On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>> b.) Disabling Secure Boot entirely for both operating systems.
>>
>> That outcome is inherently user hostile on both counts.
>
> I don't see how "b" would be hostile, at all, given that Matthew Garrett
> (who has the insi
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up. Stuck at
psql stage. This command always bombs.
command
psql koji koji< /usr/share/doc/koji*/docs/schema.sql
first this file is elsewhere
find / -iname '*schema.sql*' 2>/dev/null
/usr/share/pgsql/information_schema.sql
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > Please stop with the conspiracy theories and stick to technical
> > discussions. This very thread is proof that nobody is trying to "sneak"
> > this in.
>
> No, it's not. The thread was started by one of the people opposing the plan.
done I built it, check this out:
Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec
SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat-0.5.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Supercat is a program that colorizes text based on matching
regular expressions/strings/characters. Supercat support
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 01:29 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 19:25:57 GMT, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Possibly Firefox Sync? That seems like the framework/repository which
> > seems to have the best shot of becoming 'The Sync Thing' for F/OSS, if
> > anywhere. It's intentionally
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:57 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing
> > during installation.
>
> IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk partitioning page, where
> we're already asking the user all sorts of questions about the
> filesystem layou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 19:25:57 GMT, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Possibly Firefox Sync? That seems like the framework/repository which
> seems to have the best shot of becoming 'The Sync Thing' for F/OSS, if
> anywhere. It's intentionally written to be
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 11:10 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
>
>> This will exclude a whole class of usages that are currently available
>> to Fedora users, such as the ReSpin projects that Fedora Unity used to
>> produce from stock Fedora packages as we
Peter Jones wrote:
> Not that I don't think this is worth doing - I really do - but there's
> another problem here. We're not going to know what final firmware UIs look
> like until the hardware ships, and that's more than likely going to be
> after F18 GA.
Web pages can be updated. We can even us
Michael scherer wrote:
> For the record, UEFI based motherboard would likely have a graphical
> interface, so no blueish DOS-like commandline thing.
> Of course, that also permit endless graphical customisation.
> See for example
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLwHKHqBitc
> http://www.youtube.com
drago01 wrote:
> Because it is *easier* for ordinary users to try and test fedora with
> it (on new hardware).
> i.e it increases the reach of free software instead of limiting it
> (what you and others propose in the name of freedom).
But the software is only actually free once Restricted Boot is
Chris Murphy wrote:
> b.) Disabling Secure Boot entirely for both operating systems.
>
> That outcome is inherently user hostile on both counts.
I don't see how "b" would be hostile, at all, given that Matthew Garrett
(who has the insider information) says that Window$ 8 will boot just fine in
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could you start
> writing such guides on Fedora wiki?
I cannot start documenting this before the first "Secure"-Boot-enabled
firmware actually ships.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
Tom Callaway wrote:
> Also, I refuse to argue any further down the logic path of "What if
> someone does something blatantly illegal with Windows 8?". We cannot
> (and will not) recommend pirated & hacked copies of Windows 8 as a
> resolution to this issue.
Looks like the dual-boot issue is moot a
drago01 wrote:
>> "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>> your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."
>
> Secure boot support won't stop you (or anyone else) from doing that.
>
>> "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>> (freedom 3)."
Chris Adams wrote:
> Please stop with the conspiracy theories and stick to technical
> discussions. This very thread is proof that nobody is trying to "sneak"
> this in.
No, it's not. The thread was started by one of the people opposing the plan.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
deve
Peter Jones wrote:
> We don't know what all firmwares' UI's will look like, and it's possible -
> even somewhat reasonable - that instead of "enable secure boot [X]" some
> vendors would implement it, for example, as "[remove trusted key]" or
> possibly a combo box with options ["user mode", "setup
Am 02.06.2012 00:24, schrieb Pádraig Brady:
> On 06/01/2012 08:56 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> HERE AGAIN THE FULL QUTOE TO GET BACK CONTEXT!
>>
So I'll patch sort to default to /var/tmp rather than /tmp
>>> thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
>>> on expensive SAN st
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:52:20AM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 05:13 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >
> >Please don't spread FUD like this. You are wrong for a couple of
> >reasons:
> >
> >- Secure boot is required to be able to be disabled on x86 (the only
> > platform Fedora will supp
On 06/01/2012 08:56 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.06.2012 20:14, schrieb Simo Sorce:
>> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:58 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Simo Sorce said:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:02:10PM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> - "You need to disable SecureBoot in the BIOS settings in order to
> install Fedora"
> - "BIOS settings? What's that? Oh a blueish DOS-like command-line thing?
