date:20080516

2008/5/16 Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I am planning to apply to OLPC for a job as a contractor, working on
 Develop. I have been told that my first-priority feature, automatic code
 localization, would be hard to justify on the OLPC roadmap. So I'd like to
 hear some votes/priorities on the following dream features, listed roughly
 from easiest to hardest (+/- two slots):

 1. auto-pylint
 2. doctools
 3. peekaboo-like (figleaf with xmacro - throw autogenerated events at an
 activity, watch coverage, and log stack traces. When I worked at
 Palm/3Com/PalmSource, they called it gremlins.)
 4. autocompletion
 5. move towards collaboration, starting with support for merges and
 changelogs (new-version notification and real-time collaboration would both
 come later than this)
 6. automatic code localization (program in Python with
 Spanish/Chinese/whatever keywords, but it is real python on-disk)
 7. debugger
 8. Gui designer (a la glade)
 9. other (bug tracking)

 (for those unfamiliar with Develop currently, it has source coloring, good
 find-replace, log viewing, rudimentary version control through the journal.
 Currently I am working on updating Sugar's bundle format, this will make
 Develop more useful for existing activities, and make sugar smarter about
 updates; for instance you will be able to have a dev version and a stable
 version of your activity coexist on a given XO. This current work would be
 done before I would even begin with anything from the above list.)

 Personally, I would most like to work on feature number 6 (code
 localization). In my view, with hundreds of thousands of Spanish-speaking
 kids on the xo, this feature would be, not only a great addition to the
 education mission of OLPC, not only (if done right) an advancement for
 computer science in general, but also an investment in getting future
 activities written. So I would be happy if that got a broad acclaim of
 support. But I want to be able to feed my family and code for the XO at the
 same time, so I will apply for a contract with whatever looks to me has the
 best cost/votes ratio.

 For easier voting, I have pretty much copied this same email to
 http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Develop/roadmap . Feel free to vote here on mail
 if you have something to contribute to the discussion, and I will copy any
 results of this thread to that page, but if you just have some votes you can
 just vote there.

Here's my take on Develop. Some of these are no doubt already
implemented - please indicate which.

Develop should be really really good at creating new activities, and
editing existing ones, without any need for using Terminal and other
editors. That should be stable, reliable and effective.

Features required for this, IMHO, are:
* Integration with the View Source key for arbitrary activities
* NO TOTAL LOSS OF JOURNAL CONTENTS.
* No need for DoppelJournal
* Support for editing single file activities
* Support for editing multiple file activities
* Producing valid activity bundles as they now exist
* Access to activity/activity.info
* Icon editing for activity/*.svg
* Ability to easily continue editing an activity (keep version number,
service name, other metadata) or do a new release (increment version
number) or fork (change relevant metadata)
* Ability to start a new activity, populated with relevant minimum
boilerplate code (Hello World) that runs immediately and can be worked
on immediately (Look, I did a program!)

Some of the above require changes to Sugar or Journal. Take that as
your responsibility to keep those patches up to date and get them
reviewed and merged.

I would recommend that you do the following as part of achieving the above:
1. A custom build demoing Develop completely working with View Source
- editing - running, with your changes to sugar/journal etc applied
in that build so no need for DoppelJournal, and View Source not
needing any activity hooks like Chat needs for Pippy
2. Your patches to sugar/journal etc reviewed and merged into git master
3. Your patches applied in a sugar release (see
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Roadmap - presumably by 0.81.3 release
before feature freeze)
4. A Develop release suitable for public use, working seamlessly with
a joyride build after the sugar release is included

I recommend NOT proceeding with your list of features until the above
list is complete and in an activity release with a corresponding build
with sugar/journal, suitable for inclusion in the next OLPC stable
release. It's been too long that there has been no usable Develop
activity. If we can get something useful to activity developers of all
ages, then we boost the usefulness of the XO out of the box.

As a lower priority feature, I would be interested in seeing the
ability to view (and possibly edit) python system (non activity)
code, including sugar, sugar-toolkit (sugar libs), presence service,
journal, datastore. As someone said of having a Free Software kernel
on the XO, it's not like the kids

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Seth Woodworth writes:

 So as a fair practice I think it's clear that no special actions can
 ethically be made to prevent Windows or any other OS from running on
 the machine.  So a Windows port for the XO isn't something that
 could have been preventative.

 Wrong. It's called tit-for-tat, otherwise known as fair-is-fair.
 It's perfectly ethical to defend oneself against an adversary
 who has no qualms about anything.

 Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will
 not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot.

No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the
license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar,
which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same
cost.

 I do believe in fairness. The XO should run Windows about as well
 as the Xbox 360 runs Linux. Note that the Xbox 360 has numerous
 hardware features which were purposely designed to impede Linux.
 Fairness mandates that we have hardware to lock out Windows.

 Hardware is costly of course. A slightly weaker solution would be
 to have the firmware use SMM/SMI tricks to regularly get a bit of
 CPU time to scan for Windows in memory. If the firmware finds that
 Windows is running, then it silently corrupts RAM. The ideal would
 be to make Windows survive about an hour before crashing.
 (keep the feature secret of course, to make debugging painful)

It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to
support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot.
 ___
 Sugar mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar




-- 
Edward Cherlin
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] [support-gang] Microsoft

2008-05-16 Thread K. K. Subramaniam

On Friday 16 May 2008 6:31:51 am Jim Gettys wrote:
 Ah, Windows needs more than 1GB to be useful; so to run Windows you need
 to pay extra for a SD card big enough to hold it.
Mmm Windows doesn't need to do anything useful. It just needs to rake in 
$3. Once sold, you are free to load software that will do something useful.

Tongue firmly in cheek,
Subbu
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?

I really like your localization idea. However, I think that finishing
core Sugar functionality (Journal integration, collaboration,
producing activity bundles) has to be the priority. Once we have the
essentials, we can ask the children what to do next. If they like
localization, I count that higher than management's opinion or the
volunteers' opinion, and I'll help you fight for it. If the children
didn't want it, I wouldn't worry about it.

2008/5/15 Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I am planning to apply to OLPC for a job as a contractor, working on
 Develop. I have been told that my first-priority feature, automatic code
 localization, would be hard to justify on the OLPC roadmap. So I'd like to
 hear some votes/priorities on the following dream features, listed roughly
 from easiest to hardest (+/- two slots):

 1. auto-pylint
 2. doctools
 3. peekaboo-like (figleaf with xmacro - throw autogenerated events at an
 activity, watch coverage, and log stack traces. When I worked at
 Palm/3Com/PalmSource, they called it gremlins.)
 4. autocompletion
 5. move towards collaboration, starting with support for merges and
 changelogs (new-version notification and real-time collaboration would both
 come later than this)
 6. automatic code localization (program in Python with
 Spanish/Chinese/whatever keywords, but it is real python on-disk)
 7. debugger
 8. Gui designer (a la glade)
 9. other (bug tracking)

 (for those unfamiliar with Develop currently, it has source coloring, good
 find-replace, log viewing, rudimentary version control through the journal.
 Currently I am working on updating Sugar's bundle format, this will make
 Develop more useful for existing activities, and make sugar smarter about
 updates; for instance you will be able to have a dev version and a stable
 version of your activity coexist on a given XO. This current work would be
 done before I would even begin with anything from the above list.)

 Personally, I would most like to work on feature number 6 (code
 localization). In my view, with hundreds of thousands of Spanish-speaking
 kids on the xo, this feature would be, not only a great addition to the
 education mission of OLPC, not only (if done right) an advancement for
 computer science in general, but also an investment in getting future
 activities written. So I would be happy if that got a broad acclaim of
 support. But I want to be able to feed my family and code for the XO at the
 same time, so I will apply for a contract with whatever looks to me has the
 best cost/votes ratio.

 For easier voting, I have pretty much copied this same email to
 http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Develop/roadmap . Feel free to vote here on mail
 if you have something to contribute to the discussion, and I will copy any
 results of this thread to that page, but if you just have some votes you can
 just vote there.


