Nigel Tao wrote:
You mean running untrusted code from the Web?
Nigel said it would be possible to secure it a bit using GPG keys.
Maybe this kind of signing should be made a requirement.
Well, should signing be necessary and/or sufficient, and who makes
that decision?
Hi,
Le mardi 01 août 2006, à 11:42, Nigel Tao a écrit :
You mean running untrusted code from the Web?
Nigel said it would be possible to secure it a bit using GPG keys.
Maybe this kind of signing should be made a requirement.
Well, should signing be necessary and/or sufficient, and
On 01/08/06, Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cant python be sandboxed?
not sure if it helps in this case or not as I bet you want the python
code to have full access to the system.
Not in the sense that javascript can be sandboxed. Some of the
developers are looking at restricted
David Zeuthen wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 18:06 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
I will however, disagree that we need to provide such explicit
icons as to state what method a hard disk is connect to the computer
through, or what type of data is contained on an optical disc, in a
base
GNOME
James Henstridge wrote:
I think you'll agree that we want a11y enabled for all GTK
applications, and the best way to do this is to make the
initialisation happen in gtk_init(). The gtk-modules XSETTING makes
this possible. The proposed method of getting things loaded is:
1.
It's probably libbonoboui that needs to add libgail-gnome as an
additional module.
I am a little uneasy about making this change so late, but if someone
volunteers to help test, I'd be OK with it.
Bill
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 15:34, Jani Monoses wrote:
James Henstridge wrote:
I think you'll
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 10:31 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
David Zeuthen wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 18:06 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
I will however, disagree that we need to provide such explicit
icons as to state what method a hard disk is connect to the computer
through, or what type of
On 8/1/06, Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always intended to draw the specific media icons, but I really hope to
see infrastructure for getting the generic fallback in place first so
that theming is actually a solution and not an excuse.
But certainly thats not an excuse for ripping
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On 8/1/06, Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always intended to draw the specific media icons, but I really hope to
see infrastructure for getting the generic fallback in place first so
that theming is actually a solution and not an excuse.
But certainly
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:37 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On 8/1/06, Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always intended to draw the specific media icons, but I really hope to
see infrastructure for getting the generic fallback in place first so
that theming is actually a solution
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 18:31 +0200, Jakub Steiner wrote:
I perfectly see the advantage of having a set of unique device icons for
different flash cards. It's undoubtedly easier to use if my desktop is
populated by distinguishable device icons. But in my view it's much
worse to have, say
Jakub Steiner wrote:
An image thumbnail will give you much more information than a text label
on a tiny icon and that is likely to be the default case on the GNOME
desktop.
Unless, like me, you're always converting images that are large and you
don't want to thumbnail, but you want to quickly
2006/8/1, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Le mardi 01 août 2006, à 11:42, Nigel Tao a écrit :
You mean running untrusted code from the Web?
Nigel said it would be possible to secure it a bit using GPG keys.
Maybe this kind of signing should be made a requirement.
Well, should
Jakub Steiner wrote:
I don't know how much time exactly went into gnome icon theme over the
years, but I do feel like we failed to provide a good icon theming
platform for distributions. Back then we had old Gnome 1.0 styled icons
inconsistency. Then I tried to create an icon for every single
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 14:28 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
Jakub Steiner wrote:
An image thumbnail will give you much more information than a text label
on a tiny icon and that is likely to be the default case on the GNOME
desktop.
Unless, like me, you're always converting images that are
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:45 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is
already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer
the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons that were consistent enough to
my 2.12 desktop where I've
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:49 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:45 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is
already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer
the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons
quote who=Rodney Dawes
Nobody has made it an excuse. The icons didn't disappear. They were
symlinked to another icon. It's been that way for 8+ months. And not a
single person has complained or filed a bug on it, until now. I would
consider linking to the wrong icon to be a bug. However, it
On 8/1/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would waiting for the 2.18 release cycle be an issue for desbkar?
I don't think that there's any issues, but we'll discuss this on
deskbar-applet-list. If we do punt to 2.18, will we just rebadge the
latest 2.14 as 2.16.0? Leave d-a 2.14 as
On 7/31/06, Steve Frécinaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Tao wrote:
You mean running untrusted code from the Web?
Nigel said it would be possible to secure it a bit using GPG keys.
Maybe this kind of signing should be made a requirement.
Well, should signing be necessary and/or
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 20:45 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
Ironically hal or gnome-vfs seem to insist that my Compact Flash and
Memory Stick devices are all USB hard disks, both on FC5, and on my
laptop running SLED 10. And, no, this isn't due to a theme with the
wrong symlinks. It happens with
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 10:45 +1000, Nigel Tao wrote:
On 8/2/06, Shaun McCance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With an automated listy-clicky thing, you don't get to see
explicit files, and you have no way of checking against a
checksum or a digital signature.
Yeah, an example: suppose there's a
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 20:36 +0200, Isak Savo wrote:
As such, I don't really see why this thing would be impose any
security issues that didn't exist earlier. Lots of applications
already have a plug-in system, and to my knowledge, they also allow
extra plugins to be installed in $HOME (i.e.
23 matches
Mail list logo
