<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Michael Stone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@laptop.org">michael@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm not clear why Sugar needs more protection from rogue activities than a<br>
normal desktop environment has from rogue applications.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The justification which interests me the most goes something like: "strong<br>
protections mean that there is less risk that kids and teachers will break<br>
things by installing software on their machines; therefore, educational<br>
innovations will spread faster."</blockquote><div><br></div><div>See my comment regarding Backup, a far more useful and achievable solution to this problem.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Reinventing the desktop as a constructivist learning environment is a big<br>
enough task for one development team / community to swallow. Reinventing<br>
security is an altogether separate cause.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
There is no reinvention taking place here; instead, we are using both<br>
long-standing OS features (discretionary access control; memory isolation) and<br>
novel OS features (network containerization, cgroup-based memory resource<br>
limits) in new combinations as they become available. What has changed is that<br>
the Sugar UI and user expectations permit concentrated use of these features.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In a nutshell, all this refers to Sandboxing, which seems to be the "new hotness" in software security these days. I type this email in Google Chrome, which is a good example of that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There's nothing wrong with sandboxing or other new security techniques, I just argue that their purpose is *orthogonal* to the goals of Sugar.</div><div><br></div><div>Apologies for incorrectly assuming that you wanted someone to finish Rainbow. As far as I know the current implementation is without major issues, if some of the more advanced features of Bitfrost are not yet implemented.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>-Wade</div><div><br></div></div>