Re: [support-gang] [Server-devel] 1TB drive of quality open content on XO/XS--won't boot

2013-05-13 Thread Ismael Luceno
On May 13, 2013 10:32 AM, "Yioryos Asprobounitis" 
wrote:
>
> OLPC kernels do *not* support NTFS (# CONFIG_NTFS_FS is not set).
> It either should be activated in future builds or use another FS.
> I believe tha FAT32 (VFAT) can handle big drives and  is universal.
> However it has a number of other problems that may not suit your needs
(reliability, permissions etc)
>

Why not UDF?
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: Bash scripts

2011-04-17 Thread Ismael Luceno
El Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:19:36 -0400
Kevin Gordon  escribió:
> Perhaps one could conjecture that this is some added security, or new
> property for execution of scripts resident on portable drives that
> has been implemented.  However, as for 'filing a bug report', it
> looks like it's something way upstream from my pay-class, since it
> isn't limited to OLPC, but occurs across Fedora 14 updated machines
> too.

I've not checked, but probably the filesystem is being mounted with
the "noexec" option.

Anyway, it's a feature, not a bug.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: open source vs. constructionist learning

2010-04-13 Thread Ismael Luceno
El Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:04 +0800
Carlos Nazareno  escribió:
> Some developers need to put food on the table and feed themselves and
> their family.
> Do you think that's evil?

As long as they distribute their software as free software, it's a good
thing. Distributing non-free software is evil.

There's no reason to do privative software. If my employer started to
do something like that I would immediately quit and find another job.

But, even if you can't find a company that agrees with the free
software philosophy, doing software for internal use only isn't
something bad, and many companies need such software.

> Do you think that it's fair that the legendary genius Sean T. Cooper
> who made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate_(video_game) at
> Bullfrog who's now making a humble living as an indie Flash game
> developer (http://www.games.seantcooper.com) is forced to give away
> for free to everyone his isometric game engine that he's selling
> (http://www.games.seantcooper.com/Develop.aspx) which he worked on for
> over a decade? He's already freely giving to everyone via tutorials &
> free as in beer games to enjoy, but must you take away his livelihood?

Why making his work free software would make him poor? :S

In fact, what prevents him from selling his engine if it were free
software? He would make much more money...

> About code/apps as art: can't you respect the artistic wishes of an
> artist? Is it evil for a magician to keep secret the tricks of his
> trade?

There's a huge difference between performance of an art and the
software.

But, back to the problem, you could solve it by simply releasing the
artwork under a different license (e.g. CC-BY-ND). But the code itself
should be free software.

> How about this: provide the sourcecode/files for private review to the
> governing body (like the OLPC dev team or organizers of local
> deployments) to make sure it doesn't contain malware, backdoors, etc
> and plays nice with the system, but not open to the whole world
> because it can also be exploited for the wrong reasons (hacking, kid
> cheating without learning (my multiple choice math puzzle example)) or
> prevent the author from feeding himself?

Not general enough, and anyway why should the children trust OLPC?
Why should I trust OLPC? I want to see it myself.

BTW, you should re-read my previous e-mail, there are more reasons.

Hacking/cheating would never be a problem we should care about, same
can be done with the binary.

> Or maybe for the author to give his utmost assurance that the software
> contains no malware if he/she is unable to legally give reveal the
> sourcecode or if it will truly impair his ability to feed and clothe
> himself and his family.
> 
> Is that acceptable?

I don't see how releasing the code under acceptable terms (i.e. free
software license) would make the author starve.

But if he doesn't desires to do so, he could keep it in his HDD, nobody
would use it... is that better?


> This is a hypothetical situation, but what if none of you guys or the
> kids speak the language the program was written in?

Then we could learn it! that's fun :D.

> What if the app was written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge ?
> Aside from the admiration of the sheer craftsmanship and awesome
> display of a true work of horror, what good is it to anyone who wants
> to patch and improve the software?

You're torturing your own argument.

> -
> What I think is evil is people who freely take other peoples' work and
> not give anything back in return, use it for good/productively, give
> credit or contribute to the community. For example, pirates and
> black-hat hackers who do it for profit and not for reasons of limited
> finances or without the intention of giving back something in return
> when they have the opportunity to do so later on.

Yep, that's another kind of evil, but I don't feel affected by it...

Except perhaps pirates, if I had a ship it would be a huge problem.

But I don't see how that relates to our discussion, you get
improvements and more software in return...

Anyway, we should teach child what is good, and free software is the
only answer.

-- 
Ismael Luceno


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: open source vs. constructionist learning

2010-04-13 Thread Ismael Luceno
El Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:40:27 +0800
Carlos Nazareno  escribió:
> 
> Which of the 2 scenarios is constructionist?
> 

How could you justify to not include source code?

That's evil. As evil as suggesting the use of a platform that children
would be unable to use if they wished to.

Even good documentation doesn't replace the need for source code,
because studying it isn't the only purpose, it's a matter of security,
durability, and simply the right to know what it's really doing under
the hoods. Having the ability to comfortably fix, enhace, and share
it, make it run on any architecture current and future, and also serve
as an aid to learn the language it's written on. But I'm sure there are
thousands millions of reasons more.

Also you shouldn't underestimate their ability to learn new skills.

-- 
Ismael Luceno


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: Need in Haiti: inexpensive portable projectors for OLPC/XO classrooms

2010-02-03 Thread Ismael Luceno
On Mié 03 Feb 2010 22:27:17 Mr frÿffe9dÿffe9ric pouchal 
escribió:
> you may have problems watching movies due to the usb-to-vga card = the
>  bandwidth is not that good . For example with my olpc XO-1 I can run
>  quake2 fullscreen only at 400x300 ( with no latency )

Does it support some YUV/YCbCr encoding? that could reduce the bandwidth 
usage to about a half (depending on various implementation factors).


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