On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Carol Lerche wrote:
So there are two threads here, the first being authentication and the second
whether the standard browser could be used (I am still interested in a user
story as to why collaborative browsing is interesting/useful as opposed to a
shared bookmark or scrapb
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Martin Langhoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please point me to your notes on this, if you would be so kind.
>
> There aren't any, unfortunately. I had to read idmgr to understand the
> protocol - so read the source. It is a trivial xml-rpc.
Ah, apologies, wrong an
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:59 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we just added a number of extensions to Firefox either in C++ or
>> JS, could we deliver as much to the kids that want to study and modify
>> t
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we just added a number of extensions to Firefox either in C++ or
> JS, could we deliver as much to the kids that want to study and modify
> the software on their machines?
Yes. Firefox has a much better integrated IDE fo
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:17 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> > Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
>>
>> That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
>> more) separate pages of information. If while l
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> | On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
|> developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
|> of the
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
>> developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
>> o
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can certainly produce a proof of concept for the first,
> using client certs via Scott's Firefox 3. I don't think it is as hard as
> you think, and I promise to provide something concrete by the end of the
> weekend.
Tha
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
> developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
> of the sugar developers have occasionally hacked on Browse, we are far
> from expe
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2) the lack of a certificate UI has hampered our Browse usage primarily
> in G1G1 developed world situations: this tells me while it is of
> concern, it's not as high priority as some other issues might be,
> certainly lower
So there are two threads here, the first being authentication and the second
whether the standard browser could be used (I am still interested in a user
story as to why collaborative browsing is interesting/useful as opposed to a
shared bookmark or scrapbook). While I am mostly interested in the
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:17 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
>
> That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
> more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
> he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said,
Oh, and as Walter points out, journal integration is also important to
us, and necessary in any replacement. Sometimes brain is not engaged.
If we can build the OLPCfs stuff that Scott has come up with, this will
help unmodified apps interoperate with the journal, but I suspect for
something like
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can also anticipate Javascript performance may become an issue as its
> use continues to increase.
Confirming this - to work with XS-based tools nicely, JS and related
tools (gears) support is a must.
cheers,
m
--
[EMA
Let me summarize where I think we are and/or should go and try to put
this into some context:
0) good rendering onto our high resolution screen is very important to
us; this is why we went with a Gecko based web browser in the first
place. Before we moved to the development builds of gecko/xulrun
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin -- You state that ssl at the network layer is significant. The
> question is when and how much must ssl be used to authenticate with client
> certs? I believe it only needs to be used during initial authentication an
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:37 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) SSL overhead being "impractical"? Come on. You can use SSL on the
> browser today; there is no perceptible speed difference. I agree that
> client certs may be impractical, but it won't be because the XO can't
> han
"Sugarizing" involves more than just the look and feel of the UI; in
addition to Bitfrost considerations--raised by Bert and Mikus--and the
collaboration model, there is also Journal/Datastore intergration to
consider: the trivial from of Sugarizing does not result in useful
Journal entries. So som
Am 08.07.2008 um 06:35 schrieb Mikus Grinbergs:
> A reference was made to Gears:
>> My point was exactly that it is a plugin.
>> There are other plugins that are educationally useful.
>
> Security. I believe that 'Browse' is restricted as to how much it
> is allowed to modify the operating system
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The real question to me is whether there are size (memory & nand)
> disadvantages to Firefox. Othewise it's just a practical problem of
> finding enough resources to implement a Firefox extension to match the
> curren
A couple points:
a) SSL overhead being "impractical"? Come on. You can use SSL on the
browser today; there is no perceptible speed difference. I agree that
client certs may be impractical, but it won't be because the XO can't
handle the computation.
b) Many of the customization issues mooted a
Hi,
We (I) are indeed porting Gears to browse (the main reason being offline
Moodle), and I'd like to be informed if the standard browser for the XO
changes, so I know what else to port to, but for now, the majority of the
work has been done, and the source code allows for integration with a wid
I've snipped away the parts I have no comment on, but:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Well, there is quite a bit of thinking that needs to happen here, and I
> am working on something else at the moment. So, these are quick notes
And me, too - just quick notes:
> - XS installs/de
A reference was made to Gears:
> My point was exactly that it is a plugin.
