Future of Rainbow + Sugar?
bernie at codewiz.org
Tue Feb 24 11:41:43 EST 2009
Michael Stone wrote:
> In my view, it's up to the SugarLabs folks to use Rainbow or to drop it.
Now that Sugar was made more modular, I think it's up to the
individual distributors to make a choice. It might be enabled by
default on XOOS, disabled by default on F11, and so on.
> Now, it could certainly be the case that there's more work that I need to do in
> the form of documenting, testing, or pushing my recent rainbows before people
> will be excited about trying them out and, if that's the case, someone should
> tell me. Since no one has done so to date, despite repeated overtures, I've
> mostly come to believe that no one cares.
Is there any work that needs to be done Sugar side in order to adapt
it to your refactored version of Rainbow?
If so, I'm afraid that:
1) nobody but you understands Rainbow well enough to come up with a
2) it might be too late for the 0.84 release cycle at this point.
> P.S. - I find this state of affairs particularly sad, since I think there's an
> /increasing/ amount of awesomeness that Rainbow can provide, e.g., bringing all
> the recent hard work the kernel folks have been putting in on network
> containerization and memory-resource cgroups "to the masses".
I'm with you on this. Actually, Rainbow is the only part of OLPC's
security I find actually beneficial for the user.
// Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/
More information about the Devel