 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel





-- 
Edward Cherlin
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Microsoft

2008-05-16 Thread Steve Holton

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Kurt H Maier wrote:
  How is this relevant?  When Microsoft sits down and throws its vast
  resources at making Windows just work on the XO-1, it's going to
  blow our current FOSS distributions out of the water.  *That's* what
  worries me.  We don't have suspend and resume working without breaking
  SD cards.  We're retooling Sugar's datastore.  OLPC3 is being born.  A
  couple million dollars from Microsoft could turn out a Windows install
  that *works*, and then no country on the planet would bother even
  looking at a feature-incomplete FOSS alternative
 I think the way to protect Sugar and to take a step further in the
 whole project is giving one step back: Sugar must be able to
 run on any Linux distro.  I know that it is hard... but IF we are able
 to take this step back then Sugar (and many
 other things) will be in better competitive position.


Trying to out-compete an organization which has a history of illegal
anti-competitive behavior is unwise at best.

Cheers.

-- 
Steve Holton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to
 support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot.

No, actually that would have forced the Windows scenario to require a
BIOS to be flashed in place of OFW. Then we lose the simple dual boot
capability.
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?

OK, here's the status on your list. In general, I had taken it as a given
that most of what you said would work before I moved on.


 Develop should be really really good at creating new activities, and
 editing existing ones, without any need for using Terminal and other
 editors. That should be stable, reliable and effective.

 Features required for this, IMHO, are:
 * Integration with the View Source key for arbitrary activities


For arbitrary *python* activities, all necessary code exists. View source
would rebundle current activity and take you to the journal where you could
open it. (Minor missing UI: that bundle should default to editing instead of
running - needs new journal features.) I'm waiting for a few joyrides which
include my other patches before pushing this as a patch.



 * NO TOTAL LOSS OF JOURNAL CONTENTS.


Haven't seen it in months. Datastore should be made more sturdy anyway. I
know that this answer is lame, but how do I debug what I can't now
reproduce?



 * No need for DoppelJournal


The two necessary patches have existed for months now, Tomeu had promised to
review them, but that is apparently going slowly.



 * Support for editing single file activities


Not on my roadmap - that is Pippy's job (unless you mean editing n-file
activities where n=1).



 * Support for editing multiple file activities


check.



 * Producing valid activity bundles as they now exist


check*

*currently also very easy to lose changes by producing invalid activity
bundles by munging MANIFEST. This is the main motivation for updating bundle
format, hopefully this should be fixed soon.



 * Access to activity/activity.info


check. Text-only access, no smarts included. This is generally the plan,
except as indicated below.



 * Icon editing for activity/*.svg


No svg editor on XO, not a current plan. Mid-term plan: export and import
subfiles as separate journal entries, an easy change. Long-term plan:
journal understands subfiles natively (this is part of eben's plan for
journal).



 * Ability to easily continue editing an activity (keep version number,
 service name, other metadata) or do a new release (increment version
 number) or fork (change relevant metadata)


Currently works, just by editing activity.info. To make this smarter
requires new bundle format. Once new bundle format exists, I intend toolbar
support for all of this; this would auto-edit activity.info among other
things. You would still have text access to activity.info.



 * Ability to start a new activity, populated with relevant minimum
 boilerplate code (Hello World) that runs immediately and can be worked
 on immediately (Look, I did a program!)


Planned, unimplemented. Pretty simple (basically means including a hello
world bundle template inside the activity).




 Some of the above require changes to Sugar or Journal. Take that as
 your responsibility to keep those patches up to date and get them
 reviewed and merged.


I don't know how much more I could bug Tomeu for the two existing patches,
or what else I should be doing. He definitely knows they exist and I bug him
once a week or so.

...


 As a lower priority feature, I would be interested in seeing the
 ability to view (and possibly edit) python system (non activity)
 code, including sugar, sugar-toolkit (sugar libs), presence service,
 journal, datastore. As someone said of having a Free Software kernel
 on the XO, it's not like the kids will start developing the platform,
 but at least they will see that it is developed by mere mortals and
 say Oh, Python! So *I* can get from here (my simple activity) to
 there (sugar itself)!


well, for Journal this is an easy change. The rest sounds like a good idea,
but honestly I think it should be a separate activity - trying to shoehorn
it into Develop would clutter the interface IMO. I may be wrong, ESPECIALLY
if Develop gets some dream features (class browser? I added that to the
voting list on the dream page).

Jameson
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [Server-devel] XO-XS backups

2008-05-16 Thread Marten Vijn


On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 16:02 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:23:18PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
  At this stage, I am slowly hacking on ds-backup.py. My plan so far is to
 
  Where can I find your code?
 
 Nothing works yet :-/ - I intend to push it to a ds-backup directory
 in users/martin .

if it is not online ik can't help making it better 

here some samples in shell
http://martenvijn.nl/svn/olpc/scripts/

kind regards

Marten


 
 cheers,
 
 
 
 m
-- 

Marten Vijn
Koop mijn huis: http://martenvijn.nl/trac/wiki/huis
http://martenvijn.nl
http://wifisoft.org
http://opencommunitycamp.org

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

squeak image sometimes takes very long to be responsive after XO suspend

2008-05-16 Thread Ties Stuij

Hey dear lists,

We at OLE Nepal have some trouble with squeak images coming out of XO suspend.

Basically when coming out of suspend, the Squeak process takes up lots
of cpu power and can be unresponsive for about a minute on build 703
(other builds not yet tested).

Also we loose sound. Which sometimes comes back after a while. Either
on it's own or perhaps because another application is opened. This
could be a coincidence though.

Especially the unresponsiveness is a problem, because it messes up the
classes. Typically a teacher will explain a concept after which the
students will do an activity for a short while. After which they will
close the XO again to go on with the rest of the course. The XO's
can't stay open because they are to distractive and because they eat
battery power, and perhaps take up to much space (the benches these
children work at are tiny). Having to either wait for the activity, or
restart the image (or XO, whatever the child feels comfortable with)
kills the flow, and the children get very impatient.

Any pointers to the cause and/or solutions would be greatly
appreciated. I'll add appropriate tickets to trac shortly.

/Ties
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?

2008-05-16 Thread Tomeu Vizoso

2008/5/16 Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 * No need for DoppelJournal

 The two necessary patches have existed for months now, Tomeu had promised to
 review them, but that is apparently going slowly.

 Some of the above require changes to Sugar or Journal. Take that as
 your responsibility to keep those patches up to date and get them
 reviewed and merged.

 I don't know how much more I could bug Tomeu for the two existing patches,
 or what else I should be doing. He definitely knows they exist and I bug him
 once a week or so.

My fault, these days I'm trying to not assume more responsibility than
what I'm capable to, and at the same time push Sugar forward. It's not
being easy.

Thanks for keeping bugging,

Tomeu
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: squeak image sometimes takes very long to be responsive after XO suspend

2008-05-16 Thread Tomeu Vizoso

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ties Stuij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Basically when coming out of suspend, the Squeak process takes up lots
 of cpu power and can be unresponsive for about a minute on build 703
 (other builds not yet tested).

What about:

- launch etoys
- check its pid
- attach to it with strace -p PID and log the output to a file
- suspend
- resume
- check what etoys is doing in that file

Good luck,

Tomeu
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 2008/5/16 Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  * No need for DoppelJournal
 
  The two necessary patches have existed for months now, Tomeu had promised
 to
  review them, but that is apparently going slowly.
 
  Some of the above require changes to Sugar or Journal. Take that as
  your responsibility to keep those patches up to date and get them
  reviewed and merged.
 
  I don't know how much more I could bug Tomeu for the two existing
 patches,
  or what else I should be doing. He definitely knows they exist and I bug
 him
  once a week or so.

 My fault, these days I'm trying to not assume more responsibility than
 what I'm capable to, and at the same time push Sugar forward. It's not
 being easy.


 Tomeu


You do a great job, Tomeu. I guess you realize that the above was not meant
as criticism, just as creative pressure, but I should have said so anyway.

Jameson
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Jameson Chema Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 OK, here's the status on your list. In general, I had taken it as a given
 that most of what you said would work before I moved on.

Great!

 * Integration with the View Source key for arbitrary activities

 For arbitrary *python* activities, all necessary code exists. View source
 would rebundle current activity and take you to the journal where you could
 open it. (Minor missing UI: that bundle should default to editing instead of
 running - needs new journal features.) I'm waiting for a few joyrides which
 include my other patches before pushing this as a patch.

I did mean to say python activities. :)

 * NO TOTAL LOSS OF JOURNAL CONTENTS.

