On 02/17/2013 03:26 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 17.02.2013, 14:46 +0100 schrieb Tadej Janež:
On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 12:02 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I found that a couple of F16 bugs were closed by endoflife@fp.o even
though there were pending updates for F17 and F18 to
On 10/25/2012 03:04 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 10/25/2012 09:55 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller
[snip]
It is often useful in enterprise settings to do non-kickstart installs while
prototyping. *And*, people running Fedora in those settings probably
On 10/16/2012 05:41 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
I just found another problem with the upgrade to kernel 3.6.1
My Saitek Pro Flight controls (yoke and pedals) refuse to operate now.
I can see them in dmesg but they do nothing when running FlightGear now.
Solved by updating kernel-modules-extra
Filed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867024
On 10/16/2012 03:40 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 19:48 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
I just upgraded my F17 kernel to 3.6.1 and when I reboot then my Logitech
illuminated keyboard is not lit until I touch
a key
On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 15 October 2012 17:48, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
I just upgraded my F17 kernel to 3.6.1 and when I reboot then my Logitech
illuminated keyboard is not lit until I touch
a key and then it goes right back off.
Kind of defeats
I just found another problem with the upgrade to kernel 3.6.1
My Saitek Pro Flight controls (yoke and pedals) refuse to operate now.
I can see them in dmesg but they do nothing when running FlightGear now.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
FlightGear 2.8.0 has been released.
And it supports a lot more controllers.
Can we have FlightGear updated to 2.8.0 for F17?
Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 09/11/2012 12:03 AM, Tomas Dabašinskas wrote:
FlightGear 2.8.0
Opened bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856053
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Trying to run directfb on F17 I noticed 5 issues:
1) libdirectfb_vdpau.so: undefined symbol: XUnlockDisplay (Bug 852740:
fixed)
2) Unable to run DirectFB as a normal user (Bug 852745: open)
3) permissions on /dev/tty* and /dev/fb* not set by udev (probably should
be addressed
On 08/30/2012 09:00 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 08/29/2012 06:52 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
(!) DirectFB/core/vt: Error opening `/dev/tty1'!
-- Permission denied
(!) DirectFB/Core: Could not initialize 'system_core' core!
-- A general initialization error occured
If I run the command under root I see a more extensive output but having same
problems w/1024x768:
# dfbinfo
~~| DirectFB 1.6.1 |~~
(c) 2001-2012 The world wide DirectFB Open Source Community
(c) 2000-2004
After manually setting tty0 and tty1 using the previous chmod command now when
I reboot I get a strange mix of tty settings.
Originally they would all have permissions like this:
crw--w. 1 root tty 4, 10 Aug 30 2012 /dev/tty10
But now they are a mix of settings:
# ls -l
On 08/30/2012 09:40 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 08/30/2012 09:26 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
If I run the command under root I see a more extensive output but having
same problems w/1024x768:
(*) DirectFB/Core/WM: Default 0.3 (directfb.org)
(!!!) *** ONCE [no mode found for 1024x768
On 08/30/2012 09:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 08/30/2012 09:40 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 08/30/2012 09:26 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
If I run the command under root I see a more extensive output but having
same problems w/1024x768:
(*) DirectFB/Core/WM: Default 0.3 (directfb.org
On 08/30/2012 11:16 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 8/30/12 9:26 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
(*) DirectFB/FBDev: Found 'inteldrmfb' (ID 0) with frame buffer at
0xc0064000, 8100k (MMIO 0x, 0k)
So this says you're using the intel drm driver...
(*) DirectFB/Core/WM: Default 0.3
On 08/28/2012 11:57 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 08/27/2012 10:59 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Hi Gerry,
Try contacting the main dev. mailing-list of DirectFB. I'm sure you'll get
an answer there.
Btw, DirectFB-1.5.3 is rather old, DirectFB-1.6.1 is rather the latest
stable release.
-Ilyes
On 08/29/2012 02:33 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 08/29/2012 09:25 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
DirectFB says that there are Fedora packaging errors which are causing the
undefined symbol on XUnlockDisplay and
inability to run as normal user.
Upstream is wrong, btw.
