.
For example, as far as I know since the last time I attempted implementing openID, the only info I am guaranteed to receive from an openID identified user is their identifier. So if my site collects email addresses or any other info, I would have to have them enter that anyways.
In most cases OpenID registration actually takes longer, just so the user can use one account password.
The biggest trouble was when I tried to associate multiple IDs with my StackOverflow.com account -- ended up they had a bug and it was fixed within a day.
My browser keeps my login state and I don't want to figure something out to replace something that works pretty well.
I do not believe anything more than an email address and service-specific password should be sufficient to authenticate me - like StackOverflow uses with their OpenID setup.
If a site asks me my OpenID URL or identifier or other thing, I don't bother, as it's too much work.
And the "don't delegate to somebody you don't trust" model? Even the most trustworthy of companies can implode and reboot and sell off all sorts of data on their users.
Sure, I can delegate. Not.
I have my own OpenID server. I don't use it.
I mean, if I'm registering at a new website, it seems considerably easier to enter one item -- my OpenID identifier -- and then be immediately verified, rather than go through the "enter email address -> get confirmation email -> click on confirmation link -> choose new password -> hope that the site is compatible with Firefox's password manager so I don't have to enter it every time" treadmill for each site.
So, explain to me, what makes you complain so much about using an OpenID?
I think StackOverflow is a good example of how confusing it can be. Their wall of possible ways to login is very confusing. Yes, I actually have accounts with ALL those sites listed... but which one did I setup for StackOverflow? If I pick an OpenID provider that wasn't associated with StackOverflow it starts to create a NEW account for me. Not what I wanted!
In the end, an Email and Password with my browser remembering it works just fine.
Were you aware that you can associate multiple OpenIDs with one account at StackOverflow?
Do you ever use a computer that does not store your passwords for you?
Would a standard OpenID-remembering feature in your browser help change your mind?
I also prefer email because I have a set of spam/anonymous addresses I can use to test sites that I don't trust quite yet with my real information. Having spam/anonymous OpenID accounts would be a real mess to manage.
StackOverflow lets me pick a max of two OpenIDs. But why not instead let me specify an infinite number of verified email addresses to login with instead?
I'm not sure if one of the goals of OpenID is to show that I'm the same user across multiple sites. That's a feature I'm sometimes interested in with certain sites and sometimes absolutely not interested in with others.
Registering on a site which doesn't have OpenID is three steps, or five when e-mail addresses are involved:
5 can be cumbersome when kmail isn't running, but usually it's already running.Registering at an OpenID site:
Logging in on normal site: Logging in on OpenID site: It's usually slower to use, it requires more thought on my part, and it makes it more annoying to keep multiple identities around. Cumbersome.Also, were you aware that, for instance, on Facebook, you are automatically logged in whenever you are also logged in to your OpenID provider?
If you give people an opportunity to make a judgement, some will always take it, regardless of whether a judgement makes sense or not.
And that's one of the reasons I don't want to use OpenID.
The internet is full of this braindead social shit. It's only a question of time until somebody comes up with the idea to aggregate all the meaningless karma across many sites. And it's only a question of time until that super karma score is quoted on your resume together with how many "followers", "friends" or other kind of nonsensical internet money you have accumulated ... by hook or crook.
Gaining insight, asking questions, having a debate, making judgements, pushing an agenda, feeling good about judging others without making a case for or against anything. These things all get mixed up relentlessly in these primitive voting schemes.
And not even the smart people who make this website seem to realise what an intellectual mess their Frankenstein game theory is. Or maybe they do but still think it's worth it.
I disagree. The filtering effect of all these voting schemes is next to worthless. It creates more perverse incentives than positive ones. It's getting totally out of control. Millions of people are morphing into one man/woman cynical self marketing machines collecting fake internet money.
I'm waiting for the world's first karma inflation crisis :-)
Thanks for voting and commenting, this has given me a really good idea of what direction I should go in when I revamp my application's authentication.