On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, 29 May 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
>>> In recent builds, any process runn
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I do believe that, practically speaking, all of this is moot.
Microsoft either will or won't use the NAND for its own purposes. However a
third option beyond the "dual boot" or "engulf and devour" choices so far
described, for a deployment that is more school-centric and less oriented
toward laptop autonomy than the OLPC vision, would be to use network file
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Bobby Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Windows runs from an SD card, but there is not much space left on
>> that SD card to store user files. User files are stored in NAND at
>>
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I do believe that, practically speaking, all of this is moot.
>> Windows uses both SD card storage and the NAND flash storage.
>>
>> (NAND sto
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMA
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Am Freitag 30 Mai 2008 01:44:29 schrieb Edward Cherlin:
>
>> > I don't often write here, but at the moment I don't see why BitFrost
>> > should be used in the first case (except, because we _can_).
>>
>> Because of
Am Freitag 30 Mai 2008 01:44:29 schrieb Edward Cherlin:
> > I don't often write here, but at the moment I don't see why BitFrost
> > should be used in the first case (except, because we _can_).
>
> Because of governments that will not buy unprotected laptops for
> schoolchildren.
But they buy the
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 29 Mai 2008 23:07:23 schrieb Edward Cherlin:
>> The question was, how to protect Linux from Windows, in particular
>> from malware allowed in by Windows. (Or possibly from malware designed
>> into Win
Thanks for your work, Scott. I should have said that I don't think
anything I complained about was your doing.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:02 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At Mon, 26 May 2008 14:58:06
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
> >
Am Donnerstag 29 Mai 2008 23:58:04 schrieben Sie:
> Yes, you did (where have you been hiding =) ). Windows will come
> preinstalled on XO's at the client's request. And in developing countries
> the paying clients (ministries of eductaion, etc.) receive technical advice
> and counsel mostly from Mi
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
>> In recent builds, any process running as user OLPC can execute code as
>> uid 0 via t
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
> In recent builds, any process running as user OLPC can execute code as
> uid 0 via the setuid-0 user-olpc-executable /usr/bin/sudo.
A small correction: in recent
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:25:05PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 29 Mai 2008 23:07:23 schrieb Edward Cherlin:
> > The question was, how to protect Linux from Windows, in particular
>
> Why protect GNU/Linux from Windows?
>
> If people install Windows on their XOs, then it's
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:58:07PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
> > if you run everything as user olpc and user olpc can become root without a
> > password, getting olpc is as good as getting root.
>
> An arbitrary process running as user olpc should not be able to get root. My
> impression i
Hello everyone,
Sorry for the cross posting, but can anyone tell me what the character
on the key to the immediate lower left of the Enter key (as shown in
http://wiki.laptop.org/images/8/8f/Ethiopic-B3.png) is ? The non
Amharic characters on that are | and \, but I cannot figure out
whether the Am
> Please let me know the exact URL you had trouble viewing, and
> double-check the sizes against the index listing on
> http://download.laptop.org/content/conf/20080520-country-wkshp/Video/2008-05-20/
> to ensure you have the whole file. There are multiple versions of
> each talk, and it's possibl
Am Donnerstag 29 Mai 2008 23:07:23 schrieb Edward Cherlin:
> The question was, how to protect Linux from Windows, in particular
> from malware allowed in by Windows. (Or possibly from malware designed
> into Windows, a "marketing" practice not unknown in the past.)
> Protecting Windows-only machine
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
>
>> if you run everything as user olpc and user olpc can become root without a
>> password, getting olpc is as good as getting root.
>
>
> An arbitrary process running as user olpc should not be able to get root. My
> impression is that it cannot
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jameson "Chema" Quinn writes:
>
>> Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot;
>> OS 1 has bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS 2 should not do:
>>
>> 1. Read private files from OS 1.
> ...
>> 2. By writin
> if you run everything as user olpc and user olpc can become root without a
> password, getting olpc is as good as getting root.
An arbitrary process running as user olpc should not be able to get root. My
impression is that it cannot, currently; am I wrong?