 Haven't seen it in months. Datastore should be made more sturdy anyway. I
 know that this answer is lame, but how do I debug what I can't now
 reproduce?

Perhaps you should revise http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Develop then :)

 * Support for editing single file activities

 Not on my roadmap - that is Pippy's job (unless you mean editing n-file
 activities where n=1).

Yes, where n=1 - I meant in case this is easier than multiple file activities.

 *currently also very easy to lose changes by producing invalid activity
 bundles by munging MANIFEST. This is the main motivation for updating bundle
 format, hopefully this should be fixed soon.

I'm sure a sanity check of MANIFEST wouldn't be hard to add - make
sure all files are listed - but not a high priority I'm sure.

Morgan
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH stable] libertas: Extend CMD_MESH_CONFIG to get and set persistent mesh default params.

2008-05-16 Thread David Woodhouse

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:01 -0700, Brian Cavagnolo wrote:
 This patch is based on a patch from Shailendra Govardhan.  It introduces
 several new iwprivs: {get,set}_bootflag {get,set}_boottime {get,set}_def_chan
 {get,set}_def_protid {get,set}_def_metid {get,set}_def_meshcap
 {get,set}_def_meshid.  These commands are only supported on Marvell hardware
 that implements persistent defaults, such as the OLPC Active Antenna.
 Accordingly, this patch may not be suitable for upstream merging.
 
 See http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6823 for minimal testing results and known
 issues.  See 
 http://www.laptop.org/teamwiki/index.php/Tech:Wireless#Firmware_image_which_stores_the_mesh_parameters_in_flash
  for iwpriv documentation.
 
 Signed-off-by: Brian Cavagnolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---

Hm. I was intending to veto the addition of any more private ioctls to
the olpc tree, because they all need fixing to use cfg80211 or something
else upstream, and we only make pain for ourselves by adding to the
divergence -- adding new APIs to userspace when we _know_ are going to
have to change them is just silly.

But this is the _one_ thing which might actually be OK to do with a
private ioctl, since it's very hardware-specific. Unlike like all the
mesh-mangling stuff where we really ought to be compatible with o11s.

So maybe, just maybe, we _can_ do this with iwpriv and push that
upstream.

If you want to revamp the patch to apply to the upstream kernel and see
what people think of it, go ahead.

-- 
dwmw2

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: New update.1 build 704

2008-05-16 Thread Bernie Innocenti

Build Announcer v2 wrote:
 http://pilgrim.laptop.org/~pilgrim/olpc/streams/update.1/build704
 
 Changes in build 704 from build: 703
 
 Size delta: 0.00M
 
 -olpc-utils 0.68-1.olpc2
 +olpc-utils 0.73-1.olpc2
 -xkeyboard-config 1.1-15.20071130cvs.olpc2
 +xkeyboard-config 1.1-17.20071130cvs.olpc2
 
 --- Changes for xkeyboard-config 1.1-17.20071130cvs.olpc2 from 
 1.1-15.20071130cvs.olpc2 ---
   + Fix xkeyboard-config-olpc-ca-fr-typofix.patch so that it applies correctly

The changelog for olpc-utils is missing.  Is it a bug in
the script?

Also, a version change from 0.68 to 0.73 seems a little strange
at this time.  Was it intentional?

-- 
   \___/
  _| X |  Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \|_O_|  It's an education project, not a laptop project!
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: School mesh config

2008-05-16 Thread John Watlington


On May 15, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Bill Mccormick wrote:

 Ok.   I found 4 networking scenarios on the wiki at this link: 
 http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Networking_scenarios

 I was a little surprised not to see a scenario where a mesh network  
 connects via a mesh portal without a school server.   Is this a  
 valid scenario, or was it deliberately excluded for some reason?

It was overlooked.   The ability for an XO to act as an MPP while  
connected to the
Internet through a second interface has been ignored lately, leaving  
the school server
as our only MPP.  Given the behavior of our collaboration software  
when there isn't
a centralized presence service, this hasn't been a big loss.

 Did anybody explicitly define how the networking should handle  
 changes in configuration?

 An obvious one is from an p2p mesh to a school mesh.I can see  
 how there could be troubles with a cluster of 1 or more XOs which  
 have an ephemeral connection to the school mesh - they would tend  
 to thrash between link local address assignment and DHCP address  
 assignment as the weak connection faded in and out.   I think the  
 same thing would happen with mDNS and the presence protocols.

Not really.   This is an area of concern.

 I'm really trying to get at the vision for how networking should  
 work.   I've seen some comments here and there that networking  
 should just work - but I'm looking for something at the next level  
 of detail.I'm listening if anyone would like to share their  
 opinion.

I'm working on a proposal to send around, but more urgent
deadlines are interfering...

wad

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

2008-05-16 Thread Nicholas Negroponte



At 07:27 PM 5/15/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
My copy of this mail does not have the attachment of the mission
statement.




Mission statement.doc
Description: MS-Word document
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached)

For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this:

Mission statement of OLPC

To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to
the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more
active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative
activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a
human right and cost free to them.
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Devel Digest, Vol 27, Issue 108

2008-05-16 Thread James Simmons

Steve,

I don't know how to project an actual XO, but have you considered 
running a Live CD version of Sugar on your regular laptop? You would 
boot up using the CD, no need to install anything on the hard drive, and 
this would give your laptop the Sugar interface which you could demo to 
your audience.  Some features would be missing (camera, etc.) but it 
might do for your demonstration if you can't come up with anything better.

I found a couple of links:

http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/sdk/build1/livecd/

I haven't tried that one, it might be out of date.

Or one I have tried:

http://janimo.blogspot.com/2007/12/xubuntusugar-livecd.html

I liked this one enough to install it on my hard drive, and I use it for 
Activity development.

James Simmons


Message: 9
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:55:00 -0700
From: Steve Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How do I project an XO
To: devel@lists.laptop.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I am doing a talk in front of a large audience and would like to show
the XO's screen on a projector. I have a laptop which
can be projected and ideally would like to show the XO's screen on the
laptop. Other solutions (not a camera on the XO's screen) would be
considered.
Any suggestions.

-- Steven M. Lewis PhD 4221 105th Ave NE Kirkland, WA 98033 425-889-2694 
206-384-1340 (cell) Skype lordjoe_com AIM LordJoe2000 ICQ 127138272 
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (permanent)

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH stable] libertas: Extend CMD_MESH_CONFIG to get and set persistent mesh default params.

2008-05-16 Thread Johannes Berg

On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 15:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
 On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:01 -0700, Brian Cavagnolo wrote:
  This patch is based on a patch from Shailendra Govardhan.  It introduces
  several new iwprivs: {get,set}_bootflag {get,set}_boottime 
  {get,set}_def_chan
  {get,set}_def_protid {get,set}_def_metid {get,set}_def_meshcap
  {get,set}_def_meshid.  These commands are only supported on Marvell hardware
  that implements persistent defaults, such as the OLPC Active Antenna.
  Accordingly, this patch may not be suitable for upstream merging.

 But this is the _one_ thing which might actually be OK to do with a
 private ioctl, since it's very hardware-specific. Unlike like all the
 mesh-mangling stuff where we really ought to be compatible with o11s.
 
 So maybe, just maybe, we _can_ do this with iwpriv and push that
 upstream.

Maybe we do, after all, need an iwpriv equivalent in cfg80211/nl80211 so
that we can kill wext at some point.

Or maybe this should be in sysfs or so?

johannes


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Priorities for Develop?


  * NO TOTAL LOSS OF JOURNAL CONTENTS.
 
  Haven't seen it in months. Datastore should be made more sturdy anyway. I
  know that this answer is lame, but how do I debug what I can't now
  reproduce?

 Perhaps you should revise http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Develop then :)



I don't trust magic fixes. (btw, I believe that this problem was xapian
corruption due to xapian not flushing correctly. I will update the page when
datastore can recover from xapian corruption.)





  *currently also very easy to lose changes by producing invalid activity
  bundles by munging MANIFEST. This is the main motivation for updating
 bundle
  format, hopefully this should be fixed soon.

 I'm sure a sanity check of MANIFEST wouldn't be hard to add - make
 sure all files are listed - but not a high priority I'm sure.


