Re: Fedora 10 on XO
is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. I think it should be more achievable once libgnome and friends are gone along with some splitting of some of the 'extra' features in some main packages out into sub packages. This ties quite nicely in with a NetBook Fedora Mini spin I've been looking at, which is how I got side tracked into OLPC :-) Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. Well, in the early days of the Fedora on XO project, I was working with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it was a few MBs bigger... I don't think it would be too much bigger than the current joyride image (dependant on what apps you want to add) gnome is quite dependant on e-d-s but we already have the likes of xulrunner, abiword, totem etc for apps. The foot print to add their standard interfaces isn't massive. Then you need a windows manager, nautilus and gnome-panel. The question is then what deps they pull in and filing bugs to get them as slimmed down as possible. Some of the new deps will be pulled in anyway because Sugar wants to add support for things like printing. Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Chris - Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. While there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure we're providing what most users will want (users of this desktop, of course). Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as it's very important to move this topic into the real world of what is possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to make? - Ed On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider losing that feature if needed. tbd. I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in deployments. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi Erik, My general impression is that its not used that often. Mostly because very few deployments have upgraded and some may choose to clean install when they do. The main value of it is for Beta testers and technical people who work on validating the new releases. Hopefully this feature is not needed by the time an image is qualified for deployment in the schools... Thanks, Greg S Erik Garrison wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider losing that feature if needed. tbd. I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in deployments. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi Chris, That sounds good! Please call up Dr. Frankenstein and resurrect the beast for inspection :-) Can you also put a link to any description of it (or to the code, relevant e-mail threads or whatever is available) in the specifications section of the feature? Thanks, Greg S Chris Ball wrote: Hi, I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a standard Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said desktop environments as Martin notes. Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the faster builds. Thanks, - Chris. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider losing that feature if needed. tbd. I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in deployments. I think we'd all hope that it hasn't been necessary very often, but as with any backup feature, its the presence of the capability that's important, right? I do think it serves an important purpose in conveying and facilitating the ideals of Sugar. - Eben Erik ___ 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: Fedora 10 on XO
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Ed McNierney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris - Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. This is a very important point from the adoption perspective. User adoption is largely driven by perception, as tied to their environment. This is the demand side of the equation. GNOME, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc are on the supply side and RAM disk space, processor etc. are our constraints. I'm going with the assumptions that 1) most G1G1 users already have a primary computer and 2) given that Windows has a large market share, G1G1'ers are Windows users. The problem is to assess the needs of G1G1 users and *then* try to fit GNOME, XFCE etc. all within the constraints mentioned above. IMO starting with the supply side will be problematic. 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/ While there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure we're providing what most users will want (users of this desktop, of course). Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as it's very important to move this topic into the real world of what is possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to make? - Ed On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. ___ 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: Fedora 10 on XO
I'm in xubuntu (xfce) right now, and it is noticeably faster on my 1.2 GHz machine than Gnome (same kernel and everything). It also has network manager, automount, graphical control panels, all the mod cons. I'd say that if we could get something roughly nearing this level, then XFCE is probably the best choice, for speed. A good fraction of this work would be perfect for a newbie volunteer. Getting the volume control working, choosing how to trim the fat from F10, most of that kind of stuff is the kind of linux install fiddling that many people who aren't even ultra-hackers have been doing for decades now. If we got something working well and looking good, even using a handmade install that was well documented in somebody's blog, it would be a good first step. I bet if we posted to OLPCNews with the truth - there are definitely going to be, and probably already are, some countries that are scared of pure sugar, and are considering dual boot, but would be mollified by a nice polished XFCE/sugar dual-desktop - we would have new volunteers aplenty. I'll let the discussion run and hope someone else will do the honors of writing a page on the wiki and a call-out to OLPCNews, but I can do it if others agree it's a good idea. Jameson On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit on the NAND I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M) tells us that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring some package rework. Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Fedora 10 on XO
+1 In fact, to be specific, here in Perú, the former president of APESOL (Peruvian Free Software Association) is sometimes quoted as saying OLPC is pretty cool except for Sugar. I've seen this attitude among many geeks here. That is fine, for it was not designed with them in mind. Still, if a simple nice .xfce4/ is all it takes for a fair comparison, sounds like a simple task any geek can do (thus the serious proposal to ask OLPCNews). 2008/12/4 Jameson Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm in xubuntu (xfce) right now, and it is noticeably faster on my 1.2 GHz machine than Gnome (same kernel and everything). It also has network manager, automount, graphical control panels, all the mod cons. I'd say that if we could get something roughly nearing this level, then XFCE is probably the best choice, for speed. A good fraction of this work would be perfect for a newbie volunteer. Getting the volume control working, choosing how to trim the fat from F10, most of that kind of stuff is the kind of linux install fiddling that many people who aren't even ultra-hackers have been doing for decades now. If we got something working well and looking good, even using a handmade install that was well documented in somebody's blog, it would be a good first step. I bet if we posted to OLPCNews with the truth - there are definitely going to be, and probably already are, some countries that are scared of pure sugar, and are considering dual boot, but would be mollified by a nice polished XFCE/sugar dual-desktop - we would have new volunteers aplenty. I'll let the discussion run and hope someone else will do the honors of writing a page on the wiki and a call-out to OLPCNews, but I can do it if others agree it's a good idea. Jameson On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit on the NAND I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M) tells us that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring some package rework. Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 -- Sebastian Silva Iniciativa FuenteLibre http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi Greg, http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else do we need to track? FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of: Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships with Sugar Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more concrete. