Fixed mail server problem. This should go through. Apologies for dups.
Original Message
Subject:Re: Peru Upgrade process
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:54:14 -0400
From: Chris Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As much as I dislike having multiple ways to do the same thing,
Embrace the inner Perl programmer in you :-)
> on
> reflection it looks like touching up the autoreinstallation script is
> probably going to be the Right
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also a little cranky because when we fought over this last time it
Just to clarify, "cranky" does not mean I'm actually *mad* at any
person or thing in particular. I understand that requirements change,
we didn't h
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also a little cranky because when we fought over this last time it
> was argued in elevated voices that we simply *couldn't* have any
> system which required manually plugging a USB key into every machine,
> because
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't really know enough to comment correctly on this debate, but it
> sure seems like the much-maligned USB autoreinstallation system meets all
> the requirements. It is non-interactive, beyond requiring a reboot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't really know enough to comment correctly on this debate, but it
sure seems like the much-maligned USB autoreinstallation system meets all
the requirements. It is non-interactive, beyond requiring a reboot, and
it preserves the user's data by co
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:13 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Look, the reality on the ground is that Peru has at least 15K
>> laptops in
>> the field running 651/653/656 that need upgrading.They will
>> not have
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look, the reality on the ground is that Peru has at least 15K laptops in
> the field running 651/653/656 that need upgrading.They will not have
> school servers deployed for another three months.
I understand this.
> I don't know when that requirement got lost from the "plan of record".
It was lost from the plan when Peru decided to deploy without servers.
I believe we convinced them otherwise, but it seems that "reality"
hasn't caught up with the plan.
-walter
__
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:16 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Martin Langhoff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As Wad discussed today, the new upgrade process is a step backwards
>> from what we had before. Specifically, it will wipe activation keys
>> and homedirs.
>>
>
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Wad discussed today, the new upgrade process is a step backwards
> from what we had before. Specifically, it will wipe activation keys
> and homedirs.
>
> I am not sure how important people @ 1CC find this to be, but i
11 matches
Mail list logo
