03/28/2012 11:23 AM, intrigeri: > Hi, > > anonym wrote (27 Mar 2012 21:28:39 GMT) : >> First of all, I just realized one thing the current implementation >> breaks w.r.t. what we decided on IRC when we first discussed the >> Unsafe Browser: the default button in the "really start unsafe >> browser"-dialog is "Yes", not "No" as we decided. > >> I was quite shocked to now realize that zenity doesn't have an >> option to change that (like xdialog's --default-no IIRC). The only >> workaround I can think of is to set the text on the "Yes" button to >> "No" and vice versa (and negate the return value), but that switches >> the normal Gnome order of the Yes/No buttons :/. > >> If neither of these are acceptable, what could I use instead >> of zenity? > > I'm fine with the workaround you suggest. > Any other solution I can think of is totally overkill.
Implemented. >> Quoting intrigeri from #tails: >>> (17:18:33) intrigeri: anonym: I thought one part of the consensus we >> reached was to put the "unsafe browser" in the System -> Administration >> menu, and not in the Internet applications one, but I haven't the irc >> log anymore. > >> I can't recall this decision. > >> Any way, [...] Besides, I don't think we need to take any further >> steps to make it even more inaccessible. > > I don't think we need this either, but I could pretty well live with > it, and I thought it was part of the consensus we reached with great > difficulties; I'm not in the mood of having that discussion again. > > It would feel totally stupid, given how hard it was to reach > a decision that was acceptable for everyone present, if nobody had > taken note of it. Hasn't anyone? I have the logs, and searching for the keywords "menu", "system", "admin", "administration" and so on resulted in nothing. > If not, let's just keep the current menu placement, be done with it, > and let's be more clever next time. It's a keeper then. >> (17:47:24) intrigeri: anonym: I'm afraid the unsafe browser new >> feature will be a serious problem for an existing usecase of ours; >> I've therefore created https://tails.boum.org/todo/kiosk_mode/ > >> Ok. To be continued once we've thought that one through then. > > I think the actual need, that would not be satisfied anymore if we > merge feature/unsafe-browser as is, is pretty clear: Tails has been > used for a while in places where one wants to allow some kind of > public to access the Internet, but one does not want to allow them to > easily access it without using Tor. > > There's a proposed solution: "remove the unsafe browser user and > launcher". I just added a note to the wiki page about entering the > kiosk mode. > > I don't think every need listed on that page must be implemented > before we ship some minimal implementation of the kiosk mode, at least > to fix the regression we're discussing. The other listed needs are > more of the "would be nice" category, and shall not block this > fix IMHO. Ok. Cheers!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
