Sameer -
Yes, tell your browser to trust it. The activation server uses a self-signed
certificate that your browser doesn't know to trust by default. All XO laptops
trust it.
- Ed
On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Sameer Verma wrote:
> activation.laptop.org is throwing a SSL error.
>
> "
activation.laptop.org is throwing a SSL error.
"activation.laptop.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
(Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)"
This makes getting the dev key problematic (wget part).
Any ideas/fixes?
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that the 10.1.1 release for XO-1.5 is out, it's a good time to
> talk about OLPC's software strategy for the future. We've got a few
> announcements to make:
>
> XO-1:
> =
>
> OLPC wasn't planning to make a Fedora 11 release of t
Jacob -
The Linux kernel question is easy, as it's largely GPL v2; the Fedora one is by
no means easy. The Fedora Project maintains a list of software licenses which
are considered acceptable for software to be packaged in Fedora. That doesn't
mean *all* these licenses are in use in any parti
I agree with you completely.
This is bad, it's just not complete TiVoization:
"If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only
boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC."
What stops one person of then adding root access again?
This will hard
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:54 PM, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 5:07 PM, James Cameron wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:57:19PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the software changes required are to EC code, which is
>>> difficult for outside contributors to wor
On Jul 7, 2010, at 5:07 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:57:19PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the software changes required are to EC code, which is
>> difficult for outside contributors to work on.
>
> Yeah, that would be good to change.
Have you forgot
Massive kudos for everything :)
Keep up the great work and keep us up to date on those ARM developments.
Best regards,
Tiago
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that the 10.1.1 release for XO-1.5 is out, it's a good time to
> talk about OLPC's software strategy for
Chris,
thanks a lot for the extensive (and exciting!) updates and
information, much appreciated:-)
Cheers,
Christoph
Am 08.07.2010 um 00:01 schrieb Chris Ball :
> Hi,
>
> Now that the 10.1.1 release for XO-1.5 is out, it's a good time to
> talk about OLPC's software strategy for the future.
Hi,
> forgive an honest question that may spark a philosophical debate:
> Since the Linux kernel and Fedora are both licensed under GPL.2,
> how would this violate an unrelated license? (which reading, it
> may or may not...)
Because it's not true that "Fedora" is licensed under GPLv2
forgive an honest question that may spark a philosophical debate:
Since the Linux kernel and Fedora are both licensed under GPL.2, how would this
violate an unrelated license? (which reading, it may or may not...)
*
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:23:55 -0400
From: Martin Langhoff
Su
Hi,
Now that the 10.1.1 release for XO-1.5 is out, it's a good time to
talk about OLPC's software strategy for the future. We've got a few
announcements to make:
XO-1:
=
OLPC wasn't planning to make a Fedora 11 release of the XO-1 OS, but
a group of volunteers including Steven Parrish, Bern
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Might try some of the VNC encoding options, like those at:
Yes but no. The documentation doesn't match actual outcomes. Raw
segfaults in ugly ways.
> This is a feature of vnc -- since the "remote system" cursor may lag
Been using VNC for
Ed,
Thanks for helping me to understand the context here. Brett is
certainly the right person at FSF. I'm happy to do anything I can to
help further the conversation, and am always available to answer any
questions anyone may have.
Best regards,
Eben
On Wednesday, 7 July 2010, Ed McNierney wro
Hi,
I'm very pleased to announce build os206 as the final 10.1.1 release
build for XO-1.5 laptops. Here are its release notes:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/10.1.1
Instructions for installing the release on an XO-1.5 can be found at:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/10.1
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> - It is slow and laggy. A VNC protocol expert may be able to help us
> optimise...
Might try some of the VNC encoding options, like those at:
http://www.realvnc.com/products/free/4.1/winvncviewer.html#ColorEncoding
Assuming you're using a
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:57:19PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Unfortunately, the software changes required are to EC code, which is
> difficult for outside contributors to work on.
Yeah, that would be good to change.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> 2 - From http://dev.laptop.org/~martin/usbvga/ grab
>
> xorg-xo1.5-dcon.conf - goes into /etc/X11/
> olpc-usbvgamirror - goes into /usr/bin/ - mark it executable!
> 95-usbvga.rules - goes into /etc/udev/rules.d
Updated olpc-usbvgam
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> * Updating exactly every hour is vulnerable to an attacker who
> arranges to remove the battery from the machine exactly 55 minutes
> after power on, every time. This is still quite awkward, but to avoid
> even this attack, the EC can pse
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Aleksey Lim 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 permiss
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:48 PM, John Watlington wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:01 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
>> Since "RTC security" is being discussed again, I'm going to repost two
>> relevant proposals from "the good old days". First: on making
>> theft-deterrence a "feature"; then technical
On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:01 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Since "RTC security" is being discussed again, I'm going to repost two
> relevant proposals from "the good old days". First: on making
> theft-deterrence a "feature"; then technical details of a $0.16 change
> to remove RTC dependence from th
Eben -
Hi; thanks. Chris Ball and I had some correspondence with Brett Smith a few
months ago in order to make some introductions and get the FSF and Plan Ceibal
talking. It seems that that didn't quite happen, and we've asked Martin
Langhoff (who's responsible for OLPC technical work with Pl
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> NetworkManager used to call ntpdate when it setup a connection. Was that an
>> OLPC addition?
Yes, although it's now present in litl's software builds as well.
