> 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
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
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?
>
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
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 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
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 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
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
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 18:21, 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 18:26, 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 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 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 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
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
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
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, 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
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, 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
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 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 23:48, 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 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, 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 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 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
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
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
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
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)."
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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 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
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
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
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.
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
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
201 - 246 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
