I'm glad that people are trying to think of ways to improve the lot of
G1G1 users. The fundamental problem doesn't go away, though, unless
you make it go away. The plan in November's G1G1, as I understand it,
is to build in unnecessary restrictions on the people you should be
most grateful for
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 00:27 -0400, John Watlington wrote:
How about providing dev. keys for G1G1 laptops with
no delay ?Would you consider it an improvement ?
Clearly an improvement, as is the prettyboot patch, which I think we
should also do.
- Jim
wad
On Oct 1,
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:49 AM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no cost to OLPC to have Quanta ship the
manufacturing data with the disable-security bits set.
If this is true, I'd like to see us ship g1g1 laptops with security disabled.
The one persuasive argument I have seen for
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mind if the G1G1 donors have the option to participate in
testing secured laptops, but I utterly reject the notion that we can
jerk customer/donors
+1
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mind if the G1G1 donors have the option to participate in
testing secured
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
With that said, I would probably lean towards preferring unsecured
machines (with pretty boot enabled, of course).
Such small hassles, when repeated across
How about providing dev. keys for G1G1 laptops with
no delay ?Would you consider it an improvement ?
wad
On Oct 1, 2008, at 10:15 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
Mitch and I have come up with a way to ship G1G1 laptops so that they
will pretty-boot, but still come from the factory without any
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:27:48AM -0400, John Watlington wrote:
How about providing dev. keys for G1G1 laptops with
no delay ?Would you consider it an improvement ?
I would consider it a mediocre usability improvement in exchange for a
moderate security risk -- it fails to permit any
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this is utterly backwards. The countries that want $feature on their
laptops should be paying the price in support problems and
infrastructure.
I've edited your quote a bit. G1G1 participants support us is many
ways,
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:15 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
I know the support crew would be much happier if G1G1 laptops were
shipped able to run test builds and patched software, if users could
interact with Forth to diagnose their hardware, if they could run
unsigned Forth code from USB
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mind if the G1G1 donors have the option to participate in
testing secured laptops, but I utterly reject the notion that we can
jerk customer/donors around like this without their permission in
advance. They _will_
11 matches
Mail list logo
