Same here, I wrote a short article (mainly around Mitch's e-mail and my take
of things) for olpcnews.
However due to scheduling constraints it will only be published next week.
Christoph
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Bastien bastiengue...@googlemail.comwrote:
Bastien
Oh, and just in case anybody hasn't see it yet, Ivan Krstic published a blog
post well worth reading yesterday: Sweet nonsense omelet -
http://radian.org/notebook/nonsense-omelet
Christoph
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Christoph Derndorfer
christoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote:
Same here, I
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Sameer Vermasve...@sfsu.edu wrote:
This is largely because you aren't doing normal Linux development.
Normal. Now there's a term that's relative. Is GNOME normal? Or is it KDE?
Or XFCE, LXDE? Enlightenment, maybe?
For this purpose: all of the above plus FVWM
Bastien bastiengue...@googlemail.com writes:
Thanks *very much* for these explanations.
I hope this kind of information can find its way through the OLPC blog,
maybe with a little more context. Then we can fight the FUD by linking
to these explanations.
I've just written an entry about
I'm sick and tired of the this OLPC-MS FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) on
Slashdot (one of the highest-traffic websites, so high that getting
linked on the frontpage is like being DDOSed) and it would be great if
the record on this could be set straight so that the MS FUD inanity on
Slashdot can
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
The thing is, most of the people on Slashdot (aka the Internet
Geek/Nerd Community) who post about OLPC topics know nothing about
what's going on as they just get their info from 3rd-hand sources and
haven't even touched an XO.
That's my point. We
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
correct vision, etc. Or we can hope that OLPC will fix this issue by
taking care
Now AFAIK, there's little to no Windows work being done in-house by
the OLPC team, and it's all or mostly at Microsoft's side that the
work's being done.
At the moment, OLPC is doing approximately zero work on Windows. That
wasn't true last year. I spent several months last year making
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:33:14PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
That one-way road was unacceptable to Nicholas. He insisted that, if
any machines were to be able to run Windows, they must be able to
dual-boot.
Good work, both of you.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
correct vision, etc.
No need for anyone here to have mod points on Slashdot actually. If
anyone here just says something informative and not FUD, and
Thanks *very much* for these explanations.
I hope this kind of information can find its way through the OLPC blog,
maybe with a little more context. Then we can fight the FUD by linking
to these explanations.
Coyping sj, as I think he's responsible for OLPC's blog, but I might be
wrong about
Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
correct vision, etc. Or we can
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
post would help clarifying stuff.
--
Bastien
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry I meant: it's not worth trying to make everyone fix this
communication bug. But of course, individuals are welcome to fix it!
Ok.
Or maybe OLPC is a tiny *tiny* group of people, utterly swamped with
HW, SW,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
Mitch just posted useful information.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Bastien bastiengue...@googlemail.comwrote:
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
Mitch just posted useful information.
Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet
CC'ing SJ this time...
Bastien bastiengue...@googlemail.com writes:
Thanks *very much* for these explanations.
I hope this kind of information can find its way through the OLPC blog,
maybe with a little more context. Then we can fight the FUD by linking
to these explanations.
Coyping sj,
Christoph Derndorfer christoph.derndor...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Bastien bastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
don't know what to post
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Christoph
Derndorferchristoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I missed it before but I'm really very surprised that this is the
first time I'm hearing this angle of the story in such detail. IMHO it would
have made a lot of sense for OLPC to say exactly what
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Christoph
Derndorferchristoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I missed it before but I'm really very surprised that this is the
first time I'm hearing this angle of the story
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Christoph
Derndorferchristoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hence why I wrote Maybe I missed it... ;-)
:-)
Anyway, crying over split milk doesn't really move us forward. Let's learn
our lessons for the future and get back to work.
100%. Motion wins.
m
--
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Bastien wrote:
Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
post would help clarifying stuff.
Here you go ...
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-July/025132.html
Not exactly classical blog format, but very efficient,
James Cameron qu...@laptop.org writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Bastien wrote:
Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
post would help clarifying stuff.
Here you go ...
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-July/025132.html
Not
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would have
more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
If you are going to wait or an official Linus Torvalds statement on
things, you're
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12:42PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would
have more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
I'm not able to help with that, sorry. I'm only a volunteer, and do not
represent OLPC.
--
James
Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Bastienbastiengue...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would have
more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
If you are going to wait or an
Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com writes:
If you are going to wait or an official Linus Torvalds statement on
things, you're going to wait a long time. Same with expecting SJ to
write something up -- he doesn't answer my emails either :-)
Btw, linux was successful because Linus was
Folks -
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
Mitch is quite right, but we've said just about all of that before to
Ed McNierney e...@laptop.org writes:
When we're finished clearing up the confusion about what OLPC is really doing
(and has been doing for a long time), we can move on to proving that Apollo 11
really did land on the Moon, Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and Lee
Harvey Oswald acted
Ed McNierney e...@laptop.org writes:
When we're finished clearing up the confusion about what OLPC is really doing
(and has been doing for a long time), we can move on to proving that Apollo 11
really did land on the Moon, Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and Lee
Harvey Oswald acted
Ed,
Lee Harvey Oswald was part of an ensemble group. See:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/cached/introduction/link0.20.in-a-gadda-da-oswald_files/oswald.jpe
More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
to stop making a scrambled egg out of the software stack
Walter -
I figured I was pushing the envelope with Oswald :)
Yes, indeed - I think there's some hope of communicating more clearly
that the XO-1 and XO-1.5 first have to work properly, and reliably,
with sustainable power demands, before anyone can start debating what
applications get
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:37:44AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
to stop making a scrambled egg out of the software stack with his
omelet analogy would go a long ways to reducing the confusion in the
media as well. His
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:21:59AM -0400, Ed McNierney wrote:
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
Maybe conspiracy theorists don't care, but I do. Mitchs post cleared
up a _lot_ for me
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:53 AM, James Cameronqu...@laptop.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:37:44AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
to stop making a scrambled egg out of the software stack with his
omelet analogy would go a
Ed McNierney writes:
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
Mitch is quite right, but we've said just about all of that before to
albert wrote:
Ed McNierney writes:
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
Mitch is quite right, but we've said just
[snipped]
This is largely because you aren't doing normal Linux development.
Normal. Now there's a term that's relative. Is GNOME normal? Or is it KDE?
Or XFCE, LXDE? Enlightenment, maybe? Sorry, but this approach does not fly.
Sugar is for a specific purpose. Using terms like normal only
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Sascha
Silbesascha-ml-ui-sugar-olpc-de...@silbe.org wrote:
Even the OLPC wiki contains links [1] to misleading reports [2] about
Windows on the XO without any further, clarifying comment.
...
[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Dual-boot
Thanks for pointing this
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Carlos Nazarenoobject...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all.
Check out the latest piece:
Negroponte Sees Sugar As OLPC's Biggest Mistake
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/20/1628228
(The title is bad FUD from OLPC News -- it's actually Negroponte
saying
Hey all.
Check out the latest piece:
Negroponte Sees Sugar As OLPC's Biggest Mistake
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/20/1628228
(The title is bad FUD from OLPC News -- it's actually Negroponte
saying that Sugar should have been run as an application instead of
the main OS
Hi Carlos,
Carlos Nazareno object...@gmail.com writes:
(The title is bad FUD from OLPC News -- it's actually Negroponte
saying that Sugar should have been run as an application instead of
the main OS layer/frontend and not Sugar itself as the mistake.)
This is actually very bad FUD. The
43 matches
Mail list logo