The dlopen problem is caused
Tom,
Ok, I tried testing with the following settings:
$ ls -l /dev/tty{,0,1} /dev/fb{,0}
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 3 Aug 21 21:52 /dev/fb - fb0
crw-rw-rw-. 1 root video 29, 0 Aug 21 21:52 /dev/fb0
crw-rw-rw-. 1 root tty5, 0 Aug 21 21:52 /dev/tty
crw--w. 1 root
On 08/29/2012 06:43 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Gerry,
You could also use DirectFB's X11 system module, so that you can run
DirectFB-based applications in a usual X11 window. You can tell
DirectFB so by using the DFBARGS environment variable:
$ export DFBARGS=system=x11,mode=1280x800
(probably
On 08/27/2012 10:59 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Hi Gerry,
Try contacting the main dev. mailing-list of DirectFB. I'm sure you'll get an
answer there.
Btw, DirectFB-1.5.3 is rather old, DirectFB-1.6.1 is rather the latest stable
release.
-Ilyes
Thanks Ilyes.
I'll try posting over on the
On 08/24/2012 06:56 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
I have had no success whatsoever getting DirectFB to run under F17 as a
regular user on my HP laptop.
# yum list DirectFB
Installed Packages
directfb.x86_64 1.5.3-7.fc17
I have had no success whatsoever getting DirectFB to run under F17 as a regular
user on my HP laptop.
# yum list DirectFB
Installed Packages
directfb.x86_64 1.5.3-7.fc17
@updates
I have discussed the
On 07/30/2012 10:58 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:35:20PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 07/26/2012 05:12 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:59:20PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
When booting Fedora 17 x64 there's the GRUB bootloader with graphical
On 07/30/2012 11:28 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:21:54AM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 07/30/2012 10:58 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:35:20PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 07/26/2012 05:12 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:59
I encountered a similar problem when using a new Intel Xeon (Ivy Bridge) CPU.
The issue occurred with Ivy Bridge w/iGPU onboard.
Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840180
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
There are missing Ivy Bridge definitions in the intel_chipset.h file in libdrm
which causes machines with Ivy Bridge
CPU's w/embedded iGPU to fail when starting X.
As I said in the bug, installing libdrm 2.4.37 from bodhi fixed the issue on my
F17 machine.
On 07/26/2012 02:05 PM, Gerry Reno
On 07/26/2012 04:31 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:44:24PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
There are missing Ivy Bridge definitions in the intel_chipset.h file in
libdrm which causes machines with Ivy Bridge
CPU's w/embedded iGPU to fail when starting X.
As I said in the bug
On 07/26/2012 05:12 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:59:20PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
When booting Fedora 17 x64 there's the GRUB bootloader with graphical
background image,
I let it boot the default entry Fedora 17, I see it the allocating memory
pages, loading
It worked.
I grabbed the libdrm 2.4.37 rpm from bodhi and it fixed the problem on my
Xeon(Ivy Bridge) machine.
On 07/18/2012 05:32 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:33 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 07/18/2012 04:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 15:21:24
Has there been any trouble booting the 3.4.4-5 kernel?
I updated one of my F17 machines today and it brought in a new kernel, 3.4.4-5.
When I rebooted the box after all the updates completed it refused to boot.
It just hangs with a non-blinking cursor in the upper left hand corner of a
totally
On 07/18/2012 04:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 15:21:24 -0400,
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Has there been any trouble booting the 3.4.4-5 kernel?
I didn't have issues with it, but have now switched to 3.4.5-2 which is
available from koji.
It appears my
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a Win8 ARM
system and expect to run Fedora.
One should be very, very
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform
On 06/08/2012 09:20 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34
On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net said:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets
On 06/08/2012 11:55 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a Win8 ARM
On 06/07/2012 01:25 PM, Richard Vickery wrote:
since the upgrade to 17, I've been experiencing system freezes on frequent
occasions when getting up from the
computer. The term frequent used in this context has a different meaning
from constantly; there are many moments
when I can get up to
Today tried installing F17 x86_64 from DVD and get these errors:
ERROR: could not insert 'floppy': No such device
Loading Fedora 17 x86_64 installer...
dracut Warning: Unable to process initqueue
dracut Warning: /dev/disk/by-label/Fedorax2017x20x86_64 does not exist
dracut
On 06/04/2012 10:24 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/01/2012 03:56 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Drive manufacturers need to do nothing.
