8:13 a.m.
Would it not make sense to include this extension as RPM
in Fedora - Worked really nice until the 5.0 release and
i guess a simple recompile against the new xulrunner-devel
could make it work again but no idea how
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/kde-wallet-password-integratio/
1:07 p.m.
On 06/27/2011 09:13 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Would it not make sense to include this extension as RPM
in Fedora - Worked really nice until the 5.0 release and
i guess a simple recompile against the new xulrunner-devel
could make it work again but no idea how
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/kde-wallet-password-integratio/
I'd love to see that working, but I also use Firefox sync, which looks
like it's broken with this extension now. Since that's a core feature
of Firefox 4 (RIP) it might be hard to justify pushing this by default
until that's fixed.
-Bill
--
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
http://bfccomputing.com/
Telephone: +1.855.SW.LIBRE
Email, IM, VOIP: bill(a)bfccomputing.com
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf
Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle
1:15 p.m.
Am 29.06.2011 20:07, schrieb Bill McGonigle:
On 06/27/2011 09:13 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Would it not make sense to include this extension as RPM
> in Fedora - Worked really nice until the 5.0 release and
> i guess a simple recompile against the new xulrunner-devel
> could make it work again but no idea how
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/kde-wallet-password-integratio/
I'd love to see that working, but I also use Firefox sync, which looks like it's
broken with
this extension now. Since that's a core feature of Firefox 4 (RIP) it might be hard
to justify
pushing this by default until that's fixed.
i do not understand why mozilla does not include kwallet integration in the
core instead useless crap like "personas", but anyways i would love to see
any integration in KDE/Fedora because passwords should stored in a central
manager if available
2:38 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 20:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.06.2011 20:07, schrieb Bill McGonigle:
> On 06/27/2011 09:13 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Would it not make sense to include this extension as RPM
>> in Fedora - Worked really nice until the 5.0 release and
>> i guess a simple recompile against the new xulrunner-devel
>> could make it work again but no idea how
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/kde-wallet-password-integratio/
>
> I'd love to see that working, but I also use Firefox sync, which looks like
it's broken with
> this extension now. Since that's a core feature of Firefox 4 (RIP) it might be
hard to justify
> pushing this by default until that's fixed.
i do not understand why mozilla does not include kwallet integration in the
core instead useless crap like "personas", but anyways i would love to see
any integration in KDE/Fedora because passwords should stored in a central
manager if available
Because it's not a KDE application. It's written for Gnome and uses the
Gnome keyring stuff.
<rant>
As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions between
two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its own
user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
actually do that?
</rant>
poc
1:57 a.m.
On Wednesday 29 June 2011 20:38:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Each DE wants its own
user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality?
Because it takes time to get there. :-)
There are talks about this already.
--
José Abílio
6:38 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 07:57 +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 29 June 2011 20:38:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Each DE wants its own
> user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
> can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality?
Because it takes time to get there. :-)
There are talks about this already.
Do you have a specific reference? Last time I looked, these talks had
been going on for a very long time and didn't seem to be progressing
very fast. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
poc
7:13 a.m.
On 06/30/2011 07:38 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 07:57 +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 20:38:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Each DE wants its own
>> user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
>> can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality?
>
> Because it takes time to get there. :-)
> There are talks about this already.
Do you have a specific reference? Last time I looked, these talks had
been going on for a very long time and didn't seem to be progressing
very fast. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
poc
Talks .. mmm ... the best way to have this use a good library - is to
build a good library that is better than what is there now.
There is no strong incentive to change a perfectly working tool to
switch a new (and as yet unproven library which may have more bugs)
just for the sake of using the same one as someone else.
i.e. If its useful - and someone builds a great tool - it will be
used ... but just focusing on the commonality and not the goals and
improvements is likely to (and probably should) not go too far ..
my views of course ... frankly in this case, I found seahorse's
desire to be all things to all tools a complete wrong headed approach.
ssh-agent and gpg-agent are designed for a particular need and do
that one need very well ... being all things to all people is not always
the right way either ...
7:30 a.m.