On the contrary, this is my top priority, and what I am working on. But I´m
doing a comprehensive fix to bundle format, not just a band-aid. (partly
because there are many existing activities with broken MANIFEST, partly
because sugar's versioning/installation is currently too rudimentary to
support a decent Develop workflow). Dataloss is not good, and when the
target audience is kids you can't blame the victim. Activity.info can
be manual - errors are fixable - but MANIFEST must be bulletproof, because
errors mean dataloss.


 Morgan

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

There's a lot of discussion about whether OLPC is an education project, 
or a laptop project. Many folks here think that recent developments show 
that the balance is tipped to the latter rather than the former.

It's neither. It's a _sales_ project. If people don't buy them, it 
doesn't matter how pure our hearts are.

The folks that are buying them, Ministries of Education, governments, 
charities all have their own agendas. They do not necessarily line up 
with the agendas of our real customers - children and educators, or our 
own. If we have to give them some of what they want, so that we can get 
some of what we want to to the children, it's a fact of life.

Selling constructionism is hard. The theory is attractive, but the data 
is _not_ compelling. The buyers are probably not convinced going in that 
it's something they want or need. OLPC would probably have an easier 
time selling $100 Apple ][ clones with drill and practice software than 
the XO as it stands. If the buyers demand a machine that can run 
Windows, tell them that the XO can run Windows.

Look at the reaction of the general press to the announcement. It's 
overwhelmingly favorable. To outsiders this looks like the feature that 
can put the XO over.

So put XP on as a dual boot. It won't fit in the flash, so buyers for 
the foreseeable future will still get Linux, Sugar, and all the OLPC 
activities. The Windows guys are talking about a 2G SD card to put XP on 
for that $7 hardware point. That won't fly. I had an Win98 machine with 
specs similar to an XO. It had a 8Gb drive.

The buyer gets to tick Windows off his must have list. OLPC sells a 
machine with XP on a card, a crippled and storage limited XP that still 
doesn't run current first world productivity applications well. XOs get 
out, still loaded with Sugar. Children get them. OLPC gets revenue that 
can help its educational mission. What have we lost but some innocence?

That being said, I believe Bill G is a prime example of 'Daniel 
Plainview' capitalism -- it's not enough for him to win, everyone else 
has to lose. So OLPC has to be careful.

Bob
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Google Summer of Code project, sugarbot

Hey Zach. I'm the maintainer for the Develop activity, over the long term
I would love to have this functionality in Develop. Got to go now, but we
definitely have to talk. You should start hanging out on the IRC channels -
I am homonq (actually I misspelled that to keep google from caching my real
name with my nickname, but you will recognize me).

On 5/16/08, Zach Riggle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hello All

 My name is Zach Riggle, and I am participating in the Google Summer of Code
 this year.  I am working under the Python Software Foundation, under the
 mentorship of Grig Gheorghiu and Titus Brown.  My project, sugarbot, (you
 can find more information here: http://code.google.com/p/sugarbot/) is to
 implement a library or application that allows for GUI automation and
 testing for Sugar.  Because Sugar is unique in the world of GUI's, its
 automation library also requires a few unique features.  I am using a few
 existing Python GUI automation libraries to help me get started, and have
 high hopes for the project.

 You can track development progress at the sugarbot blog (
 http://gsoc-sugarbot.blogspot.com/).  If anyone has any recommendations,
 advice, best practices, or wants to offer their brain for me to pick, just
 send me an email.

 [My apologies if this gets sent to the mailing list twice.  I sent it
 yesterday, to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and didn't see it show up on any of
 the digests]

 Thanks,
 Zach

 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: New update.1 build 704

2008-05-16 Thread Michael Stone

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:31:05PM +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
 The changelog for olpc-utils is missing.  Is it a bug in
 the script?

Seems likely to me since Koji printed the appropriate changelog
information after it built the RPM.

 Also, a version change from 0.68 to 0.73 seems a little strange
 at this time.  Was it intentional?

Yes. See #7014.

Michael
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Driver dev for the low cost UVT-100 USB2VGA dongle

2008-05-16 Thread Samir Saidani

Hi,

We are currently working on the driver development of the low
cost UVT-100 USB2VGA dongle from MCT. This is rather important
to be able to present the XO by itself, and at low cost, to be
consistent with the OLPC initiative.

The uvt-100 mct driver is derived from the sisusb vga driver. The
current status of the dev is on this page:

http://wiki.laptop.org/User:Samir/USB2VGA UVT-100 dev

All info and materials needed for a developer to start digging on this
driver is provided on this page. There is some issues with this driver,
and I'd like to talk about them with anyone interested.

Cheers,
Samir
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Driver dev for the low cost UVT-100 USB2VGA dongle

2008-05-16 Thread Stephen Bannasch

At 7:37 PM +0200 5/16/08, Samir Saidani wrote:
The uvt-100 mct driver is derived from the sisusb vga driver. The
current status of the dev is on this page:

http://wiki.laptop.org/User:Samir/USB2VGA UVT-100 dev

All info and materials needed for a developer to start digging on this
driver is provided on this page. There is some issues with this driver,
and I'd like to talk about them with anyone interested.

This link worked for me:

  http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Samir#USB2VGA
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Frame Decision (was [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release)

2008-05-16 Thread Greg Smith (gregmsmi)

Hi Simon, Marco, Eben et al,

I think the key decision is to default the frame on or off. In addition
we should have a long term vision for the frame. For example, is it a
short cut to find things or a first place to look for key features?

The only key feature I have heard so far is copy and paste. Task
switching is more commonly done with the function keys. What else is
central to the frame concept?

My main concern is that it pops up. When you don't have good cursor
control that's a challenge. All activities have UI elements at the edge
so you spend time trying to get the cursor on the keep button without
popping the frame. Lastly, its a sudden, in your face thing that happens
without you really knowing why. Setting a longer hover time or only
opening on some edges helps but it makes the problem of discoverability
worse (aka user wonders why did the computer do that?)

If we default off you can still activate it via key stroke. That would
be my preference.  That way you get expansion of space without the
mouse control issues.

Initial research shows that there are FAQ entries for how to disable
this. I also found these relevant threads in the forums saying they want
it default off:

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=154224p=546464hilit=fra
me#p546464

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=17t=154514p=547914hilit=fr
ame#p547914

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=150573p=531274hilit=fra
me#p525210

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=3t=150343p=524796hilit=fra
me#p524796

http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=935.0

http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=904.0

Several degenerate in to complaints about having to use the CLI :-). So
enable/disable should be configurable via GUI but we should design with
an assumption about the default install.

We need more input from users (e.g. a small usability study would be
great!). I think Nepal is on record to make it default off. Any other
comments? 

BTW we brought up a new e-mail list for Spanish speakers in multiple
countries: http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur A dozen teachers
have already commented saying they want to share experiences.

Can someone who writes Spanish well can post a question there to get
feedback from teachers re: frame experiences? I'll use a translation
tool to do it myself if no one gets to it by the end of next week.

I hope this is not seen as a negative criticism of your work. The UI is
great overall. We can live with whatever frame solution is agreed and
there is a solid case to be made on all sides. Let's get the maximum
info to make an informed decision, then its your call :-)

Thanks,

Greg S 

-Original Message-
From: Simon Schampijer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:42 PM
To: Marco Pesenti Gritti
Cc: Greg Smith (gregmsmi); devel@lists.laptop.org
Subject: Re: [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release

Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
 On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Greg Smith (gregmsmi) 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Thinking about the hot corners pop-up frame thingy, Nepal asked 
 that  be deprecated and I agree based on my personal experience and 
 that of my  kids. The only thing I have heard people use it for is 
 the copy and  paste functionality. Waveplace lead mentioned that and 
 its used in the  Uruguay training presentation linked above.
 
 Simon is working on making this an option. We would still need to 
 decide about the default obviously...
 
 Marco

These sugar rpms include a control panel option to set a delay for the
frame activation and an option to toggle the top of the screen to
activate the frame.

http://dev.laptop.org/~erikos/cp/

You need to install sugar and sugar-toolkit (rpm -U [package] should
work fine). I tested on joyride 1918.

The control panel can be accessed with the palette on the XO in the home
screen.

Best,
Simon
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

2008-05-16 Thread Jim Gettys

We could still boot Linux on a conventional BIOS, like on every other
machine in the world.