> Freaky. Disable SecureBoot? Why on earth would I want to make my syste
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > And how is a random user supposed to know this?
>
> He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
> of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
>
> tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults
Am 01.06.2012 23:48, schrieb Nathanael D. Noblet:
> On 06/01/2012 03:23 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Reindl Harald
>>> wrote:
* it is a valid workload that a application creates a 10 GB tempfile
On 06/01/2012 03:23 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* it is a valid workload that a application creates a 10 GB tempfile
* ok, you say: use /var/tmp
* well, i say: my whole rootfs is only
Am 01.06.2012 23:23, schrieb Garrett Holmstrom:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> * it is a valid workload that a application creates a 10 GB tempfile
>>> * ok, you say: use /var/tmp
>>> * well, i say: my wh
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> * it is a valid workload that a application creates a 10 GB tempfile
>> * ok, you say: use /var/tmp
>> * well, i say: my whole rootfs is only 4 GB and 2 Gb are used
>
> If your rootfs
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > And how is a random user supposed to know this?
>
> He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
> of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
>
> tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults,
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:28 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > I think the question here is can someone please point to a page with
> > numbers that justify /tmp -> tmpfs be the default for the most common
> > cases ?
> > laptop / vm with lim
Am 01.06.2012 22:44, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> if they are on disk under /tmp they are cached only
>> as long page-cache or active RAM is not needed for
>> the workload and the memory can be released instead
>> WRITE it do disk with swapp
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you— perhaps more all-caps would help? :-)
>>
>> The dogmatic 'swap is bad for performance' is justified only because
>> writing/reading a slow disk is bad for performance.
>
> and how does /tmp in RAm change
On 06/01/2012 12:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Just include instructions on how to disable "Secure" Boot on the common
firmware types (on the website, and on the cover of the DVDs we hand out at
events). There are only a handful BIOS vendors, I don't expect this to
change much with UEFI.
Not that
Am 01.06.2012 22:14, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> and that does also patch all applications back which starts
>> using /var/tmp like "sort" as default for their temp-files?
>
> I keep seeing sort as the primary example: how often are people sorting
> multi-gig
Am 01.06.2012 21:59, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Simo Sorce said:
>> Ok, say I have installed my new laptop and discover that the new /tmp
>> arrangement is not good for me and I'd rather keep /tmp on disk, how do
>> you go about that ? (No I do not have any un-partitioned space lef
Am 01.06.2012 20:14, schrieb Simo Sorce:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:58 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Simo Sorce said:
>>> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual
Am 01.06.2012 18:26, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> well designed machines do NOT swap and have not alligend
>> swap at all - in the case of virtualization you MUST NOT
>> enforce swapping if you really like perofrmance
>
> I'm sorry, I could
Am 01.06.2012 18:21, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
> misunderstanding how modern memory management works and the assumption
> that having an explicit size limit on /tmp was a bad thing, even though
> it actually is a good thing... In fact
Am 01.06.2012 18:02, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
>> on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
>> with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
>
> If you are mounting a fil
Am 01.06.2012 18:01, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> DO NOT SPIT USELESS DATA IN MY RAM PER DEFAULT BECAUSE RAM
>> IS EXPENSIVE STORAGE AND USED FOR BETTER THINGS
>
> Actually, the data written to /tmp _always_ goes through the page cache
> and is held in RAM (at
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:03:54PM -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> Will OEM Windows 8 installs - requiring SecureBoot to be enabled as per
> logo requirements - boot on such hardware with SecureBoot disabled? Or
> will only retail/upgrade installs install on SecureBoot-capable but
> disabled hardw
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> and that does also patch all applications back which starts
> using /var/tmp like "sort" as default for their temp-files?
I keep seeing sort as the primary example: how often are people sorting
multi-gigabyte files? I've been running with either a separate
On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
And how is a random user supposed to know this?
He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults,nosuid,nodev 0 0
and aside from a situation when I tried to save
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > Another option would be to just relabel /home (# restorecon -R -v /home) at
> > upgrade time. But this would also be time consuming. And would not catch
> > the
> > cases where the homedir is not in /home.
>
> I am strongly for this option. A
On 06/01/2012 03:56 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>> Drive manufacturers need to do nothing.
>>
>> One drive probably SSD at this point, gets dedicated to OS. Other drive to
>> everything else.
>>
>> The read-write controllable interfaces already ex
On 06/01/2012 01:24 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>> Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
>> SecureBoot enabled?