>
> not to mention the fact that you
If you are in the Boston area on a Saturday from 2-6 please come to
our Open Jam, which is a public weekly meet up for people who are
interested in getting involved in the program. Also feel free to
forward this on to anyone else who might be interested. Try to send
me an email to RSVP so
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
> 2008/5/29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
>>
>> I just had an IRC conversation with Benjamin Schwarz in which we talked
>>> about:
>>>
>>> He said that 3,4, and 5 have been considered more serious than
2008/5/29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
>
> I just had an IRC conversation with Benjamin Schwarz in which we talked
>> about:
>>
>> He said that 3,4, and 5 have been considered more serious than 1 and 2;
>> since they are impossible, there is little poin
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
I just had an IRC conversation with Benjamin Schwarz in which we talked
about:
He said that 3,4, and 5 have been considered more serious than 1 and 2;
since they are impossible, there is little point doing 1 and 2. I disagreed.
There is no way
2008/5/29 Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As to the ppt conversions, it seemed to me that some of the slides had
> layers overlaid on other layers in the wrong order, obscuring what was
> written underneath. Perhaps you could just post the ppt files as well as
> the pdf you converted it to? D
As to the ppt conversions, it seemed to me that some of the slides had
layers overlaid on other layers in the wrong order, obscuring what was
written underneath. Perhaps you could just post the ppt files as well as
the pdf you converted it to? Did any slides use special effects, e.g. small
overla
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Morgan Collett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jameson "Chema" Quinn writes:
>>> Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot;
>>> OS 1 has bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS
Bill,
Could you please take a look at http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/5848 ?
It seems that NetworkManager behavior can help explain what's described there.
Cheers!
Ricardo
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
I just had an IRC conversation with Benjamin Schwarz in which we talked
about:
He said that 3,4, and 5 have been considered more serious than 1 and 2;
since they are impossible, there is little point doing 1 and 2. I disagreed.
There is no way with current hardware to write-protect the NAND stora
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jameson "Chema" Quinn writes:
>
>> Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot;
>> OS 1 has bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS 2 should not do:
>>
>> 1. Read private files from OS 1.
> ...
>> 2. By writing
Jameson "Chema" Quinn writes:
> Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot;
> OS 1 has bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS 2 should not do:
>
> 1. Read private files from OS 1.
...
> 2. By writing to OS 1's file system,
I do believe that, practically speaking, all of this is moot
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Mon, 26 May 2008 14:58:06 -0400,
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> I've now encoded and uploaded video from all of last Tuesday's talks;
>> links at the url above. Hopefully I will be able to get a copy of the
> Thank you
Build Announcer v2 wrote:
> http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/joyride/build1998
>
> Changes in build 1998 from build: 1996
>
> Size delta: 0.00M
>
> -bootfw q2d14a-1.olpc2.unsigned
> +bootfw q2d16-1.olpc2.unsigned
>
> --- Changes for bootfw q2d16-1.olpc2.unsigned from q2d14a-1.olpc2
Yanni,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Giannis Galanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> these is a list some bugs discovered tonight on 706
>
> 5848: The mesh circle in the main view was disappered
I have a theory on that. Please check the ticket.
Cheers!
Ricardo
__
Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot; OS 1 has
bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS 2 should not do:
1. Read private files from OS 1.
1a. Read encryption key from OS 1, thus subverting all security which that
key gives. This, in particular, should be avoided.
1a(i). By readin
2008/5/29 Giannis Galanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> these is a list some bugs discovered tonight on 706
>
> 5848: The mesh circle in the main view was disappered
> 7121: Chat would not load
> 7119: Usb stick was too slow to mount(1min)
> 7118: Letters in all sugar activities became tiny!
>
> **5848 pr
The OLPC Goldenstate grassroots group has developed an alternative heart
rate monitor to add to the ECG Prototype.
A simple Plethysmograph circuit was implemented leveraging the built-in ADC
and a modified version of Arjun's Measure code. A Plethysmograph is an
infrared photoelectric sensor used to
http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/faster/build1998
Changes in build 1998 from build: 1996
Size delta: -0.13M
-bootfw q2d14a-1.olpc2.unsigned
+bootfw q2d16-1.olpc2.unsigned
--- Changes for bootfw q2d16-1.olpc2.unsigned from q2d14a-1.olpc2.unsigned ---
+ q2d14 this is an unsigned im
41 matches
Mail list logo
