On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Neil Graham wrote: > On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 19:55 -0400, John Watlington wrote: >> On Aug 8, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Neil Graham wrote: >> >>> There is a small open handheld console. http://www.openpandora.org/ >>> http://pandorapress.net/ The openness and friendliness of the community >>> environment is a model for how things can work. >> >> The support page on that wiki points you to enter the bug in their bug >> tracker. >> What part of Pandora were you holding up as an example of better practices ? >> > > Goodness I didn't realise the difference was that profound. Community > involvement is not a link on a webpage. If that is the level of > interaction that you have been looking at then you haven't even been in > the right book let alone on the right page.
What thread were you responding to ? My comment was in direct response to the mail that started this thread: > On Aug 8, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Christoph Derndorfer wrote: > >> The core here is that software developers seem very reluctant to step out of >> their own comfort zone when it comes to processes and tools (a.k.a. point 3 >> a.k.a. "my way or the highway") yet consistently expect teachers and other >> XO and Sugar users to do exactly that. >> >> This leads to the current situation in which crucial information and >> feedback from these users does not make it back to developers and the >> broader community. Therefore rather than working on things that users need >> or need to work reliably (e.g. the Journal) resources are spent elsewhere. > I repeat my question to you: How does OpenPandora provide a better method for users to feedback comments/problems to developers ? > I doubt I ever clicked on that link, yet I know how many Pandora's are > out there, where the various components of the as yet unassembled > Pandora's are, what has been the most recent problem in getting them > going. Hmm. Most of that information is readily available for XOs as well. > I don't actually have a Pandora but I know that the first few units had > sticky shoulder buttons, I also know that was due to the paint, and what > they did to solve the problem. And people on the OLPC devel mailing list are aware of early problems with the pre-production XO-1.5s. If you don't like mailing lists, there is the wiki page for each version of hardware, e.g. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_1.5_C3 > There is a huge amount of transparency that just isn't there with > OLPC. Building first-rate hardware requires playing with the big boys. And while I might not like the secrecy they impose as a condition for playing, the end result is cheaper and more powerful for having played. > Perhaps that was out of necessity, most Pandora purchasers paid one or > two years ago. You can't ask people for a million dollars then not > produce anything for a year without letting them know something is > happening. Nevertheless it has much better results. There isn't the > them and us feel. We usually have to do a significant amount of hardware and software development using chips that haven't even been publicly announced yet. The alternative is to use older, more power hungry chips (as with XO-1). As soon as possible, OLPC makes a significant effort to ship free prototypes to anyone asking for one for a particular purpose (e.g. working on Gnash, or Sugar). And we use the devel mailing list to keep these early users appraised of release and problems. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
