drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 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)
Tom Callaway wrote:
> Do we want to support dual-booting with Windows 8? Microsoft describes
> SecureBoot enablement as "Required for Windows 8 client" [1]? What does
> that mean? We're not sure. At best, it means that BitLocker isn't going
> to work, at worst, big chunks of Windows 8 functionality
On 06/01/2012 12:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom Callaway wrote:
>> Do we want to support dual-booting with Windows 8? Microsoft describes
>> SecureBoot enablement as "Required for Windows 8 client" [1]? What does
>> that mean? We're not sure. At best, it means that BitLocker isn't going
>> to wor
drago01 wrote:
> Secureboot support does *NOT* limit your freedom as long as it is
> optional (the default setting does not matter).
Then why are we bothering to support it in the first place?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.o
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:32:25PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > I can see the loss of freedom, and I find it unfortunate, but despite
> > what you've said above, you *are* distorting it. There's nothing you
> > won't be able to do that you could do before. Doing it the same w
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 the BIOS settings in order to
> install Fedora"
> - "BIOS settings
> The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
> preservation,
I'm about to put in an SSD boot disk, so I care about this argument,
but I'm still not using tmpfs, for my reasons stated previously.
> but tmpfs also offers considerable performance improvements for
> workloads
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 get wireless support
> out of the box in Fedora.
Tiny nit: no, it isn't. We could always write free firmware. This isn'
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Caterpillar wrote:
> I am very disappointed with that, because preupgrade is the official
> supported way to upgrade Fedora versions
Strictly, no. It's *a* supported way.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if we more strongly recommended that people do
DVD/netinst upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821290
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedora
On 06/01/2012 11:52 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
"Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not compelling.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> This conclusion is NOT TRUE for me. I've checked it. /tmp on ext3 on
> my system does NOT incur any disk I/O until long after the process
> using it has finished, if at all, as long as the files are small and
> transient.
Glad to see you've t
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM, 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 the BI
It will be interesting to see how Apple implements Secure Boot on their
hardware. Historically their firmwares are not user configurable at all. I will
be supremely shocked if they allow user or 3rd party installable keys, rather
than only Apple and Microsoft keys, let alone the ability for the
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Because the entire excercise is to allow Fedora install without tinkering
> with firmware settings.
And my whole point is that our core freedoms are much more important than
this extremely minor convenience. (The required "tinkering" is trivial.)
> It had to "just work", e
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:03 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:32:25PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> > > I can see the loss of freedom, and I find it unfortunate, but despite
> > > what you've said above, you *are* distorting it. There's nothing you
> > >
On 06/01/2012 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
>> preservation,
> I'm about to put in an SSD boot disk, so I care about this argument,
> but I'm still not using tmpfs, for my reasons stated previously.
>
>> but tmpfs also offers consi
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
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
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, we
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 about
> removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD.
It's an assumption there will be an option to disable it. This is up
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Nonsense. They will be able to install it very easily, they just need to set
> a single boolean in their BIOS setup from Enabled to Disabled.
For many users, telling them to change a BIOS setting is Greek to them.
There are a lot of options, and some can br
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> It is not acceptable that the kernel and GRUB maintainers are trying to
> sneak this in through the backdoor with no mandate whatsoever from our
> governance structure.
Please stop with the conspiracy theories and stick to technical
discussions. This very
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> 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, a
Chris Adams wrote:
> For many users, telling them to change a BIOS setting is Greek to them.
So we need step-by-step instructions for the common BIOSes. Not
unsurmountable.
> There are a lot of options, and some can break your computer; it is far
> from an easy change.
The option they need to c
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> Secureboot support does *NOT* limit your freedom as long as it is
>> optional (the default setting does not matter).
>
> Then why are we bothering to support it in the first place?
Because it is *easier* for ordinary users to
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, 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 about
>> removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD.
>
> It's an
Adam Williamson wrote:
> KK's position is that this is not true. He is arguing that it's better
> to require people to disable Secure Boot and use this as an opportunity
> to explain the problems with it, than to come up with a compromise that
> allows us to install in Secure Boot-enabled mode but:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> The option they need to change has a very specific name ("Secure Boot").
> IMHO, users should be able to find it even without more detailed
> instructions.
I haven't seen such a system myself yet, but when I look at the UEFI
specs, it doesn't sound like it
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 machines
> > > on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
> > > with a own virtual dis
Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> How do you think somebody ignorant of the politics behind Free Software
> would trust the FSF (or Fedora) more than the hardware vendor (or
> Microsoft)?
If they don't trust us, why would they try our software in the first place?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Jun 1, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> This is happening on internal disks, targeted for Fedora
>> installation. I can hear it once install is complete, still booted
>> from DVD media. Is this a bug?
>
> So long as the file system is mounted and the itable initialization is
> not compl
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 much fewer BIOS vendors than hardware vendors.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:36 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 01.06.2012 11:25, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
> > On 06/01/2012 10:37 AM, Caterpillar wrote:
> >> Please apologize me, but if #820340 was not a showstopper, so which bug
> >> should be a showstopper?
> >
> > The bug
> > * does not cause
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 18:16 +0200, 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 Fedor
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 about
> > removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD.
>
>
2012/6/1 Kevin Kofler :
> Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
>> How do you think somebody ignorant of the politics behind Free Software
>> would trust the FSF (or Fedora) more than the hardware vendor (or
>> Microsoft)?
>
> If they don't trust us, why would they try our software in the first place?
Because Fedo
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 much fewer BIOS vendors than hardware vendors.
Documenting the p
On 06/01/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the
majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new
machines.
Nonsense. They will be able to install it very easily, they just need to set
a singl
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, 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 machines
> > > > on expensive SAN storages
Windows-8 will install/boot on existing hardware w/o SecureBoot.
Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot without
SecureBoot enabled?
Can users flash BIOS to remove SecureBoot?
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
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 get wireless support
>> out of the box in Fedora.
>
> Tiny nit: no
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.
>
> Will Windows-8 install/boot on new hardware that contains SecureBoot
> without SecureBoot enabled?
My understanding: no.
> Can users flash BIO
On 06/01/2012 12:58 PM, 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 the BIOS settings in order to
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:08:13 +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
On 06/01/2012 02:19 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.
There are multiple examples on the web of people installing Windows-8 on
existing hardware.
--
dev
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
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 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, 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
> 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, 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
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 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
> 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 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
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 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 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 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
> 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 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
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
>>> 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
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"?
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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, 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
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 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
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, 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
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, 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 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 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 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.
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 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
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 1:16 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1:37 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 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
101 - 200 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
