On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Kim Quirk wrote: > 1 - I thought requiring signed images was part of our bitfrost > security. Doesn't it provide some protection from malicious images? > Assuming we get to the point where upgrading is an easy click from the > G1G1 machine, then we want to be sure that people don't mistakenly > load non-signed images. If you are not a developer; doesn't this add a > level of protection that we want for 90% of G1G1 recipients?
how about an option to install a 'tester key' that would let a machine download test builds that are then signed by a different key then the production builds. by comparison a developer key would let them install anything. > 2 - I believe our support issues will go up significantly as people > who have little or no experience are encouraged to download all sorts > of untested builds with no easy way to get back to a working system. > To feel better about the support issues, I would like the one-button > push that restores a laptop to factory default. Actually walking > people through a cleaninstall is a very time-consuming process right > now. there is currently a one button reboot to the prior version, so people wiil only need to do a cleaninstall if they install two broken builds in a row, _and_ can't use either build to install a good build (which is unlikely becouse they used the older one to install the one after that, so they should be able to use that older one to install a working build) David Lang > Finally, I agree with Scott, that the easiest thing we can do in the > short term is to make the 'get a developer key' more prominent for > those who want to find it. I would really like a brief note about how > they should first be familiar with how to do a factory cleaninstall > before they unprotect their machine. > > Kim > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:50 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:20 PM, reynt0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I also want to be able to examine the XO as thoroughly as >>> possible from my own (USA, educated, experienced, and so >>> on) perspective. In that regard, FWIW I found the various >>> infos I later could find from olpc a bit unclear or even >>> seeming at first glance inconsistent about how usable a >>> G1G1 XO could be as-delivered. My present understanding >>> is that I will need a developer's key, and that I can get >>> one by asking when I'm ready to (though I'm not sure if >>> I would be able to if I were a non-compsci G1G1), tho I >>> am willing to accept that this understanding may be wrong. >> >> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Developer_key >> >> I would like to see the link for requesting a developer key made much >> more prominent in the library. (I've cc'ed SJ specifically to see if >> he can make that happen for me.) >> --scott >> >> -- >> ( http://cscott.net/ ) >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> Devel@lists.laptop.org >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >> > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel