Aleksey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:18:04AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> Bernie wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:02 -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: >> >> I think you are missing an important requirement: installation without >> >> elevated permissions. >> > >> > Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the past 2 years >> >> Ahem. Sugar's integration with rainbow has bit-rotted, been rebuilt, and >> still >> received no independent testing despite repeated calls for same. > > To be honest I wasn't a fan of rainbow a bit time ago.. > > But having Zero Sugar fully implemented and potential possibility to launch > almost any piece of software... rainbow should be more then essential > requirement.
Let's be clear: the actual requirement is for something more like "safety" or "isolation". Rainbow is merely one of several reasonable approaches -- and competition and interoperability would be no bad thing here. Michael P.S. - Several other isolation shells that might be worth thinking about, if only to better understand the tradeoffs that rainbow makes, are briefly described at http://sandboxing.org P.P.S. - Also, either way, thanks for your encouragement. :) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