But then we give up fast suspend/resume, and distribution channel
security.

It seems to me that having Linux able to work better than Windows in
fundamental ways is wise ;-).
   - Jim


On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 12:08 +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to
  support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot.
 
 No, actually that would have forced the Windows scenario to require a
 BIOS to be flashed in place of OFW. Then we lose the simple dual boot
 capability.
 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
-- 
Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One Laptop Per Child

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

OLPC: Open Organized Transparent

2008-05-16 Thread Garrett Goebel

I'm not the best person with words. But here goes anyway...

Yes, the OLPC project is an open source project, but in practice the
project itself suffers from being closed, disorganized, and opaque in
its operations.

We (if you're reading this, I mean you) need to put aside all this
personal One True Way axe grinding, do a little individual
introspection, and try to focus on the common factors which bring
people together in this endeavor. We're all here with different
personalities, ideals, expertise, and axes to grind. The one thing we
all have in common is a desire to provide educational opportunity to
children. OLPC is an Education Project.

There is enough room at the table for each of us to bring a different
set if ideals and ideas on the means of achieving it. The current
problem, appears to be that the project isn't effectively organized
and it isn't optimized to embrace the varying perspectives and develop
a large community of open source developers.

Many decisions are made behind closed doors. And decisions once made
aren't very well communicated. It isn't just that the outside
developer community doesn't feel like anyone is listening. There is a
real sense that upper management is out of touch with its own
employees.

The Cambridge Lab staff ought to do a little self-examination. Because
they would never guess how much to us outsiders they resemble their
upper management. I can't tell you how often these smart mostly male
MIT types turn a deaf ear or return a derisive holier than thou email
to the outsiders and developer community they will ultimately be
dependent upon growing in order to succeed.

None of this is remotely surprising in a startup. And frankly, it
wouldn't be all that surprising to encounter in a software development
department of any organization. But it is suicide for an Open Source
project.


On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think the way to protect Sugar and to take a step further in the
 whole project is giving one step back: Sugar must be able to
 run on any Linux distro.  I know that it is hard... but IF we are able
 to take this step back then Sugar (and many
 other things) will be in better competitive position.

I think the project needs to take another step back. The education
project is both a hardware and a software project. The best way to
insure the success of the project is to divide the project into its
constituent sub-projects and let each sink or swim based on their
relative merit and the resources they can attract to achieve their
goals.

The OLPC needs to reorganize to embrace the There Is More Than One
Way To Do It philosophical perspective which will allow us to
collectively take advantage of the synergies which exists where our
ideas intersect.

Getting Sugar running on any Linux distribution isn't enough.


1) Unbundle the hardware and the software projects.

We should allow the educational organizations footing the bill to
define their own requirements. Whether that means an XO running
something other than Sugar, Sugar running on something other than an
XO, or even Sugar running on something other than Linux. Perfect is
the enemy of good enough. Let us be willing to accept getting any
combination of XO, Linux, and Sugar into the hands of children as an
improvement over the status quo.


2) Seed the developer community

The OLPC ought to give XO's away to the lead developers of every open
source project on which the reference platform has an underlying
dependency. And XO's should be made _easily_ available at cost to
developers from other open source projects and developers of
proprietary software, operating systems, and hardware devices.

I think the OLPC's decision to sell XO's only in large quantities and
only top down to educational institutions is wrong. I know the stated
reason of discouraging theft from children. And the unstated reason of
avoiding the additional cost of providing customer service and
support.

Both are short sighted and wrong. The economies of scale that could be
achieved increasing sales might actually make the realization of a
$100 laptop possible. Include the cost of customer support in the sale
of individual XO's. Let it pay for the customer service infrastructure
for servicing organizations in developing countries as well. The XO is
designed for children. Most adults wouldn't use one if you gave it to
them. The firmware with security enabled should provide a cost
effective deterrent to theft.


3) There Is More Than One Way To Do It

The Cambridge Labs should continue to coordinate the development,
testing, and release of reference platforms which provide a stable
base and showcase the various hardware and software innovations. The
One True Way currently appears to be XO, Fedora Linux, Sugar, and
Python. The one true way should change to a tried, tested, and
supported reference platform.

However, the driving mindset should be cross platform compatibility at
all levels. This

Re: Frame Decision (was [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release)

2008-05-16 Thread Carol Lerche

Considering that a whole key on the key board is dedicated to the frame, why
not use one of its meta modes (shift, alt) to be the toggle for default
off/on of the corner sensitivity?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Greg Smith (gregmsmi) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Hi Simon, Marco, Eben et al,

I think the key decision is to default the frame on or off. In addition
we should have a long term vision for the frame. For example, is it a
short cut to find things or a first place to look for key features?

The only key feature I have heard so far is copy and paste. Task
switching is more commonly done with the function keys. What else is
central to the frame concept?

My main concern is that it pops up. When you don't have good cursor
control that's a challenge. All activities have UI elements at the edge
so you spend time trying to get the cursor on the keep button without
popping the frame. Lastly, its a sudden, in your face thing that happens
without you really knowing why. Setting a longer hover time or only
opening on some edges helps but it makes the problem of discoverability
worse (aka user wonders why did the computer do that?)

If we default off you can still activate it via key stroke. That would
be my preference. That way you get expansion of space without the
mouse control issues.

Initial research shows that there are FAQ entries for how to disable
this. I also found these relevant threads in the forums saying they want
it default off:

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=154224p=546464hilit=fra
me#p546464http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=154224p=546464hilit=frame#p546464

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=17t=154514p=547914hilit=fr
ame#p547914http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=17t=154514p=547914hilit=frame#p547914

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=150573p=531274hilit=fra
me#p525210http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=150573p=531274hilit=frame#p525210

http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=3t=150343p=524796hilit=fra
me#p524796http://en.forum.laptop.org/viewtopic.php?f=3t=150343p=524796hilit=frame#p524796

http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=935.0

http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=904.0

Several degenerate in to complaints about having to use the CLI :-). So
enable/disable should be configurable via GUI but we should design with
an assumption about the default install.

We need more input from users (e.g. a small usability study would be
great!). I think Nepal is on record to make it default off. Any other
comments?

BTW we brought up a new e-mail list for Spanish speakers in multiple
countries: http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-sur A dozen teachers
have already commented saying they want to share experiences.

Can someone who writes Spanish well can post a question there to get
feedback from teachers re: frame experiences? I'll use a translation
tool to do it myself if no one gets to it by the end of next week.

I hope this is not seen as a negative criticism of your work. The UI is
great overall. We can live with whatever frame solution is agreed and
there is a solid case to be made on all sides. Let's get the maximum
info to make an informed decision, then its your call :-)

Thanks,

Greg S

-Original Message-
From: Simon Schampijer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:42 PM
To: Marco Pesenti Gritti
Cc: Greg Smith (gregmsmi); devel@lists.laptop.org
Subject: Re: [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release

Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Greg Smith (gregmsmi)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thinking about the hot corners pop-up frame thingy, Nepal asked
that be deprecated and I agree based on my personal experience and
that of my kids. The only thing I have heard people use it for is
the copy and paste functionality. Waveplace lead mentioned that and
its used in the Uruguay training presentation linked above.

Simon is working on making this an option. We would still need to
decide about the default obviously...

Marco

These sugar rpms include a control panel option to set a delay for the
frame activation and an option to toggle the top of the screen to
activate the frame.

http://dev.laptop.org/~erikos/cp/ http://dev.laptop.org/%7Eerikos/cp/

You need to install sugar and sugar-toolkit (rpm -U [package] should
work fine). I tested on joyride 1918.

The control panel can be accessed with the palette on the XO in the home
screen.

Best,
Simon
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

--
Always do right, said Mark Twain. This will gratify some people and
astonish the rest.
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

2008-05-16 Thread Walter Bender

There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
months is pretty good by most measures. It is a far cry from the 100M
units that Nicholas predicted, but so what? It is a great start and
there is every indication that laptop-for-learning programs on a
variety of hardware platforms are springing up around the world--with
or without Windows. To the extent that the community can work to make
these programs successful, more children will be reached--our
goal--and more laptops (XOs and others) will be sold.

-walter

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There's a lot of discussion about whether OLPC is an education project,
 or a laptop project. Many folks here think that recent developments show
 that the balance is tipped to the latter rather than the former.