One drive probably SSD
On 06/04/2012 03:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:06:46 -0400
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Today tried installing F17 x86_64 from DVD and get these errors:
ERROR: could not insert 'floppy': No such device
Loading Fedora 17 x86_64 installer...
dracut
On 06/04/2012 06:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/04/2012 03:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:06:46 -0400
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Today tried installing F17 x86_64 from DVD and get these errors:
ERROR: could not insert 'floppy': No such device
Loading
On 06/04/2012 07:37 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/04/2012 06:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/04/2012 03:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:06:46 -0400
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Today tried installing F17 x86_64 from DVD and get these errors:
ERROR: could not insert
On 06/04/2012 07:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:37:07 -0400
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Burned another DVD and booting it got some other errors (rpcbind?)
but it runs the installer at least.
I'm doing custom partitioning and I selected to encrypt the LVM
physical
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp as
tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 06/01/2012 11:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
Thats not true
On 06/01/2012 11:18 AM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 03:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
- Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
platform Fedora will support it).
And this is exactly why we should just require our users to disable it!
On 06/01/2012 11:52 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
Benefit to Fedora bullets are not compelling.
On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
machines.
Nonsense. They will be able to install it very easily, they just need to set
a
On 06/01/2012 12:10 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
machines.
Nonsense. They will be able to install
On 06/01/2012 12:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Debarshi Ray wrote:
By the way, I am assuming that you know that one can't modify Firefox and
redistribute it as Firefox without certification.
I've been pointing out this issue in several threads. That's exactly why
Fedora should finally follow
On 06/01/2012 12:10 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
machines.
Nonsense. They will be able to install
On 06/01/2012 12:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:16:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
False. Quoting from Matthew's original post:
A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys
and replace them with your own. After that it's
On 06/01/2012 12:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom Callaway wrote:
Do we want to support dual-booting with Windows 8? Microsoft describes
SecureBoot enablement as Required for Windows 8 client [1]? What does
that mean? We're not sure. At best, it means that BitLocker isn't going
to work, at
On 06/01/2012 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
preservation,
I'm about to put in an SSD boot disk, so I care about this argument,
but I'm still not using tmpfs, for my reasons stated previously.
but tmpfs also offers considerable
Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
SecureBoot enabled?
Can users flash BIOS to remove SecureBoot?
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 06/01/2012 02:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:16:45 -0400
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
My understanding: no.
There are multiple examples on the web of people installing Windows-8 on
existing
On 06/01/2012 02:24 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
Yes.
Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
SecureBoot enabled?
Yes.
Can users
I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest
Rube-Goldberg machine.
I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've dreamt
up here.
The whole problem they are trying to solve is that of booting only known-good
code.
That would be much easier
On 06/01/2012 03:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:14 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest
Rube-Goldberg machine.
I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've
dreamt up here
On 06/01/2012 03:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
That would be much easier accomplished by having the OS reside on a
read-only device that could only be written to by
the user actively using hardware to enable the write during installation.
Except
On 06/01/2012 03:56 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Drive manufacturers need to do nothing.
One drive probably SSD at this point, gets dedicated to OS. Other drive to
everything else.
The read-write controllable interfaces already
On 05/31/2012 09:27 AM, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
* We bring Fedora closer to commercial Unixes and other Linux distributions.
Um, so? Any solaris admin worth their salt kills the ram-based /tmp as soon
as the install is finished. Its been
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/31/2012 12:06 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
If you're looking for a mantra to recite ad infinitum, that's a fine one, but
right now we're looking for ideas that are helpful and productive
On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
That is just untrue. SecureBoot can be used
On 05/31/2012 12:22 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
This is a monopolistic attack disguised as a security effort.
The argument that it's a security effort is bolstered in many vendors eyes
by the existence of attacks in the wild which Secure Boot would
On 05/31/2012 12:46 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Renogr...@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot
On 05/31/2012 12:57 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:53 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
on the OS being
On 05/31/2012 01:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
Maybe it checks the BIOS to determine whether some SecureBoot flag is set.
While it pains me to argue with someone on my side
On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
Maybe
On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012
On 05/31/2012 01:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Platforms implementing secure boot will require cryptographically signed
firmware updates, so the only way an attacker
will be able to modify your system is by having physical access to the flash.
Well, at least that part is good.
--
devel
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12
On 05/31/2012 01:57 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12
On 05/31/2012 02:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:57 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12
On 05/31/2012 02:52 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:57 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52
On 05/31/2012 04:04 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:52 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote
On 05/31/2012 04:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
And I'd rather see a User-Controlled implementation rather than a
Monopoly-Controlled implementation.