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi, This is the case for the official Fedora 10. It need not be the case for an rpm-based system built out of the Fedora 10 repositories. I am currently working on a solution which should comfortably fit into the 1 GB of NAND FLASH. Call it a respin. rpmxo. * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? * Would they live on different partitions? * How will we allocate space between them? * Will they be upgraded separately? * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? Anyway, you get the idea -- this brings up a massive amount of issues, so we should be talking about it more than we have been. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi Erik, Peter and Chris, Thanks a lot for the comments and offer of help! I updated the requirement to explain that the idea is a slimmed down version of Fedora which fits on our NAND. I added a comment about upgrading too. Here are some comments on the rest of Chris's questions: * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. * Would they live on different partitions? GS - Prefer a single partition. I added a requirement to say that libraries and files should be hard linked so that any code is used only once by both implementations. * How will we allocate space between them? GS - The goal is that they (Sugar and standard X-Window manager) are both just different views of the same image. So we don't allocate space between them. * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? GS - Not sure. How much do we need, minimum? It has to be less than 1GB - user file space but exact amount still needs definition. * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider losing that feature if needed. tbd. Keep them coming! FYI for the devel list, I pasted the original e-mail below. Thanks, Greg S Hi All, I am working on requirements for the next major release of the XO, 9.1.0 (see: overview at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0). There are two major requirements which would benefit from expert Fedora knowledge: - Rebase to Fedora 10 - Run Fedora applications The first draft requirements on them are defined here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else do we need to track? A few other questions (RTFM with URL responses OK): 1 - How big (MBs) are the supported X window managers? If we have to choose one or two which should we include? 2 - Is there a Netbook implementation of Fedora? We're going to need a bare minimum of default installed applications. Let me know if there are suggestions on which to include. 3 - Does Fedora 10 supports 802.11s? I will do more research on those but if anyone has a quick answer handy it will save me time. Also, send me a note if you're interested in working on either of those or anything on our not-yet-prioritized roadmap http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap. Thanks, Greg Smith OLPC Product Manager Erik Garrison wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: Hi Greg, http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else do we need to track? FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of: Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships with Sugar Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more concrete. This is the case for the official Fedora 10. It need not be the case for an rpm-based system built out of the Fedora 10 repositories. I am currently working on a solution which should comfortably fit into the 1 GB of NAND FLASH. Call it a respin. rpmxo. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
* So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. Why are we planning on shipping two distros? Or am I missing something? As OLPC is essentially based on Fedora and isn't that divergent (and we're trying to make is less so) would we not be aiming for two different desktop interfaces that can be switched between (sort of like being able to switch between KDE and GNOME if you have them both installed). EG Things like xulrunner are large so why would we want two copies when we could use one and switch the interface? If I've missed something and that is the aim, from following some of the Fedora on XO threads on the various Fedora lists I think XFCE ran reasonably well and is reasonably lightweight so I'm not sure if that's an option? Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: Hi Erik, Peter and Chris, Thanks a lot for the comments and offer of help! I updated the requirement to explain that the idea is a slimmed down version of Fedora which fits on our NAND. I added a comment about upgrading too. Here are some comments on the rest of Chris's questions: * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. * Would they live on different partitions? GS - Prefer a single partition. I added a requirement to say that libraries and files should be hard linked so that any code is used only once by both implementations. Hard linking is not necessary. We can just ship two window managers. Code is shared as it typically would be between both on a Linux system. To my knowledge C. Scott has done so already. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. GS: I think you meant desktop environments, not distributions. Greg S Martin pgp75WddDP55Y.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi Martin and Peter, Sorry got my Linux terminology a little munged there. I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a standard Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said desktop environments as Martin notes. Thanks for the tips and comments. You can even edit the requirement to make it more crystal clear if you think my wording there is confusing. I'll see the edits and roll back anything which I think changes the fundamental requirement. Thanks, Greg S Martin Dengler wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. GS: I think you meant desktop environments, not distributions. Greg S Martin ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi, I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a standard Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said desktop environments as Martin notes. Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the faster builds. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
I second the motion of putting the xfce as an option in the control panel. As these kids with the machine get older, it gives them an option to continue learning and using a machine that will come closer to matching those in business. I have been playing with the gentoo xo spin, and it boots from off to gnome in 90 seconds. This is from the SD card. Running gentoo is harder for me because most of my machines are Fedora based. Mark On Dec 4, 2008 Thursday, at 6:44:20:0, Chris Ball wrote: Hi, I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a standard Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said desktop environments as Martin notes. Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the faster builds. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-olpc-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
chris wrote: Hi, I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a standard Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said desktop environments as Martin notes. Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the faster builds. is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.laptop.com/xo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi, is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Chris Ball wrote: Hi, is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit on the NAND a listing of a recent released build (the jffs images, since I think that will be the best match) [ ] awesome.dat 18-Nov-2008 02:41 334M [ ] awesome.img 18-Nov-2008 02:40 224K [ ] base.dat18-Nov-2008 02:55 157M [ ] base.img18-Nov-2008 02:55 105K [ ] gnome.dat 18-Nov-2008 03:24 436M [ ] gnome.img 18-Nov-2008 03:23 293K [ ] kde.dat 18-Nov-2008 03:58 536M [ ] kde.img 18-Nov-2008 03:57 360K [ ] lxde.dat18-Nov-2008 04:20 220M [ ] lxde.img18-Nov-2008 04:20 147K [ ] sugar.dat 18-Nov-2008 10:14 357M [ ] sugar.img 18-Nov-2008 10:13 239K I haven't done much with the gnome build (other than boot it a few times), but I've messed with the kde build more and there is definantly room to slim it down further. and I hate to say it, but even gnome and kde result is a more responsive machine than sugar. David Lang ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Hi, debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit on the NAND I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M) tells us that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring some package rework. Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
Chris Ball wrote: Hi, is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps? is a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap, so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. Well, in the early days of the Fedora on XO project, I was working with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it was a few MBs bigger... --Sebastian ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