>
Once upon a time, Simo Sorce said:
> Ok, say I have installed my new laptop and discover that the new /tmp
> arrangement is not good for me and I'd rather keep /tmp on disk, how do
> you go about that ? (No I do not have any un-partitioned space left, and
> using the root file system is fine by me
> it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing
> during installation.
IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk partitioning page, where
we're already asking the user all sorts of questions about the
filesystem layout and mount points (including putting /tmp on a
separate partiti
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 03:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>>> That would be much easier accomplished by having the OS reside on a
>>> read-only device that could only be written to by
>>> the user actively u
On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Drive manufacturers need to do nothing.
>
> One drive probably SSD at this point, gets dedicated to OS. Other drive to
> everything else.
Cute, so you're requiring everyone have two drives. Well I don't want two
drives in my laptop, I want one.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 20:08 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 07:53:36PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > > > For all available firmware vendors and models?
> > >
> > > For the ones that e
On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>
> My practical point is that Microsoft chose this particular solution not as
> the best way to solve the issue of booting
> known-good code but as a way of impacting Linux and it whole concept of
> software freedoms.
Point declined.
practica
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I replied elsewhere in the thread, but I believe KK is significantly
> underestimating things here. There are indeed only a few system firmware
> vendors, who write the firmwares for just about all PCs under contract
> from the manufacturers
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:28 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> I think the question here is can someone please point to a page with
> numbers that justify /tmp -> tmpfs be the default for the most common
> cases ?
> laptop / vm with limited RAM.
No, that's the question in the main thread. This subthread
On 6/1/12 12:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
False. Quoting from Matthew's original post:
"A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys
and replace them with your own. After that it's just a matter of
re-signing the Fedora bootloader (like I said, we'll b
On 06/01/2012 03:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> That would be much easier accomplished by having the OS reside on a
>> read-only device that could only be written to by
>> the user actively using hardware to enable the write during installation.
> E
On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I have no goddamn
> clue why. It's completely stupid. But they do it. You can't rely on a
> system from HP with, say, a Phoenix firmware to have the same interface
> as a system from Dell with a Phoenix firmware.
Branding and marketing is one o
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 23:00 +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
> > this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
> $ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=
On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> That would be much easier accomplished by having the OS reside on a read-only
> device that could only be written to by
> the user actively using hardware to enable the write during installation.
Except this hardware does not exist, and it only to
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I haven't bothered because I have no clue what you'll accept and I
> fully accept you to move the goalposts.
Fedora application usage.
> For example, I build firefox in /tmp which is on tmpfs for me because
> on mostly finished trees the make is about 40% faster than with
On 06/01/2012 03:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:14 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest
>> Rube-Goldberg machine.
>>
>> I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've
>> dreamt up here.
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > IMHO *telling* the user how to manage /tmp is wrong, whichever side of
> > the argument you're on. *Asking* them how to manage it is the right
> > way. That was my point in that
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:22:32PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
> > this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
>
> I haven't bothered because I have no clu
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:14 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest
> Rube-Goldberg machine.
>
> I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've dreamt
> up here.
>
>
> The whole problem they are trying to solve is
On 06/01/2012 03:00 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=1M count=10240
1024
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
> this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
I haven't bothered because I have no clue what you'll accept and I
fully accept you to move the goalposts.
For exa
Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> $ time dd [snip]
> Does that counts as a proof?
It, in fact, provides proof that this feature is searching for a
problem. Which applications require gigabytes per second throughput out
of /tmp?
(and your numbers for tmpfs would equal ext4 once you started swapping)
--
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:33 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >> By the way, I am assuming that you know that one can't modify Firefox and
> >> redistribute it as Firefox without certification.
> > I've been pointing out this issue in s
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:00:57PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
> > this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
> $ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/f
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 20:08 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 07:53:36PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > > For all available firmware vendors and models?
> >
> > For the ones that end users are actually likely to have, which aren't that
> > many. There are
I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest
Rube-Goldberg machine.
I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've dreamt
up here.
The whole problem they are trying to solve is that of booting only known-good
code.
That would be much easier
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:21:28PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> ext3 otoh means must be on disk in the end, [...]
This is plainly not true. If you create a file and immediate delete
it, ext3 won't write the data to disk (metadata is slightly different,
but in any case very small).
What are
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:57 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:02 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > The point I'm trying to make is the default setting might actually be
> > the most important thing that matters when it comes to new users that
> > want to install Fedora.
> >
> > - "You need
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> *I* want /tmp on disk. I still don't want someone else telling me I
> have to do it that way.
You can still put tmp on a disk if you're the kind of advanced users
who knows better enough to override the defaults.
