> In other words, to support Browse launching Pippy when a .py file is
> clicked, Rainbow would have to confer upon Browse the privilege of
> launching other activities (which may, and in the case of execution
> environments such as Pippy and eToys, regularly will) have higher
> privileges than Bro
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> Am 07.07.2008 um 23:31 schrieb Martin Dengler:
>
> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:03:58PM -0400, Ivan Krsti�? wrote:
> >>On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> >>>Is that good enough? I think it would work fine for paran
Am 07.07.2008 um 23:31 schrieb Martin Dengler:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:03:58PM -0400, Ivan Krsti�? wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>>> Is that good enough? I think it would work fine for paranoid
>>> security geeks,
>>> but what about school children?
>>
>> It's good
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:03:58PM -0400, Ivan Krsti�? wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> > Is that good enough? I think it would work fine for paranoid
> > security geeks,
> > but what about school children?
>
> It's good enough because the purpose of the dialog is not to
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Martin Dengler wrote:
>>> "seamless" and "seamful" seem very wooly words. Are they, in this
>>> context, well-defined?
A seamless transition is one where the user is not alerted in any way
to a security barrier being traversed, and where she is not afforded a
chanc
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:59:00PM -0400, Ivan Krsti�? wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Martin Dengler wrote:
> >No response?
>
> Your message _appears_ to suppose that the security model was defined
> for the hell of it, or because someone wanted to engage in an
> interesting academic ex
On Jul 7, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> Is that good enough? I think it would work fine for paranoid
> security geeks,
> but what about school children?
It's good enough because the purpose of the dialog is not to protect,
but to inform.
--
Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://ra
> That's precisely the seam that Michael and I wrote about in his
> previous message to the thread. The opposition he and I have is
> towards allowing single-click actions to cross security barriers
> without the system _ensuring_ that the user is informed of the
> crossing.
...
> The way to do
On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Martin Dengler wrote:
> No response?
Your message _appears_ to suppose that the security model was defined
for the hell of it, or because someone wanted to engage in an
interesting academic experiment, and thus breaking the security model
when it's convenient is
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:17AM -0300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Martin Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
> > http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/launch-by-click-ie.jpg
[...]
> I think that the dialogue you captured is the "seam" people are
> talking about :-)
Cool. I was just querying th
Berry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, devel@lists.laptop.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seamless Lessons & Security (commentary)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:54:17 -0300
2008/7/7 Martin Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...yields:
>
> http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/launch-by-click-ie.jpg
>
2008/7/7 Martin Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...yields:
>
> http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/launch-by-click-ie.jpg
>
> ...so perhaps I need a different understanding of "launch-by-click" for
> executables. Please accept my apologies for wasting your/others time
> if I've misunderstood.
I think
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 09:40:09AM -0400, Ivan Krsti�? wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Martin Dengler wrote:
> [main point]
No response?
> >1. It's clearly academic, as in the rest of the world this
> >"launch-by-clicking-URL" behavior is about as prevalent as the common
> >cold.
>
> It "cl
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Martin Dengler wrote:
> 1. It's clearly academic, as in the rest of the world this
> "launch-by-clicking-URL" behavior is about as prevalent as the common
> cold.
It "clearly" isn't, because part of the difficulty is that we're
talking about code execution, which is w
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:28:03AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> [seamless/seamful thoughts]
> Questions?
"seamless" and "seamful" seem very wooly words. Are they, in this
context, well-defined? Seem dangerously like defining-away the
argument.
Assuming they are well defined, when I read
> * a
top.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Seamless Lessons & Security (commentary)
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:28:03 -0400
>
>
> * a _general_ "seamful" 'launch activities with operator-chosen
> permissions' facility is highly desirable and should be pursued
seamful approach sounds workable to me
This is a very productive discussion!
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bryan Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: devel@lists.laptop.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Seamless Lessons & Security (commentary)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:20:39PM +0545, Bryan Berry wrote:
> We need a way to seamlessly integrate supporting materials such as
> readings, lesson plans, together with activities. HTML is the way to do
> this and the browser is what we use to display html. URI's are what we
> use to link to diffe
18 matches
Mail list logo
