SJ wrote: > I continue to be uncomfortable that we are sending out restricted / > locked-down machines without a clear need. The arguments made so far for > this are > > 1. "Getting G1G1 people to test security steps" > 2. "Protecting G1G1 donors from installing anything but signed builds" > 3. "Showing a pretty boot screen" > > 3. represents a bug that should be fixed. Tying pretty boot to > machine-lockdown is arbitrary.
agreed. as a G1G1 owner i wanted to see the boot messages quite a long time before i needed or wanted a dev key. > > 2. assumes that this is the best result for G1G1 donors, > which seems unlikely to me. Discovering how to update to > anything but the most aggressively promoted builds is already > a sign of tech savvy. and that technical savvy will lead them to the developer key, won't it? > This > protection would still effectively be in place for the vast majority of > users for whom it matters if we aggressively recommended to users (say, > after a couple of days of use) that they get a developers key if they want > full control of their machines for any reason. how would you aggressively recommend anything to a G1G1 user "after a couple of days of use"? in any case, trust me -- figuring out how to get ofw to boot a new kernel is _way_ harder and scarier than getting the dev key in the first place. :-) > > 1. is an interesting argument. As with 2, it would still > hold if recipients were actively encouraged to get developers > keys if they have any interest in having full control of their > machines (indeed you could say that they we would have a much > better test of the dev-key acquisition process, which > currently works more clearly in large batches for countries > than for individuals). i would have thought G1G1 proved that dev-key acquisition works just fine. paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 64.9 degrees) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel