On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the
need
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the
need
It's a lot more than that . When you contrast the current WIMP UI and
generic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; OLPC Devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 4:59:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model
On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bert,
if you try and say that the entire world
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:02:07PM -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
I'm under the impression that the Sugar shell was specifically
designed to be EASY TO LEARN for people lacking Western education.
Yes, there are many who desire to run desktop applications (without
having to re-program them)
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking
about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase
recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about extending Sugar
to a standard desktop (presumably to increase recognition of
Slight correction, I should have said GNU/Linux below.
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking
about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase
recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about
Hi David,
unfortunately I don't have time right now to enter again in this
debate, but I wanted to do one comment:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many people have pointed out the limitations of the journal approach, and
problems with not naming activites and files.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only
one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship in
the core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherwise, and (b) Rainbow's
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely independant of each
On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version
of each of
those packages
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much
work to get there from here.
at the moment it doesn't seem as if there's agreement yet that this does
need to get fixed.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H, sorry, run that past me again. I thought the intention was that
the Journal was an integral part of the Sugar UI, and the plan was
that the Journal code was going to be integrated to the Sugar Shell
for (I think)
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much
work to get there from here.
at the moment it doesn't seem as if there's
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux
boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run
everything under sugar in one window. this doesn't mean that some
libraries won't need to be
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in part the other response to my message that seemed to have the attitude
that 'fixing' the problem would reduce Sugar to 'just another WM' rendering
it worthless.
That's not how I read Greg post but anyway...
there have been other
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Mikus Grinbergs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe TWO sets of Activities need to be made available to users
who are not schoolkids linked to a school server. One set I'll call
'stable Activities' - they are packaged in Activity Packs such as
the ones for
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized
activities use
a standard file picker call so that it could go to the journal on
the XO
machine, or to a normal file
On 5/9/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux
boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run
everything under
2008/5/9 Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for the sharing stuff, I know you can download and use the telepathy
libs, but would you also need a presence service running? Could this be
automatically started when an app wants to collaborate, or is it something
that would have to be running in
Bobby Powers wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 15:30 +0200, Bobby Powers wrote:
The way I see it it is somewhat of a two way street. Personally, if
I'm going to run Sugar apps in Gnome I would prefer them to integrate
nicely with my other apps, just as I would prefer apps running in
Sugar to be 'sugary'.
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
Bobby Powers wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized
activities use
a standard file picker call so that it could go to the journal on
On Fri, 9 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized activities
use a standard file
*But* I also think it should be possible to run a Sugar activity on a
standard desktop and a desktop application in the Sugar shell. Integration is
great and we should encourage it, but we can't assume it will always happen.
And in the cases it doesn't happen, not-integrated is better than
On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bert,
if you try and say that the entire world is wrong in how it writes
software,
Actually, that's exactly what I think, and entire world includes
yours truly ;)
But this isn't the place to talk about that (if you're curious, visit
On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bert,
if you try and say that the entire world is wrong in how it writes
software,
Actually, that's exactly what I think, and entire world includes
yours truly ;)
But this isn't
Developers should eat their own dogfood, AND this doesn't seem like the
right process. A one-click install latest activities link would work just
fine, and be a way to test activity updating. It shouldn't be possible to
ship without browse. I find shipping a more reasonable set of priority
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian
ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only
one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship in the
core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherwise, and (b) Rainbow's
activity-signing stuff is
It also needs to be decided how the available activities are
displayed. Initially we'd planned on simply launching Browse and
pointing to a predetermined URL (an easy way out, but requires
setting up the server side). That requires including Browse as part
of the base image. Another option
On 9 May 2008, at 00:42, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian
ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only
one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship
in the
core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherwise, and
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally
Yes. Debian does most of the work, ubuntu polishes a subset of
packages, and then a much smaller subset of packages are software that
Ubuntu develop themselves. Just like us ;-)
We only
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each of
those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely independant of each other. they then do a lot of
testing and some
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of
those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, we may have a sugar build with the latest
sugar UI bits, a security build which implements Bitfrost more
fully, a printers build which works on printer support,
That makes sense if (when) there is
On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a
set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we
have already everything in place to do so).
