[sugar] perceived sugar performance
Tue Apr 29 14:45:40 EDT 2008
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:15:54PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
> > michael wrote:
> > > Personally, I have found extensible autostart mechanisms which process
> > > third-party data to be more useful to trojan authors than to users so
> > > I'm mildly inclined to consider such mechanisms to be a misfeatures
> > really? i'm not sure where the "third-party" data comes into it. i
> > suppose with browse, maybe, but my .xsession has started two xterms on
> > my desktop for many years, and i've never considered it a security
> > issue. just a time-saver.
> Depends. Any software you run can write to your .xsession, yes?
> Afterward, will you really notice an extra instance of 'bash', or
> 'kdmgd', or some other nonsense running in the background, capturing all
> your keystrokes, aliasing 'sudo', running 'xauth ++', setting up a
> spambot, or querying an IRC server for recent local root exploits?
> Actually, an even more compelling demonstration of the problem comes
> from the Windows world. Consider the Windows 'Start' directory, the
> Windows registry hives which list both autostarted "user programs" and
> "services", automatically loaded drivers, corruption of Word's
> normal.dot template, and Windows' tendency to automatically run software
> it that it locates on data CDs. I have seen every single one of these
> mechanisms used to cause substantial mischief. All of them amount to an
> automatic "run this software" API. Often, there are ways to have the
> software run silently, run in a fashion that users are unable to kill,
> run steganographically, etc. As I said - in my honest opinion, it's a
> misfeature rather than a feature.
> "Third party" comes into it because parsing untrusted data is such a
> dangerous operation, particularly when the parsers are written in a
> non-memory-safe language (as most of them are, "for performance"). For
> this reason, both the Journal and Telepathy really scare me because they
> run automatically and parse data from lots of third party sources.
> > > Also, where does hibernation fit in your taxonomy?
> > i'd think that's pretty different -- coming out of hibernation
> > should leave the system exactly as it was when it went in.
> > (unless i'm misunderstanding.)
> You understood correctly. It has been previously proposed that we should
> (more or less) always hibernate. I was curious if you had thought about
> the resulting system.
Interesting. To clarify for myself, you're actually asking "what if a
normal reboot was treated as though it were hibernation", such that
the next time the laptop boots I find myself where I left off?" On
one hand, this sounds like a fantastic idea. On the other hand, it
could be that I rebooted specifically to get myself out of some bad
state, in which case I might not want it to relaunch 5 activities
which are going to bring the system to a crawl upon booting. (But
maybe I misunderstood you...)
Something that is certainly much more valid is to hibernate in the
battery-dies case. In other words, if the battery reaches a
critically low state and the computer needs to turn off, it should
allow enough time to hibernate such that the full state can be
recovered when a poer cable, or a new battery. That I am a strong
More information about the Sugar-devel