SecureBoot is (currently, on x86 but not arm) _also_ user-controlled
On 05/31/2012 05:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:31 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 04:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
And I'd rather see a User-Controlled implementation rather than a
Monopoly
On 05/31/2012 09:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
- Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
platform Fedora will support it).
And this is exactly why we should just require our users to disable it!
I don't see any advantage at all from supporting this
On 05/25/2012 04:40 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 05/24/2012 03:20 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Since I'm putting an SSD in my laptop this is important because the laptop
drive must be encrypted.
I hope your CPU has AES-NI.
A powerful i7 does AES at 50MiB/s (don't remember exactly, but below 100MiB
On 05/24/2012 04:45 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Juan Orti Alcaine
j.orti.alca...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/24 Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net
What does Fedora do currently, if anything, to optimize for solid-state
drives (SSD).
Things like swap and logging can generate
What does Fedora do currently, if anything, to optimize for solid-state drives
(SSD).
Things like swap and logging can generate a huge number of writes. So I
suppose those should maybe be placed on a
rotating drive if one is available but if not does Fedora do anything to reduce
the amount of
In looking back through some of the meeting minutes I saw that RealHotspot has
been approved for Fedora 18.
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-03-19)
===
Meeting started by limburgher at 18:00:23 UTC. The full logs
On 05/18/2012 09:42 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 18:21 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
In looking back through some of the meeting minutes I saw that RealHotspot
has been approved for Fedora 18.
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-03-19
On 05/14/2012 08:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 11:49 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 05/12/2012 09:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00:48AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
So the set of people we'd be inconveniencing is exactly the set of
people with no
On 05/15/2012 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 09:52 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
The most important issue in this thread is ability to boot from USB2.0.
No, it isn't. mjg59 wrote:
the inability to boot from anything larger than a CD and no USB ports
that can
If you watch, you can get DVD burners for about $15 USD.
eg:
http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/62972/newegg-liteon-external-cddvd-burner-w-lightscribe-support
Or used for about $5-$10 at any flea market.
On 05/09/2012 04:33 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
On 05/09/2012 05:34 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 05/09/2012 01:33 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
I'd like to break CD limit too but we should not forgot there are users
for which CD is top technology from dreams and we have a lot of
Shotwell 0.10 has a nasty event name corruption bug so I thought I would try to
compile 0.12 from source.
I installed the dependencies:
# yum install vala GConf2-devel libgee-devel libgexiv2-devel glib2-devel
gstreamer-devel gstreamer-plugins-base-devel
gtk3-devel libgudev1-devel libexif-devel
On 03/23/2012 11:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.03.2012 16:19, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
David Lehman wrote:
I was able to complete an install of F17-Alpha just now with all lvm. I
had to force the use of MSDOS disklabel instead of GPT (used parted's
mklabel command on tty2
If I might interrupt this non-stop streaming ARM discussion for just a
second, is anyone else having problems with Firefox 11 in Fedora 16?
Firefox is crashing hard, as in shutting down the entire computer. And
this is happening quite frequently. Firefox is stock. No addons, or
changes.
On 03/22/2012 05:20 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/22/2012 05:13 PM, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am 22.03.2012 22:04, schrieb Gerry Reno:
If I might interrupt this non-stop streaming ARM discussion for just a
second, is anyone else having problems with Firefox 11 in Fedora 16?
Firefox
On 03/22/2012 07:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Just odd that Firefox is the only app causing the problem. I'll let
memtest run a while.
Yeah different apps have different memory requirements so it just may be
doing something a little
On 03/22/2012 09:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
So I played around with the encryption settings and when
I disabled TLS the crashes stopped. At least so far. I haven't had a
crash in a couple hours now.
Change them back, reproduce
On 03/22/2012 10:00 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/22/2012 09:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
So I played around with the encryption settings and when
I disabled TLS the crashes stopped. At least so far. I haven't had a
crash
On 03/23/2012 12:50 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/22/2012 09:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
So I played around with the encryption settings and when
I disabled TLS the crashes
kernels
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:03:25 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk konrad.w...@oracle.com
To: Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net
CC: xen-de...@lists.xensource.com
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:04:42PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
I installed Fedora 16 on my laptop and selected encrypted
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