But there does have to be a de
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Caterpillar wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Adam Williamson
> > Third bug: after preupgrade finished to download fc17
> packages, I
> > rebooted, but grub did not have a “upgrade system” entry. So
> the
> > computer is not upgradable w
On 06/01/2012 12:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The problem there is clearly on the Window$ side, nothing we can or should
> do about it.
Clearly, there is something we can do, as something has been proposed.
Also, I refuse to argue any further down the logic path of "What if
someone does somethin
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:18 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I'm going to chime in once to add my thoughts... It's already way too
> late for me to influence the decision (first I heard of it is "it's
> decided") so my only recourse is to add it to the long list of things
> I have to "undo" after instal
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
> this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=1M count=10240
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
107374
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:55 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 11:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > > > I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
> > > > only hope any "solution" that re
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:55:42PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> What about on ARM?
The inability for users to enrol keys or disable secure boot means we
have no intention of supporting it on ARM.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On 06/01/2012 12:02 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 17:54 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> IMHO *telling* the user how to manage /tmp is wrong, whichever side of
> the argument you're on. *Asking* them how to manage it is the right
> way. That was my point in that mail.
>
> *I* want /tmp on disk. I still don't want someone else
On 06/01/2012 11:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS
settings in order to install Fedora won't be s
On 06/01/2012 03:55 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Not all /tmp user-cases need to move to /var/tmp
>
> sort is special in this regard in that it only uses
> external files when there isn't enough RAM.
> I.E. is expects it to be slower (larger).
Would you mind debating if anything else is "special"?
>>> They "just work" as long as you don't try to actually exercise one of the
>>> freedoms we stand for.
>>
>> Which one?
>
> "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
> computing as you wish (freedom 1)."
> "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified vers
Brian Wheeler wrote:
>
> How is this change a win?
Unfortunately, due to Lennart's ignorance (we're all ignorant of
something), he will consider your e-mail "flame-bait" and not reply.
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for
On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts to
solve, and if so, what about the plethora of BIOS hardware in the world
today, still even shipping as new systems? They're all unacceptably exposed?
Really?
That's the posit
> Your quoting removed the fact that I was responding a statement that
> ram was the "wrong place". I was simply extending the comment. If
> you're willing to say that ram is the wrong place for something then
> there is nothing user hostile to say tmp is too.
"Wrong" in general has been used he
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:18 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:10 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> >
> >> We include wireless device firmware even though it isn't free. And we
> >> don't like doing that, but it is the only way to ge
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On my 'normal' systems once the desktop is fully started with Firfox,
> Gnome, Evolution and all the crap, I already am using more than half the
> RAM available, so tmpfs in RAM means I hit swap as soon as something
> decides to write a tmp file
On 06/01/2012 02:26 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/01/2012 02:24 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
Yes.
Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot with
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:16:45 -0400
> Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>>
>> Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
>
> My understanding: no.
I think that's untenable. My understanding is simply that the Windows
logo/certificatio
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> If they really aren't transient then /tmp is the wrong place for them.
> I will categorically disagree with any argument of the "the user
> shouldn't be doing that" type. Software exists to serve the user, not
> the other way around.
Your quot
> I am not sure asking is the right thing, I think tmpfs in RAM should
> be an *optional* supporte dfeature for those users that have a
> workload that *will* benefit from this feature and therefore *will*
> seek it.
It could have been as easy as a checkbox in the disk partitioning screen
of the
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> Can users flash BIOS to remove SecureBoot?
BIOS doesn't have Secure Boot. UEFI != BIOS.
Chris Murphy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:44:17 -0600
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> In case enabled secureboot is the only option (i.e we somehow refuse
>>> to boot with it disabled) then (and only then) you can talk
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Everyone is singing a different tune about these possibilities.
>
> My guesses would have been:
> Yes.
> No.
> Yes.
Your guesses would be wrong.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
> If they really aren't transient then /tmp is the wrong place for them.
I will categorically disagree with any argument of the "the user
shouldn't be doing that" type. Software exists to serve the user, not
the other way around.
Besides, I often don't realize that a file isn't transient until
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:26:12 -0400
Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 02:24 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >> Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware
On 06/01/2012 02:24 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
> Yes.
>
>> Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
>> SecureBoot enabled?
> Yes.
>
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:16:45PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
Yes.
> Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
> SecureBoot enabled?
Yes.
> Can users flash BIOS to remove SecureBoot?
No.
--
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > The point I'm trying to make is the default setting might actually be
> > the most important thing that matters when it comes to new users that
> > want to install Fedora.
> >
> > - "You need to disable SecureBoot in
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