> We figured out that the ntp package has never been present on the XO
> ima
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> The laptops refuse to boot a "developer's version of Linux". They
> require a signed kernel and initrd. Some people call this DRM;
> it's definitely "TiVoization" (check Wikipedia if you don't know the term).
I think it is a very well unders
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 04:36:55PM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote:
>
> > PS: I just found yet another laptop which won't activate because the
> > clock was set to 15 July 2000 (not 2010!). Do you see many of these?
>
> This was probably a human error in the Fix_clock repair process that
> happened on
I don't know what the technical details are, but it sounds as though
the right people are present in the conversation. For GPLv3
programs-- which would include bash, tar, and Samba as well as the
toolchain, to take some examples--the requirement is for "installation
information" to be provided to
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 05:03:02PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>
> PS: I just found yet another laptop which won't activate because the
> clock was set to 15 July 2000 (not 2010!). Do you see many of these?
just a query as I dont know the details of activation: if the rtc is off by a
year or mo
Since "RTC security" is being discussed again, I'm going to repost two
relevant proposals from "the good old days". First: on making
theft-deterrence a "feature"; then technical details of a $0.16 change
to remove RTC dependence from the theft-deterrence feature.
Unfortunately, the specific circui
> Please explain your statement that lack of root violates GPLv3. Couldn't
> the owner of the system insert a SD card with a developer's version of
> Linux, mount the internal drive of the XO, and tinker with the installed
> packages as root from the external OS? Does GPLv3 expressly mention roo
[I didn't see a copy of this come through on devel, so assumed
that it bounced because he's not a recipient. --gnu]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:47:26 -0400
To: martin.langh...@gmail.com, g...@toad.com, ber...@codewiz.org,
devel@lists.laptop.org, sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: Urug
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> It's probably possible to make the anti-theft stuff significantly more robust
> in this area. I think it would be a lot of work.
Yes. Much more work than mere conversation.
Are you planning to hack on this? Moving a good chunk of
olpc-update-q
No, you should send it back to us with minimal opening
(you can keep the SD card if you have data on it you want.)
We'll send a replacement.
Please reply with an address via private email.
Cheers!
wad
On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Renaming this thread to see i
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:18 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > XO and SoaS distributions are configured for sudo with no password.
>
> Yes. However, Uruguay does not maintain this configuration choice.
I'm very sorry about this.
> > Rainbow has been bit-rotting for the past 2 years
>
> Ahem. Sug
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> While we have your attention on this topic...
>> Do you not think that this is a security issue? In that a thief could
>> put a laptop on a network with rigged DNS and have control ov
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> While we have your attention on this topic...
> Do you not think that this is a security issue? In that a thief could
> put a laptop on a network with rigged DNS and have control over the
> time/date on the laptop?
We *really* have to get OFW
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:32 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
> Shipping the laptops without root access is a direct violation of the
> GPLv3 license on a dozen packages (probably 50+ packages in later
While I understand and agree with the spirit of what John wants,
"direct violation" is a strong thing to
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> And that there are efforts to solve that in the future.
>
> Oh, I was unaware of this. Who is working on it, and what's the exact
> plan?
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9564
Now, folks, please be careful here with all the exaggeration an
Hi Hasikala,
apologies for the delay -- your msg got caught in the "message
moderation" system.
Hope my response is still useful somehow...
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Hasikala Anuruddhi
wrote:
> We are fourth year students of University of Colombo School of Computing
> ,following Informati
Please explain your statement that lack of root violates GPLv3. Couldn't
the owner of the system insert a SD card with a developer's version of
Linux, mount the internal drive of the XO, and tinker with the installed
packages as root from the external OS? Does GPLv3 expressly mention root
access
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Sameer Verma wrote:
> We are putting together a sample course in Moodle to test load
> performance of XS on various hardware
Cool. You could even use one of the "demo courses" from Moodle.
> Is there a place where we can host this and build it up?
I would sugges
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-
Please, when you say Uruguay you should just say Plan Ceibal.
Has anyone formally requested Plan Ceibal to correct this situation?
Thanks,
Gabriel
2010/7/7 John Gilmore :
>> > Ignoring the fact that some deployments ship without root access.
>>
>> Is the practice of completely locking-down the
Hi all,
Renaming this thread to see if I can get the message through. Message below.
Best regards,
Tiago
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tiago Marques
Date: Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: F11-for-XO1.5 Release 10.1.1 Release Candidate 4- Hardware
issue?
To: Yioryos Aspro
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 01:39, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:06 +0100, Gary Martin wrote:
>
>> Activity start-up times are significantly better than they used to be,
>> so no specific bug that I'm aware of, was just hopeful of any
>> opportunities to further improve performance
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:38, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2010, at 04:26, Gary Martin wrote:
>
>> Pre-rendering is tricky as both stroke/fill colour, and image size are
>> variable.
>
> I think Benjamin had this more or less working at some point, I don't
> remember why we didn't lan
> > Ignoring the fact that some deployments ship without root access.
>
> Is the practice of completely locking-down the laptops something we'd
> even want to encourage?
Shipping the laptops TiVoized like Uruguay does has put them into serious
legal trouble. OLPC should definitely not encourage
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 22:00, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> Activity start-up times are significantly better than they used to be, so no
>> specific bug
>> that I'm aware of, was just hopeful of any opportunities to further improve
>> performance
>
> It's my impression that activity start-up times a
48 matches
Mail list logo