> There are other plugins that are educationally useful.
Security. I believe that 'Browse' is restricted as to how much it
is allowed to modify the operating system itself. Such restrictions
would apply to plugins as we
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
>
> That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
> more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
> he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said, he may want to
> swi
> Not everyone likes tabbed browsing.
That may be true - but what if the user needs to reference two (or
more) separate pages of information. If while looking at one page
he can't remember *exactly* what the other page said, he may want to
switch between pages. What are the alternatives to ta
Allowing the null encryption algorithm in the browser would enable it for
other later negotiations, which seems an unnecessary exposure to suppress
the encryption for a single small https exchange. But it would certainly be
possible.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:44 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> O
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
>> certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
>> (assuming a properly configured se
I don't disagree with the goal of simplicity for the youngest users (as you
probably remember from other mails). I do feel that young users need such a
constrained browsing experience because they can't type well and have
literacy issues (can't spell urls correctly), that this should demarcate
bro
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It started out bare bones, and is slowly gaining important features
> as we go (recently URI autocompletion, find in page text, foundational
> support for global bookmarks, and other features appeared!). It
The point is ju
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
>> taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
>> that fail with the extant br
2008/7/7 Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
> taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
> that fail with the extant browser. Direct availability of plugins and
> addons. One example: scrapbook
Briefly: just check trac for bugs assigned to the Browse component.
Many of these would not be an issue if we were just following
upstream, for example: SSL/security UI, URL autocompletion, tabs,
various websites with popups, etc.
We will clearly need to customize the browser to *some* degree, the
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
> taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
> that fail with the extant browser. Direct availability of plugins and
> add
Carol,
give me some credit :-) I know that FF works well with client certs
and apache has no problem with it. I've been coding apache/ssl aware
apps since '98...
> What sort of patch are you looking for?
Well, there is quite a bit of thinking that needs to happen here, and
I am working on someth
The UI seems pretty important to me, but obviously that's a matter of
taste. Not everyone likes tabbed browsing. Correct operation of websites
that fail with the extant browser. Direct availability of plugins and
addons. One example: scrapbook, a superb research tool. Another example
Google G
2008/7/7 Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Client certs can be used for authentication with no changes to a Firefox
> browser or an Apache server. GTK based as well as web based software to
> create certs also already exists. What sort of patch are you looking for?
> I could certainly provide
Client certs can be used for authentication with no changes to a Firefox
browser or an Apache server. GTK based as well as web based software to
create certs also already exists. What sort of patch are you looking for?
I could certainly provide a page running in an apache server to validate a
re
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
> certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
> (assuming a properly configured server).
I haven't delved into this deeply yet, bu
Why does automatic authentication require a custom browser? Client
certificates work well for this function in ordinary web applications
(assuming a properly configured server).
As to collaborative browsing, that use case should be balanced against all
the available applications that having a sta
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather see us just give up on Browse and ship and appropriately
> configured Firefox. I just can't see OLPC devoting enough developer
Not so fast! The XS deliverables need a custom browser on the XO for
reasons we w
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:56:05PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> (mstone reports that 'yum install firefox' and 'firefox' is a decent
> basis for comparison, although we can tweak firefox's configuration
> and package it as an RPM to get a nicer sugar look&feel if we really
> wanted to pursue th
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Bobby Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spent a couple hours yesterday taking out Gecko from Browse, and
> putting in WebKit. Luckily, this was made easy by some PyWebKitGtk
Just repeating in public what I leaned over and told m_stone and cjb:
I'd rather see
Hi Folks,
I spent a couple hours yesterday taking out Gecko from Browse, and
putting in WebKit. Luckily, this was made easy by some PyWebKitGtk
bindings from Jan Alonzo (cc'ed). The example included with the
bindings is actually based off WebKit ;).
Some initial documentation is here:
http://wi
45 matches
Mail list logo