 It's neither. It's a _sales_ project. If people don't buy them, it
 doesn't matter how pure our hearts are.

 The folks that are buying them, Ministries of Education, governments,
 charities all have their own agendas. They do not necessarily line up
 with the agendas of our real customers - children and educators, or our
 own. If we have to give them some of what they want, so that we can get
 some of what we want to to the children, it's a fact of life.

 Selling constructionism is hard. The theory is attractive, but the data
 is _not_ compelling. The buyers are probably not convinced going in that
 it's something they want or need. OLPC would probably have an easier
 time selling $100 Apple ][ clones with drill and practice software than
 the XO as it stands. If the buyers demand a machine that can run
 Windows, tell them that the XO can run Windows.

 Look at the reaction of the general press to the announcement. It's
 overwhelmingly favorable. To outsiders this looks like the feature that
 can put the XO over.

 So put XP on as a dual boot. It won't fit in the flash, so buyers for
 the foreseeable future will still get Linux, Sugar, and all the OLPC
 activities. The Windows guys are talking about a 2G SD card to put XP on
 for that $7 hardware point. That won't fly. I had an Win98 machine with
 specs similar to an XO. It had a 8Gb drive.

 The buyer gets to tick Windows off his must have list. OLPC sells a
 machine with XP on a card, a crippled and storage limited XP that still
 doesn't run current first world productivity applications well. XOs get
 out, still loaded with Sugar. Children get them. OLPC gets revenue that
 can help its educational mission. What have we lost but some innocence?

 That being said, I believe Bill G is a prime example of 'Daniel
 Plainview' capitalism -- it's not enough for him to win, everyone else
 has to lose. So OLPC has to be careful.

 Bob
 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Frame Decision (was [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release)

2008-05-16 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Greg Smith (gregmsmi)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi Simon, Marco, Eben et al,

 I think the key decision is to default the frame on or off. In addition
 we should have a long term vision for the frame. For example, is it a
 short cut to find things or a first place to look for key features?

Eben, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we went through various
iterations of this.
I think the idea is that the frame is a bridge between the various
activities and views (the only thing which doesn't exactly fit are
devices)

 My main concern is that it pops up. When you don't have good cursor
 control that's a challenge.

Something I would like to understand is that if the main cause here is
the poor trackpad on the XO. A little usability testing might clear
that up.

 If we default off you can still activate it via key stroke. That would
 be my preference.  That way you get expansion of space without the
 mouse control issues.

I tend to think that's the safest bet on the short time. But it will
affect discoverability some. Either we come up with ideas on how to
make the key more discoverable, or we try to evaluate how much of a
problem discoverability will be in the field.

 I hope this is not seen as a negative criticism of your work. The UI is
 great overall. We can live with whatever frame solution is agreed and
 there is a solid case to be made on all sides. Let's get the maximum
 info to make an informed decision, then its your call :-)

It's a problem that we tried to solve many times and everyone is
frustrated about it. Any attempt to move forward on it is welcome :)

Marco
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

2008-05-16 Thread Sameer Verma

Morgan Collett wrote:
 2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached)

 For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this:

 Mission statement of OLPC

 To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to
 the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more
 active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative
 activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a
 human right and cost free to them.
 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
   

Its nothing like what I see at http://laptop.org/vision/mission/

Sameer

-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [sugar] Microsoft

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Sameer Verma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Morgan Collett wrote:
 2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached)

 For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this:

 Mission statement of OLPC

 To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to
 the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more
 active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative
 activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a
 human right and cost free to them.
 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

The phrase making them more active in their own learning, through
collaborative and creative activities appears to be code for
Constructionism. Or maybe weasel-wording.

 Its nothing like what I see at http://laptop.org/vision/mission/

 Sameer

 --
 Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
 Associate Professor of Information Systems
 San Francisco State University
 San Francisco CA 94132 USA
 http://verma.sfsu.edu/
 http://opensource.sfsu.edu/

 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Quite right.

http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/new_olpc_mission_statement.html

Another New OLPC Mission Statement?!
Posted on May 16, 2008 by Wayan Vota in People: Negroponte

In the midst of the latest Windows on the XO controversy, Nicholas
Negroponte seems to have announced a third new mission statement for
One Laptop Per Child. From his email to the OLPC Sugar list serve he
says that the OLPC mission hasn't changed in three years, and then
points to this statement:
olpc mission

To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education
to the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them
more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative
activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a
human right and cost free to them.

Now unless I just came down with Negropontism, the current OLPC
mission statement on Laptop.org doesn't look anything like that.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any mention of free
laptops and Internet access as basic human right when I read:

OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a
product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit
organization providing a means to an end—an end that sees children in
even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity
to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of
ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world
community.

Let's also not forget that the current OLPC mission, whichever one it
is, was not the first mission espoused by One Laptop Per Child. The
orginal OLPC mission was much more revolutionary, and to use a word
from Walter Bender, prescriptive:

OLPC is not at heart a technology program and the XO is not a
product in any conventional sense of the word. We are non-profit:
constructionism is our goal; XO is our means of getting there. It is a
very cool, even revolutionary machine, and we are very proud of it.
But we would also be delighted if someone built something better, and
at a lower price.

I wonder, does Windows XO count as better?




-- 
Edward Cherlin
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

2008-05-16 Thread david

On Fri, 16 May 2008, Walter Bender wrote:

 There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
 coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
 selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
 months is pretty good by most measures. It is a far cry from the 100M
 units that Nicholas predicted, but so what?

not to mention that the headaches of distribution and deployment are such 
that OLPC is having trouble with the volume it has sold, if it had 1000 
times as many units they could not be deployed.

David Lang


 -walter

 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There's a lot of discussion about whether OLPC is an education project,
 or a laptop project. Many folks here think that recent developments show
 that the balance is tipped to the latter rather than the former.

 It's neither. It's a _sales_ project. If people don't buy them, it
 doesn't matter how pure our hearts are.

 The folks that are buying them, Ministries of Education, governments,
 charities all have their own agendas. They do not necessarily line up
 with the agendas of our real customers - children and educators, or our
 own. If we have to give them some of what they want, so that we can get
 some of what we want to to the children, it's a fact of life.

 Selling constructionism is hard. The theory is attractive, but the data
 is _not_ compelling. The buyers are probably not convinced going in that
 it's something they want or need. OLPC would probably have an easier
 time selling $100 Apple ][ clones with drill and practice software than
 the XO as it stands. If the buyers demand a machine that can run
 Windows, tell them that the XO can run Windows.

 Look at the reaction of the general press to the announcement. It's
 overwhelmingly favorable. To outsiders this looks like the feature that
 can put the XO over.

 So put XP on as a dual boot. It won't fit in the flash, so buyers for
 the foreseeable future will still get Linux, Sugar, and all the OLPC
 activities. The Windows guys are talking about a 2G SD card to put XP on
 for that $7 hardware point. That won't fly. I had an Win98 machine with
 specs similar to an XO. It had a 8Gb drive.

 The buyer gets to tick Windows off his must have list. OLPC sells a
 machine with XP on a card, a crippled and storage limited XP that still
 doesn't run current first world productivity applications well. XOs get
 out, still loaded with Sugar. Children get them. OLPC gets revenue that
 can help its educational mission. What have we lost but some innocence?

 That being said, I believe Bill G is a prime example of 'Daniel
 Plainview' capitalism -- it's not enough for him to win, everyone else
 has to lose. So OLPC has to be careful.

 Bob
 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Frame Decision (was [sugar] OLPC priorities for Sugar in the August release)

2008-05-16 Thread Eben Eliason

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Greg Smith (gregmsmi)
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi Simon, Marco, Eben et al,

 I think the key decision is to default the frame on or off. In addition
 we should have a long term vision for the frame. For example, is it a
 short cut to find things or a first place to look for key features?

