A couple points:
a) SSL overhead being impractical? Come on. You can use SSL on the
browser today; there is no perceptible speed difference. I agree that
client certs may be impractical, but it won't be because the XO can't
handle the computation.
b) Many of the customization issues mooted
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real question to me is whether there are size (memory nand)
disadvantages to Firefox. Othewise it's just a practical problem of
finding enough resources to implement a Firefox extension to match the
current
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:37 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) SSL overhead being impractical? Come on. You can use SSL on the
browser today; there is no perceptible speed difference. I agree that
client certs may be impractical, but it won't be because the XO can't
handle the
Let me summarize where I think we are and/or should go and try to put
this into some context:
0) good rendering onto our high resolution screen is very important to
us; this is why we went with a Gecko based web browser in the first
place. Before we moved to the development builds of
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can also anticipate Javascript performance may become an issue as its
use continues to increase.
Confirming this - to work with XS-based tools nicely, JS and related
tools (gears) support is a must.
cheers,
m
--
[EMAIL
Oh, and as Walter points out, journal integration is also important to
us, and necessary in any replacement. Sometimes brain is not engaged.
If we can build the OLPCfs stuff that Scott has come up with, this will
help unmodified apps interoperate with the journal, but I suspect for
something
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:17 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said, he
So there are two threads here, the first being authentication and the second
whether the standard browser could be used (I am still interested in a user
story as to why collaborative browsing is interesting/useful as opposed to a
shared bookmark or scrapbook). While I am mostly interested in the
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) the lack of a certificate UI has hampered our Browse usage primarily
in G1G1 developed world situations: this tells me while it is of
concern, it's not as high priority as some other issues might be,
certainly lower than
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
of the sugar developers have occasionally hacked on Browse, we are far
from experts
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can certainly produce a proof of concept for the first,
using client certs via Scott's Firefox 3. I don't think it is as hard as
you think, and I promise to provide something concrete by the end of the
weekend.
Thanks!
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
| developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
| of the
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
|
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:17 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we just added a number of extensions to Firefox either in C++ or
JS, could we deliver as much to the kids that want to study and modify
the software on their machines?
Yes. Firefox has a much better integrated IDE for
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please point me to your notes on this, if you would be so kind.
There aren't any, unfortunately. I had to read idmgr to understand the
protocol - so read the source. It is a trivial xml-rpc.
Ah, apologies, wrong answer.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Carol Lerche wrote:
So there are two threads here, the first being authentication and the second
whether the standard browser could be used (I am still interested in a user
story as to why collaborative browsing is interesting/useful as opposed to a
shared bookmark or
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I spent a couple hours yesterday taking out Gecko from Browse, and
putting in WebKit. Luckily, this was made easy by some PyWebKitGtk
Just repeating in public what I leaned over and told m_stone and cjb:
I'd rather see us
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:56:05PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
(mstone reports that 'yum install firefox' and 'firefox' is a decent
basis for comparison, although we can tweak firefox's configuration
and package it as an RPM to get a nicer sugar lookfeel if we really
wanted to pursue this
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather see us just give up on Browse and ship and appropriately
configured Firefox. I just can't see OLPC devoting enough developer
Not so fast! The XS deliverables need a custom browser on the XO for
reasons we were
Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
(assuming a properly configured server).
As to collaborative browsing, that use case should be balanced against all
the available applications that having a
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
(assuming a properly configured server).
I haven't delved into this deeply yet, but I
Client certs can be used for authentication with no changes to a Firefox
browser or an Apache server. GTK based as well as web based software to
create certs also already exists. What sort of patch are you looking for?
I could certainly provide a page running in an apache server to validate a
2008/7/7 Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Client certs can be used for authentication with no changes to a Firefox
browser or an Apache server. GTK based as well as web based software to
create certs also already exists. What sort of patch are you looking for?
I could certainly provide a
The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
that fail with the extant browser. Direct availability of plugins and
addons. One example: scrapbook, a superb research tool. Another example
Google
Carol,
give me some credit :-) I know that FF works well with client certs
and apache has no problem with it. I've been coding apache/ssl aware
apps since '98...
What sort of patch are you looking for?
Well, there is quite a bit of thinking that needs to happen here, and
I am working on
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
that fail with the extant browser. Direct availability of plugins and
addons.
Briefly: just check trac for bugs assigned to the Browse component.
Many of these would not be an issue if we were just following
upstream, for example: SSL/security UI, URL autocompletion, tabs,
various websites with popups, etc.
We will clearly need to customize the browser to *some* degree,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
(assuming a properly configured server).
Allowing the null encryption algorithm in the browser would enable it for
other later negotiations, which seems an unnecessary exposure to suppress
the encryption for a single small https exchange. But it would certainly be
possible.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said, he may want to
switch between pages. What are the alternatives to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said, he may want to
switch
A reference was made to Gears:
My point was exactly that it is a plugin.
There are other plugins that are educationally useful.
Security. I believe that 'Browse' is restricted as to how much it
is allowed to modify the operating system itself. Such restrictions
would apply to plugins as
I've snipped away the parts I have no comment on, but:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:
Well, there is quite a bit of thinking that needs to happen here, and I
am working on something else at the moment. So, these are quick notes
And me, too - just quick notes:
- XS
35 matches
Mail list logo