Am 30.06.2011 14:13, schrieb Genes MailLists:
ssh-agent and gpg-agent are designed for a particular need and do
that one need very well ... being all things to all people is not always
the right way either ...
maybe
but it's idiotic if you are using KDE no GNOME-App is using kwallet and if you
are using GNOME no KDE-App is using the GNOME wallet, the userinterface can be
DE specific, but storing the passwords in difeerent ways is simply dumb
7:47 a.m.
On 06/30/2011 08:30 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
maybe
but it's idiotic if you are using KDE no GNOME-App is using kwallet and if you
are using GNOME no KDE-App is using the GNOME wallet, the userinterface can be
DE specific, but storing the passwords in difeerent ways is simply dumb
right - and the default (I believe) for google-chrome is to use its
own - which is DE independent :-)
8:17 a.m.
Am 30.06.2011 14:47, schrieb Genes MailLists:
On 06/30/2011 08:30 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> maybe
>
> but it's idiotic if you are using KDE no GNOME-App is using kwallet and if you
> are using GNOME no KDE-App is using the GNOME wallet, the userinterface can be
> DE specific, but storing the passwords in difeerent ways is simply dumb
>
>
right - and the default (I believe) for google-chrome is to use its
own - which is DE independent :-)
and the worst solution
i wonder that there was no common used solution on unix-like systems
the past ten years to avoid such problems in the future
8:31 a.m.
On 06/30/2011 09:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> right - and the default (I believe) for google-chrome is to use its
> own - which is DE independent :-)
and the worst solution
i wonder that there was no common used solution on unix-like systems
the past ten years to avoid such problems in the future
A library of tools is a good solution - but YAD (yet another
daemon)with inadequate service is not (e.g. seahorse).
Its also not terribly hard to do - so the need to use a common one is
pretty low - but would be convenient if they all used the same database
store (and have choices what the store is - at least for the local
storage - for remote store (which chrome also uses) - the issues are a
little different).
Perhaps a clear definition of the goals, needs and how UIs work - and
how the common applications could use this API and benefit would be
helpful to would be tool builders.
gene/
4:57 p.m.
On Wed 29 June 2011 15:08:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
<rant>
As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions between
two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its own
user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
actually do that?
</rant>
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/secret-storage-spec Wanna help
fix that? ;)
--
Ryan Rix -- http://rix.si
== OpenSource.com: Where Open Source Happens! ==
_
\/"/_ All Hail the Beefy Miracle!
/_/
\ \
5:01 p.m.
Am 30.06.2011 23:57, schrieb Ryan Rix:
On Wed 29 June 2011 15:08:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> <rant>
> As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions between
> two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
> counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
> There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its own
> user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
> can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
> whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
> things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
> specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
> actually do that?
> </rant>
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/secret-storage-spec Wanna help
fix that? ;)
sounds good
i hope we will see this soon active and in combination with "oxygen-gtk"
and some ff/tb-themes sonner or later it will really make no difference
for kde-users starting a GNOME app
6:45 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 14:57 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
On Wed 29 June 2011 15:08:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> <rant>
> As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions between
> two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
> counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
> There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its own
> user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
> can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
> whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
> things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
> specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
> actually do that?
> </rant>
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/secret-storage-spec Wanna help
fix that? ;)
All I can say is it's depressing. A distinct impression of a project
going nowhere. Very little mailing list traffic (and that mostly from
one or two posters), a "recent changes" page that consists mostly of
spam, you get the picture. No doubt the handful of people working on it
are doing what they can, but after three years or so the spec is still
at draft 0.1, the last code commit was over 6 months ago and the
previous one 3 months before that, and nothing usable has found its way
to a leading distro. That suggests either that a) the project is poorly
focused, or b) too few people in the KDE and Gnome projects believe in
it (NIH syndrome? who knows?), or c) both.
poc
4:56 a.m.
On Thu 30 June 2011 19:15:33 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 14:57 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
> On Wed 29 June 2011 15:08:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > <rant>
> > As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions between
> > two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
> > counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
> > There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its own
> > user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
> > can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
> > whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
> > things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
> > specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
> > actually do that?
