"Walter Bender": Re: devkeys, prettyboot, and G1G1

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:49 AM, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> There's no cost to OLPC to have Quanta ship the
> manufacturing data with the "disable-security" bits set.

If this is true, I'd like to see us ship g1g1 laptops with security disabled.

The one persuasive argument I have seen for /not/ doing this is that
there might be increased support costs.  As Ian mentions, and from my
own limited exposure to people requesting support, having security
turned on leads to greater support costs than having it off would.

The only people who see any support costs one way or another are the
fairly technical people who know what it means to try to update their
system.

--SJ

> You're
> ready, willing, and able to ship such laptops to any country that
> orders them that way.  Why shouldn't G1G1 users be testing *that*
> configuration?
>
> If G1G1 was aimed at fully debugging the configuration for your
> largest deployments, you'd be shipping them with Spanish keyboards and
> Spanish-language messages (and with school server install CDs).
>
> Michael:
>> P.S. - As others have suggested, please do not assume that any
>> individual on this list speaks for everyone else involved; in almost all
>> cases, they speak only for themselves (but for their clique with
>> whatever measure of authority they happen to hold).
>
> I assume the reason we're having this discussion is because the silent
> decider, whoever that is, decided (or defaulted) to jail the upcoming
> G1G1 laptops.  If not, they could end it rather quickly by merely
> announcing that our concern was merely a problem of communication.
>
>        John
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>