I hate the core activities idea. What are the core
Note that the meat of this proposal was *not* aimed at @laptop.org
employees, who I assume are savvy enough to get appropriate changes
upstream. The real point here was to outline a devel strategy that
would work for 'out of core' changes made by external developers. So
worrying about the
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a
set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we
have already
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the meat of this proposal was *not* aimed at @laptop.org
employees, who I assume are savvy enough to get appropriate changes
upstream. The real point here was to outline a devel strategy that
would work for
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, I think we should provide a set of default activities. And I
think those should include the educational ones. Shipping default
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:10 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, I think we should provide a set of default activities. And I
think those should include the educational ones. Shipping default
*shipping* refers to what leaves the factory in China.
We do not *ship* anything without activities installed.
If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your
activities (that would be a bug if you did).
If you do a 'cleaninstall' based on the old methods of cleaninstall,
On 07.05.2008, at 20:30, Kim Quirk wrote:
If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your
activities (that would be a bug if you did).
This is exactly what happens when you upgrade to the latest update.1
build.
- Bert -
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 20:30, Kim Quirk wrote:
If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your
activities (that would be a bug if you did).
This is exactly what happens when you upgrade to the
On May 7, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
Dammit, why are we having the discussion again!
We do not *ship* any image or machine with no activities installed.
End of story.
I thought that was exactly what we were doing, and that the only way
to have activities wind up on builds
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, John Watlington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change
from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled
OS without hand-holding (installing the G1G1 activity bundle).
And, in fact, last I checked
On 07.05.2008, at 20:57, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, John Watlington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change
from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled
OS without hand-holding (installing the
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a
set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we
have already everything in place to do so).
I
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update could come with a simple (or even better: obvious) method
to let people get the activities back.
There probably was no time to do this 2 months ago. But in the mean
time, if someone was interested to make
On 07.05.2008, at 21:23, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bert Freudenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update could come with a simple (or even better: obvious) method
to let people get the activities back.
There probably was no time to do this 2 months ago. But
On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a
set of core activities and make it really
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Well, my trust in OLPC is being probed every other day. I take your
word, and I trust a few other people there, but I also have to
acknowledge that priorities at OLPC are changing. So much so that some
of the people I trusted most are leaving.
On Wed, 7 May 2008 21:34:15 +0200
Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
I'm not really convinced it
On 07.05.2008, at 21:46, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Well, my trust in OLPC is being probed every other day. I take your
word, and I trust a few other people there, but I also have to
acknowledge that priorities at OLPC are changing. So much so
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the
discussions.
You're on crack, Bert. *None* of the activities listed in 6598 are in
the core build.
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the
discussions.
You're on crack, Bert. *None* of the
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the
discussions.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is
On 07.05.2008, at 23:04, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is something I remember coming up a lot back when Red Hat first
started putting out Rawhide. We would get lots of tickets from people
who would install it and expect it to a) work and b) be supported.
This was
Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change
from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled
OS without hand-holding (installing the G1G1 activity bundle).
And, in fact, last I checked our Wiki had the correct instructions for
doing an upgrade w/o losing
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my
2008/5/7 Steve Holton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Case in point, it bugs me when the wiki documents features of versions which
haven't been released yet, or declares a problem fixed because some later,
as yet unreleased version no longer shows the problem.
Well, it's correct to document features of
2008/5/7 Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/7 Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It never hurts to be paranoid, but the educational priorities of our
tool
and software development are not changing. There are priorities that
have
not been effectively
2008/5/8 Dennis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the next joyride build and olpc3 build will only install Journal.
Could you explain more background about the change to joyride? (I
wouldn't care about olpc3 at this time)
For activity developers Joyride has been:
1) staging environment before adding
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
the next joyride build and olpc3 build will only install Journal.
Oh, yuck. What's the recommended way for developers to install the
activities, then? I don't think we're ready for this step -- the
reason we still had all the activities
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:54:30PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Using the customisation key or one of the scripts floating around to
install an activity bundle. they will be installed in /home then and
its a one time deal.
Yah, developers should eat their own dogfood.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:52 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model is simple: fork and merge. That is to say, rather than
trying to maintain a single upstream that follows all the
That thread you point out is a good resource to understand how current
kernel devs handle
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:52 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model is simple: fork and merge. That is to say, rather than
trying to maintain a single upstream that follows all the
That thread you point out is a good resource to
73 matches
Mail list logo