The Frame is certainly not designed to be a shortcut, but a critical
element of the UI which transcends any particular activity or view.
Elaboration below...(and also at wiki.laptop.org/go/Designs/Frame)

 Eben, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we went through various
 iterations of this.
 I think the idea is that the frame is a bridge between the various
 activities and views (the only thing which doesn't exactly fit are
 devices)

It's intended to serve both as the status element and as the glue
between views/activities.  In effect, it is the part of the UI which
communicates the State of Things at any given moment: the running
activities, the people you are collaborating with, the items you are
carrying around with you between places, and the current status of the
laptop and any connected devices.  To your question, Marco, I think
that devices are actual a natural fit for the frame, since they remain
relevant from anywhere (any place, zoom level, or activity) in the UI.
 Moreover, the Frame's purpose as a status element is extended by the
notification system, which makes it the place to receive invitations
to new activities, information about people joining or leaving the
activity, or important system information such as a low battery.

 My main concern is that it pops up. When you don't have good cursor
 control that's a challenge.

 Something I would like to understand is that if the main cause here is
 the poor trackpad on the XO. A little usability testing might clear
 that up.

Right.  I think this is the biggest point of conflict between my own
thoughts for solving the issues and those of the community providing
feedback about it.  I certainly take the comments regarding accidental
invocation seriously, and seriously want to do what we can to
eliminate sources of frustration.  My inclination (I don't know for
sure!) is that the desire to completely abolish cursor activation
might be a treatment of the symptom and not the illness.  That is, it
could be that the trackpad plays a big role in the difficulties, and
it also might be that some tweaks to the behavior (such as a short
delay) could serve to greatly minimize the symptom in practice.  In
either case, I also hope that the repurposed frame serves a much more
integral role in kids' interactions with Sugar in the future as well.

 If we default off you can still activate it via key stroke. That would
 be my preference.  That way you get expansion of space without the
 mouse control issues.

 I tend to think that's the safest bet on the short time. But it will
 affect discoverability some. Either we come up with ideas on how to
 make the key more discoverable, or we try to evaluate how much of a
 problem discoverability will be in the field.

 I hope this is not seen as a negative criticism of your work. The UI is
 great overall. We can live with whatever frame solution is agreed and
 there is a solid case to be made on all sides. Let's get the maximum
 info to make an informed decision, then its your call :-)

Not at all.  In fact, I greatly appreciate any and all feedback, and I
especially appreciate the calm and collaborative manner in which you
propose considering possible solutions.  I hope that the upcoming
builds will give us a clearer vision of the tradeoffs to be made so we
can truly arrive at a system which best serves everyone.  Thanks!

- Eben
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

[Fwd: Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view]

I received Mr Bender's reply off list. I replied privately, as it came 
off list. I now see that Mr. Bender sent his reply to the list, so I'm 
forwarding my reply to him to the list too.

Bob

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:08:24 -0500
From: Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Walter,

I didn't mean to minimize the successes that the XO has had to date.
Nicholas' projections were undeniably optimistic, and they shouldn't
color the perception of the success that has been achieved. 600k x $200
= $120M. That's incredible sales for a startup. Particularly a
shoestring, start from a new concept, non-profit, startup.

However, the sales and distribution model of OLPC has set itself a high
bar. Any single sales event that isn't in the six figure range is small
potatoes in the current model of monolithic sales to national governments.

And I'll stand with my assertion that if it takes saying that the XO
does Windows to get those big sales, and get the little darlings into
the hands of children, that it's a step that OLPC is correct in taking.

It is a great start, and I dearly want it to continue.

OLPC has certainly kickstarted a market that no one seemed to have
realized the existence of three years ago -- laptops designed to meet
the needs of children. The XO is a wonderful design and still the
benchmark that these devices should be measured by.

 There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
 coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
 selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
 months is pretty good by most measures. It is a far cry from the 100M
 units that Nicholas predicted, but so what? It is a great start and
 there is every indication that laptop-for-learning programs on a
 variety of hardware platforms are springing up around the world--with
 or without Windows. To the extent that the community can work to make
 these programs successful, more children will be reached--our
 goal--and more laptops (XOs and others) will be sold.

 -walter

Bob

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: OLPC: Open Organized Transparent

2008-05-16 Thread Denver Gingerich

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Goebel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 The Cambridge Lab staff ought to do a little self-examination. Because
 they would never guess how much to us outsiders they resemble their
 upper management. I can't tell you how often these smart mostly male
 MIT types turn a deaf ear or return a derisive holier than thou email
 to the outsiders and developer community they will ultimately be
 dependent upon growing in order to succeed.

From my experience, the people in the Cambridge Lab are more than
happy to help us outsiders and discuss their plans openly.  The
devel, sugar, and many other mailing lists are open to everyone.  They
seem open to giving people accounts on their systems when it will help
move the project forward.  I personally don't see any resemblance to
the upper management.

I've never seen one of these holier than thou e-mails you mention.
It certainly doesn't seem to be like any of the staff I've
communicated with to do such a thing.

I think any lack of communication on the mailing lists can be largely
attributed to how busy the staff are.  Not only are they working their
tails off to move the project forward (ie. by writing software), but
they are also participating in discussions about the state of OLPC and
answering questions about things they can't control.

I'm sorry to hear that your experiences with the Cambridge staff have
been less than ideal.  From an outsider who has followed the project
closely for the past several months, please know that these are the
exception, not the norm.  To the Cambridge staff: keep up the good
work.

Denver
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: [Fwd: Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view]

2008-05-16 Thread Jeffrey Kesselman

SO, let me clarify my own POV... if anyone cares :)

XP on the OLPC does not bother me so much, for all the reasons
mentioned.  As long as it
DOES still run Linux/Sugar then its up to us to make that compelling.
I'm sure no third world country WANTS to spend another $7.00 a machine
if there is no compelling reason to do so.  Multiplied by volume,
thats a lot of money.

In addition to all of the above , I do see a comfort factor in the it
can run windows bullet point.  I mean we all mean well, but what if
the project fails and developers drift away?  There is a certain
comfort for buying it in knowing that there is a big rich company
behidn it.   Even if that comfort is mostly illusory. (Microsoft HAS
walked away from products in the past.  Anyone else own a first gen
WINCE device? I do.  Nice paperweight.)

What disturbs me a LOT more is Sugar  on  XP.  I firmly expect
Micrsoft to attempt to embrace and extend and pull control of Sugar
away from the community.  After which, it will die a quick death.

JK


On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I received Mr Bender's reply off list. I replied privately, as it came
 off list. I now see that Mr. Bender sent his reply to the list, so I'm
 forwarding my reply to him to the list too.

 Bob

  Original Message 
 Subject: Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view
 Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:08:24 -0500
 From: Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Walter,

 I didn't mean to minimize the successes that the XO has had to date.
 Nicholas' projections were undeniably optimistic, and they shouldn't
 color the perception of the success that has been achieved. 600k x $200
 = $120M. That's incredible sales for a startup. Particularly a
 shoestring, start from a new concept, non-profit, startup.

 However, the sales and distribution model of OLPC has set itself a high
 bar. Any single sales event that isn't in the six figure range is small
 potatoes in the current model of monolithic sales to national governments.

 And I'll stand with my assertion that if it takes saying that the XO
 does Windows to get those big sales, and get the little darlings into
 the hands of children, that it's a step that OLPC is correct in taking.

 It is a great start, and I dearly want it to continue.

 OLPC has certainly kickstarted a market that no one seemed to have
 realized the existence of three years ago -- laptops designed to meet
 the needs of children. The XO is a wonderful design and still the
 benchmark that these devices should be measured by.

 There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
 coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
 selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
 months is pretty good by most measures. It is a far cry from the 100M
 units that Nicholas predicted, but so what? It is a great start and
 there is every indication that laptop-for-learning programs on a
 variety of hardware platforms are springing up around the world--with
 or without Windows. To the extent that the community can work to make
 these programs successful, more children will be reached--our
 goal--and more laptops (XOs and others) will be sold.

 -walter

 Bob

 ___
 Devel mailing list
 Devel@lists.laptop.org
 http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel




-- 
~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

2008-05-16 Thread Robert Withrow

Walter Bender wrote:
 There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
 coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
 selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
 months is pretty good by most measures.

I understand from press reports that the Intel Classmate has sold only 
about 100K units, but maybe I misremember?

-- 
Robert Withrow, Swampscott, MA, USA
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

XP on OLPC - a contrarian view -- followup

Ok, Here's where it gets scary.

 That being said, I believe Bill G is a prime example of 'Daniel
 Plainview' capitalism -- it's not enough for him to win, everyone
 else has to lose. So OLPC has to be careful.

