03/28/2012 11:23 AM, intrigeri:
> Hi,
>
> anonym wrote (27 Mar 2012 21:28:39 GMT) :
>> First of all, I just realized one thing the current implementation
>> breaks w.r.t. what we decided on IRC when we first discussed the
>> Unsafe Browser: the default button in the "really start unsafe
>> browser"-dialog is "Yes", not "No" as we decided.
>
>> I was quite shocked to now realize that zenity doesn't have an
>> option to change that (like xdialog's --default-no IIRC). The only
>> workaround I can think of is to set the text on the "Yes" button to
>> "No" and vice versa (and negate the return value), but that switches
>> the normal Gnome order of the Yes/No buttons :/.
>
>> If neither of these are acceptable, what could I use instead
>> of zenity?
>
> I'm fine with the workaround you suggest.
> Any other solution I can think of is totally overkill.
Implemented.
>> Quoting intrigeri from #tails:
>>> (17:18:33) intrigeri: anonym: I thought one part of the consensus we
>> reached was to put the "unsafe browser" in the System -> Administration
>> menu, and not in the Internet applications one, but I haven't the irc
>> log anymore.
>
>> I can't recall this decision.
>
>> Any way, [...] Besides, I don't think we need to take any further
>> steps to make it even more inaccessible.
>
> I don't think we need this either, but I could pretty well live with
> it, and I thought it was part of the consensus we reached with great
> difficulties; I'm not in the mood of having that discussion again.
>
> It would feel totally stupid, given how hard it was to reach
> a decision that was acceptable for everyone present, if nobody had
> taken note of it. Hasn't anyone?
I have the logs, and searching for the keywords "menu", "system",
"admin", "administration" and so on resulted in nothing.
> If not, let's just keep the current menu placement, be done with it,
> and let's be more clever next time.
It's a keeper then.
>> (17:47:24) intrigeri: anonym: I'm afraid the unsafe browser new
>> feature will be a serious problem for an existing usecase of ours;
>> I've therefore created https://tails.boum.org/todo/kiosk_mode/
>
>> Ok. To be continued once we've thought that one through then.
>
> I think the actual need, that would not be satisfied anymore if we
> merge feature/unsafe-browser as is, is pretty clear: Tails has been
> used for a while in places where one wants to allow some kind of
> public to access the Internet, but one does not want to allow them to
> easily access it without using Tor.
>
> There's a proposed solution: "remove the unsafe browser user and
> launcher". I just added a note to the wiki page about entering the
> kiosk mode.
>
> I don't think every need listed on that page must be implemented
> before we ship some minimal implementation of the kiosk mode, at least
> to fix the regression we're discussing. The other listed needs are
> more of the "would be nice" category, and shall not block this
> fix IMHO.
Ok.
Cheers!
