On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:25 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
mDNS *is* multicast. But the blobs won't be exposed over mDNS, that
is
far to much data for a protocol like that.
Really? Do we know that? What's a typical 0-day patch look like?
Have we tried to see how few bits it could be
[ Fixing Alex's address. ]
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 14:58 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On 6/25/07, Christopher Blizzard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The broadcast just contains a product/version ID - doesn't have to
include the entire update. No more expensive than the presence stuff we
have
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:45 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 14:39 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Does OLPC use selinux or xattrs? Because if so we have to extend the
manifest format.
Not yet, but it's likely to in the near future when we ditch the
short-term hacks and
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:35 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On 6/25/07, Christopher Blizzard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's going to be interesting, yeah. You would need to teach the
wireless firmware about it? How about just checking on wakeup? Some
kind of wake-on-lan signal
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:56 -0400, Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
Design docs? We're still at the proof-of-concept phase really ;-). But
yes, each chroot needs to be generated on the fly when a new activity
starts (unless we do some funky magic with unionfs, which is probably
not a great idea). The
Just some comments on this thread.
It seems odd to try to optimize the bandwith on the actual local lan as
we have a decent amount of bandwith to work with. The only use case
that I can come up with to support that is during unboxing and/or a mass
re-install. And I don't think that we're ready
A few notes follow here.
First about approach: you should have given this feedback earlier rather
than later since Alex has been off working on an implementation and if
you're not giving feedback early then you're wasting Alex's time. Also
I would have appreciated it if you had given direct
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 18:50 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On 6/26/07, Christopher Blizzard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A note about the history of using rsync. We used rsync as the basis for
a lot of the Stateless Linux work that we did a few years ago. That
approach (although using LVM
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 22:14 -0400, Kim Quirk wrote:
* Ivan discussed the activation feature - it fell behind as we are
trying to sort out the updates; but he believes he can still get a
minimum activation feature into the release over the next few days. He
will touch base with J5 and
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:26 -0400, Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
That said, I would be more comfortable if the fallback included a way
for the laptop to check a well-known machine every X period (e.g. in
Ivan's proposal) and if there's no locally discovered source, use a
publicly available
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:39 -0400, Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
Could we get a summary of what the problem is:
The main objection to vserver from all the kernel hackers (and those of
us that have to support them!) is that it's a huge patch that touches
core kernel bits and it has no plans to make
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 17:31 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
I have a general question on how this vserver/overlay/whatever system
is
supposed to handle system files that are not part of the system image,
but still exist in the root file system. For instance,
take /var/log/messages or
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 11:22 -0400, Michail Bletsas wrote:
The mesh TTL field will eventually be tunable on a per packet basis.
Yeah, and we really want that. What's left to make that happen?
(Frankly, I thought it was done already.)
--Chris
___
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 14:21 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
First about approach: you should have given this feedback earlier
rather
than later since Alex has been off working on an implementation and if
you're not giving feedback early then you're wasting Alex's time.
Also
I would have
14 matches
Mail list logo
