On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:00 AM, nodata l...@nodata.co.uk wrote:
I'd like to suggest an enhancement for Fedora 13: nothing should ever steal
focus from the window I am typing in. If I am typing in a shell window, or
in a word processor, or an e-mail, nothing should ever take keyboard focus
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 11:23 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
There is no case where I want a new window or popup to take focus. Makes
for an easy algorithm. (hitting r in mutt is not a problem :)
There is no case where _you_
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/30/2009 07:29 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
One presumes that such auditing is expensive, lengthy, and not often to
be repeated. Committing to undertaking a full code audit on every update
would seem to be a little
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
I do not intend to jump to GCC 4.5 for F13, that would mean I and others
would have to spend almost all our time on that already by now, while there
is still a lot of work on GCC 4.4 bugfixing.
GCC 4.4-RH contains several
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
you're an experienced user? You're comfortable knowing what does and what
does not require a reboot? Then why are you using PK?
Disable pk and do the updates directly via yum.
Bam - no more requests to reboot.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Paul Jakma p...@dishone.st wrote:
If I put you in front of 2 identical machines, one running 32bit
and one 64bit software, would you be able to tell which one was
which, from the interactive performance of common applications? I'd
be willing to bet that for the
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
That's one side, the other side is:
* Larger demands on RAM (x86_64 is more demanding on memory
requirements).
Even if it were a full doubling (which is the absolute worst case
possible), it would only be pushing the
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Roopesh Majeti
roopesh.maj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Iam new to this fedora world.. a small question on the below discussion:
It is mentioned that having, zero in the third argument is legitimate use
cases. Can somebody direct me to such a use case, as i
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Krzysztof Halasa k...@pm.waw.pl wrote:
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
I never tick those boxes. I'd like to know how to get rid of them
entirely.
Upgrade to F12 (with the latest PackageKit update), there's no such checkbox
in F12's PolicyKit.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/23/2009 01:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I haven't tried the the fast user switching in fedora... Hopefully it is
using some kernel mode secure path to prevent users from stealing each others
credentials, if it isn't
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This is precisely the dialog that has been removed from F12 and is not
planned to be returned.
My understanding was that this was removed because collecting the root password
during a user session is insecure because
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Sure, I don't disagree, but I think we can take spots list and use it
for the 'guest account'. Then you start picking things off the list as
you move up the stack to 'university computer lab user (is that really
much
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Having said that - is everyone agreeing that it's fine for each spin SIG
to be entirely in charge of defining and implementing security policy
[snip]
Different spins having different security makes sense, especially if
2009/11/20 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com:
Jesse Keating wrote:
You're making the assumption that the change was made to save space. It
wasn't. I can't find the original thread right now, but it's part of a
cleanup on configuration tools. Upstream felt it no longer necessary to
expose
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On the contrary. On the typical single user system, it's just as bad if an
attacker can steal / delete / modify the user's files as it is if the attacker
can modify / delete system files. Privilege escalation isn't
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote:
Except, that could be false advertising. In most cases, where CPU
computation is not used heavily, 64-bit is actually SLOWER than the 32-bit
counterpart. Optimizations are narrowing the gap, but it still remains
true.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser
josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/11/18, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
I noticed that http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora appears to be
strongly promoting i386 Fedora over x86_64. Is this intentional or an
oversight?
I
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
I think that's too subjective though. I'd be more in favor of a simple,
How is this subjective? At one time it was the norm that you had to
justify a SUID 0 binary. Packagekit is basically allowing the same
thing through
I noticed that http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora appears to be
strongly promoting i386 Fedora over x86_64. Is this intentional or an
oversight?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com said:
On the server (Which is suggested):
* Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
/ *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
I read the wiki page[1] on Fedora's effort to consolidate all the
crypto libraries. Quite an ambitious task! FWN [2] reported on the
rather large discussion back in '07, but I didn't see any resolution.
Is this still a
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
The
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Adam Millermaxamill...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
I packaged up this app I stumbled upon called minitube
(http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube) but it seems a bit unstable and I
don't really want to toss it up to a package review until its stable
enough to be
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 18:02 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
But since other people may not care about that (i.e. Empathy
developers mock people who want confidentiality, i.e.
http://resiak.livejournal.com/60614.html
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mathieu Bridon
(bochecha)boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I understand the urge to ship empathy because it's included in gnome
-- but let's be honest: if the two clients were judged side-by-side
and rated, there's not a chance in hell empathy would win. : )
The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM
client in Fedora.
However, the talk page for the feature
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material
concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently
justified loss of
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Rahul
Sundaramsunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM
client in Fedora.
However, the talk page for the feature
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Stephen Smalleys...@tycho.nsa.gov wrote:
If you want something more akin to privilege bracketing within a
program, then a closer analog in SELinux would be setcon(3) to switch to
a more restricted domain. But in general our goal is to enforce
security goals at
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com said:
On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Steve Grubbsgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2009 04:42:12 am Frank Murphy wrote:
I think what is meant, it that the app is useless, without either
web\media input. Which the user should not have to do to take full
advantage of it.
I think this is a
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Roland McGrathrol...@redhat.com wrote:
So I think most of us in this discussion probably don't actually understand
SECMARK. I sure didn't. I think I might now, sort of. The SELinux policy
just says contexts, and it doesn't say anything about the port numbers.
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Bojan Smojverbo...@rexursive.com wrote:
Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
having this kernel?
Worth mentioning— .30 makes a non-backwards-compatible BTRFS format change.
So if you go .30 on a BTRFS system you can't go back.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Clemens Eissererlinuxhi...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Optimizing for P4 is ... messy
2) If you're using C2D, etc., you can already use the 64-bit distro.
So why not stay with generic, where most users would benefit.
Sure I could use 64-bit, as could all the others
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
- Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
- Allows for
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Rahul
Sundaramsunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
there is always going to
2009/6/8 Kelly Miller lightsolphoe...@gmail.com:
Thanks to Apple, that isn't going to be happening. Apple's pushing for the
required default video codec to be the aforementioned nonfree MPEG4/H.264
codec, and they don't seem to care whether it can be shipped by anybody
else.
Perhaps pedantry
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Ben Boeckelmaths...@gmail.com wrote:
Nokia argued against it for patent worries. Probably worried
that if it did get done, some patent troll would come out of
the woodwork with some obscure patent and sue all OGG the
distributors.
If you're going to play the
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
[snip]
the way there though. It's NOT good that they're hardcoding a browser check
for only Firefox though,
Don't worry, plenty of people have pointed out that it isn't the way to go.
HTML 5 video provides the right
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Peter Lemenkov (lemen...@gmail.com) said: ... what exactly are you trying
to accomplish?
Make it legal to ship MP3 code? Sorry, those are patented in Europe as
well.
Patents are *currently*
39 matches
Mail list logo