> > </rant>
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/secret-storage-spec Wanna
> help fix that? ;)
All I can say is it's depressing. A distinct impression of a project
going nowhere. Very little mailing list traffic (and that mostly from
one or two posters), a "recent changes" page that consists mostly of
spam, you get the picture. No doubt the handful of people working on it
are doing what they can, but after three years or so the spec is still
at draft 0.1, the last code commit was over 6 months ago and the
previous one 3 months before that, and nothing usable has found its way
to a leading distro. That suggests either that a) the project is poorly
focused, or b) too few people in the KDE and Gnome projects believe in
it (NIH syndrome? who knows?), or c) both.
poc
Or that there is a lack of developers to work on it. KWallet is a small
project, as is gnome-keyring, and both are volunteer efforts. I'm sure they'd
love any help.
--
Ryan Rix -- http://rix.si
== OpenSource.com: Where Open Source Happens! ==
_
\/"/_ All Hail the Beefy Miracle!
/_/
\ \
11:08 a.m.
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 02:56 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
On Thu 30 June 2011 19:15:33 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 14:57 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
> > On Wed 29 June 2011 15:08:31 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > <rant>
> > > As I've said before, this whole separation of wallet functions
between
> > > two different systems that don't talk to each other is stupid and
> > > counter-productive. It's as if each DE used its own version of libc.
> > > There's no basic technical justification for this. Each DE wants its
own
> > > user interface? Fine, but they do essentially the same things, so why
> > > can't they both use a common library for keystore functionality? The
> > > whole purpose of a wallet is to make things easier for the user. As
> > > things stand, that only happens if the user stays with the apps from one
> > > specific DE and never uses those of the other. Does anyone out there
> > > actually do that?
> > > </rant>
> >
> > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/secret-storage-spec Wanna
> > help fix that? ;)
>
> All I can say is it's depressing. A distinct impression of a project
> going nowhere. Very little mailing list traffic (and that mostly from
> one or two posters), a "recent changes" page that consists mostly of
> spam, you get the picture. No doubt the handful of people working on it
> are doing what they can, but after three years or so the spec is still
> at draft 0.1, the last code commit was over 6 months ago and the
> previous one 3 months before that, and nothing usable has found its way
> to a leading distro. That suggests either that a) the project is poorly
> focused, or b) too few people in the KDE and Gnome projects believe in
> it (NIH syndrome? who knows?), or c) both.
>
> poc
>
Or that there is a lack of developers to work on it. KWallet is a small
project, as is gnome-keyring, and both are volunteer efforts. I'm sure they'd
love any help.
Even if they are small projects, they clearly have a critical
importance, given the number of components that depend on them.
Furthermore, I don't get the impression that the Secret Storage project
is being actively supported by either side of the divide other than the
representative of each side. That means they continue to be two small
projects when they could be one larger project and maybe get somewhere.
If the two sides were really interested in a unified solution, no doubt
that would have happened before now. Draw your own conclusions.
poc
11:51 a.m.
On 07/01/2011 11:08 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Even if they are small projects, they clearly have a critical
importance, given the number of components that depend on them.
Furthermore, I don't get the impression that the Secret Storage project
is being actively supported by either side of the divide other than the
representative of each side.
I heard 3rd-hand/hear-say that gnome-keyring does indeed support this
now...
-- rex
1:52 p.m.
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 11:51 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/01/2011 11:08 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Even if they are small projects, they clearly have a critical
> importance, given the number of components that depend on them.
> Furthermore, I don't get the impression that the Secret Storage project
> is being actively supported by either side of the divide other than the
> representative of each side.
I heard 3rd-hand/hear-say that gnome-keyring does indeed support this
now...
What does this actually mean? Can a KDE user use gnome-keyring instead
of Kwallet to store all his passwords?
poc
4684
days inactive
4688
days old
19 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Bill McGonigle -
Genes MailLists -
José Abílio Matos -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Peter G. -
Reindl Harald -
Rex Dieter -
Ryan Rix