NN said in his release

Open Firmware V2, the free and open source BIOS, is now capable of
running Linux, Microsoft Windows XP and other operating systems, and
was developed by Firmworks with support from OLPC. This will enable dual
boot of OLPC XO laptops with Microsoft Windows XP in addition to the
existing Fedora-based system and will become the standardbr
BIOS/bootloader for all XO systems when completed. With this
free BIOS, the XO-1 continues to be the most open laptop hardware
currently available.

This comment is what I based my previous remarks on.

I just saw the Microsoft video of an XO running XP. In it the XO single 
boots from an 'insyde' BIOS. The MS guy says that XP doesn't fit on the 
flash, and is installed on an SD card. In this case, I'd guess the flash 
is just being used as a home for the BIOS. I can see why techs at MS did 
this to get a working prototype rather than having to wait for (or worse 
yet, contribute to) the OF V2 bootloader/BIOS.

Some sources seem to say that early pilots of the XP XO will go out in 
this configuration. I really hope not, other than waving a few around to 
show that it can be done.

An XO being able to run XP is a feature, and some may argue, a valuable 
one. An XO that only runs XP is just another small cheap computer, 
albeit greener than most.

Bob
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: OLPC: Open Organized Transparent

2008-05-16 Thread John R . Hogerhuis

Denver Gingerich denver at ossguy.com writes:


 I've never seen one of these holier than thou e-mails you mention.
 It certainly doesn't seem to be like any of the staff I've
 communicated with to do such a thing.
 

Sorry, but this impression on users (and I share it too) is inevitable.
The problem is not having an open mailing list. The problem is
backchannels of communication.

My opinion is, if it doesn't happen on the list, or in a logged IRC
session, then it didn't happen.

Oh we had a hallway meeting or we had a little conference and anyone
that happens to be around can come is Not OK if you really want to be a
community-driven, open project.

Without naming names, though I was excited to help at first, that kind
of insider-outsider issue made me lose interest as a direct contributor
fairly early. I felt, if they are going to run this like they're a
proprietary company where they excercise full control, why should I
bother? In the end my opinion won't really matter, so why waste my
breath?

Of course all projects have a leader. But the arguments need to happen
in public, stay in public, and the decision needs to be made and come
down in public from a trusted individual as though there were no other
backchannels. Even if a background conversation happened, I don't want
to hear about it.

-- John.


___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view -- followup

2008-05-16 Thread John R . Hogerhuis

Robert Myers rmyers7 at mindspring.com writes:


 I just saw the Microsoft video of an XO running XP. In it the XO single 
 boots from an 'insyde' BIOS. The MS guy says that XP doesn't fit on the 
 flash, and is installed on an SD card. In this case, I'd guess the flash 
 is just being used as a home for the BIOS. I can see why techs at MS did 
 this to get a working prototype rather than having to wait for (or worse 
 yet, contribute to) the OF V2 bootloader/BIOS.

Wasn't the Insyde BIOS what shipped temporarily on Rev A boards? Maybe that's
just what they had? But yeah, they would have to put in some dev hours to port
to OF.

-- John.

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

View Source question

Ok, back to development issues.

'View Source' is touted as one of the user win features of the XO. There 
doesn't seem to be much useful discussion of it on the wiki.

What's the best path for making an activity 'view source' friendly? 
Reverse engineering from Chat, which is? Some other way?

Chat is monolithic. Is there a way to make a multi-file activity 'view 
source' aware? Or does one have to roll the activity into a single file?

Thanks,

Bob
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view -- followup

2008-05-16 Thread Richard A. Smith

Robert Myers wrote:

 I just saw the Microsoft video of an XO running XP. In it the XO single 
 boots from an 'insyde' BIOS. The MS guy says that XP doesn't fit on the 
 flash, and is installed on an SD card. In this case, I'd guess the flash 
 is just being used as a home for the BIOS. 

The system firmware + Embedded Controller firmware lives in a 1Meg SPI 
NOR flash part connected to the EC.  The 1Gig NAND flash part does not 
store any system firmware.

 I can see why techs at MS did 
 this to get a working prototype rather than having to wait for (or worse 
 yet, contribute to) the OF V2 bootloader/BIOS.

I prefer to use the term system firmware because BIOS refers to a legacy 
product class.  OpenFirmware's capabilities are so far above a legacy 
BIOS product you can't even put them on the same scale.

-- 
Richard Smith  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One Laptop Per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There is an underlying assertion in your post (and much of the press
 coverage of the Windows XP announcement) that the XO has not been
 selling well to date. I would assert that 600K units in the first 6
 months is pretty good by most measures.

I have gone much farther than that. 600K units @USD188 is an eighth of
a billion dollars. At the current run rate, we are looking at a
quarter billion dollars revenue for the first year. That would be
excellent for a commercial launch of any new product, and is unheard
of for a non-profit.

Furthermore, the success of the XO has inspired about two dozen
low-cost laptops (some shipping, some in sampling, and yet others that
I didn't count merely announced), most of them offering Linux, with or
without a Windows option. This is also unheard of in any product
category. When I was in the market research business we called this
validation of a market segment by the competition. This level of
validation rarely occurs. We can be proud of the reaction we have
provoked.

There is no longer much argument about whether children will get
low-cost laptops. Now the questions are whose? running which software?
for how much? and will they have mesh networking, collaboration built
in, and some of the other goodies our community has been working on?
There is almost no argument about Constructionism vs. traditional
teaching methods.

 It is a far cry from the 100M
 units that Nicholas predicted, but so what? It is a great start and
 there is every indication that laptop-for-learning programs on a
 variety of hardware platforms are springing up around the world--with
 or without Windows. To the extent that the community can work to make
 these programs successful, more children will be reached--our
 goal--and more laptops (XOs and others) will be sold.

 -walter

 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There's a lot of discussion about whether OLPC is an education project,
 or a laptop project. Many folks here think that recent developments show
 that the balance is tipped to the latter rather than the former.

 It's neither. It's a _sales_ project. If people don't buy them, it
 doesn't matter how pure our hearts are.

For sales people, it's a sales project. NN is primarily a salesperson
at present. He is good at some parts of the job, but by no means all.

For developers, it is often a Free Software/Open Source project. This
is the most productive hardware/software project I have ever seen.

For educators, it is definitely an education project. We would like it
to be a Constructionist education project, but there aren't a lot of
people who know what that means. I'm trying to start that conversation
on OLPC-Open in order to learn more myself.

 The folks that are buying them, Ministries of Education, governments,
 charities all have their own agendas. They do not necessarily line up
 with the agendas of our real customers - children and educators, or our
 own. If we have to give them some of what they want, so that we can get
 some of what we want to to the children, it's a fact of life.

If it turn out that Windows is a checklist item, and the schools
really use Sugar, I'll be quite happy. If at some age the children are
required to learn both, then they will form their own opinions of the
value of each. That sounds to me like a good Constructionist way to
present the issue to those who will have to make many of the practical
decisions in the next decade or two. What is Linux good for? Whatever
you can make it do, or others are willing to make it do for you. What
is Windows good for? Throwing money at a neo-colonialist corporation,
yes, getting outsourcing jobs, and...? Oh, did you hear that the US
military is researching how to create the largest possible botnet for
cyber-warfare?

 Selling constructionism is hard. The theory is attractive, but the data
 is _not_ compelling.

Which data do you refer to? I haven't seen any convincing data for
Instructionism, except as a system of social control.

 The buyers are probably not convinced going in that
 it's something they want or need. OLPC would probably have an easier
 time selling $100 Apple ][ clones with drill and practice software than
 the XO as it stands.

I have run CP/M on an Apple ][ clone, but I'll be impressed if you can
get one to run Windows.

If the buyers demand a machine that can run
 Windows, tell them that the XO can run Windows.

 Look at the reaction of the general press to the announcement. It's
 overwhelmingly favorable. To outsiders this looks like the feature that
 can put the XO over.

Depends where you look. I also see wailing and gnashing of teeth, and
not just on SlashDot.

 So put XP on as a dual boot. It won't fit in the flash, so buyers for
 the foreseeable future will still get Linux, Sugar, and all the OLPC
 activities. The Windows guys are talking about a 2G SD card to put XP on
 for that $7

Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view -- followup