Re: [IAEP] Sugar Application Stack
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 20:03, C.W. Holeman II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where does this go in the sugarlabs.org web site? Or is it already there? http://sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy assigns names to some of the things on your diagram, but your diagram is probably worth putting on a separate page. Regards Morgan --- Sugar Application Stack Layers - Library Collections (Browse Activity) - Activities - Sugar - OS - Hardware Sugar Application Stack -- | Library Collections | | | | | Pre-installed | | |Turtle | | From-web Locally-created | | EToys | Art | || Write | | | | Browse| | | | -- | Sugar | -- | XOS | Ubuntu | Fedora | MSWindows+QEMU | ... | -- | XO |EEE PC| ... | -- -- C.W.Holeman II | [EMAIL PROTECTED] To only a fraction of the human race does God give the privilege of earning one's bread doing what one would have gladly pursued free, for passion. I am very thankful. The Mythical Man-Month Epilogue/F.P.Brooks ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scratch license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tom, Bill and others, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:34:28PM -0500, Tom Hoffman wrote: Scratch is, or should be a trademark. [details snipped] Mozilla has very strict terms for trademark use -- so much so that it is called Iceweasel in Debian: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/ I suspect Scratch would want to find some language which says you may only call this Scratch if you have not modified the source. Ultimately, IANAL, and I don't know *exactly* how to do it, but it is in this ballpark. To me, this seems like a good approach to protect the _branding_ value of your marvellous product, while allowing uncontrolled growth - which includes the risk of forks. Through this similar dilemma I now much better understand the hysterical trademark standpoint of Mozilla. Earlier, Mitch Resnick wrote (proxied by Bill Kerr): We don't have any problem allowing commercial use of the Scratch binary (and are planning to update the license accordingly). But several people in our group have reservations about allowing commercial use of the Scratch source code. One main reason: We are concerned about multiple forks that could be confusing to users. We have put a lot of effort into building an online community around Scratch, so we don't want the community to fragment. Also, Scratch is based on some core educational ideas, and we are worried that alternate versions might not be consistent with these educational ideas, thus muddying the educational message underlying Scratch. Our current thinking is to create our own Linux version of Scratch, and then allow commercial use of the source (since we feel that there will be less reason for people to make forks, once we have create an official Linux version of Scratch). But, as I said, we're not sure about this reasoning. We'd be interested to hear your opinion. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions? I welcome this approach, and have no better idea to solve the dilemma. It would certainly be better in my opinion if you could see the benefit of more widespread distribution of Scratch as outweighing the danger of loosing touch (or control) with your users. But I respect if your judgement on this. - Jonas Debian developer - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkka54wACgkQn7DbMsAkQLh/lwCfZabe86ljc03xJ5ozmyH1Eh3o IGMAnA0kmksrvJwzP8H2fNI8Wg0jEhMW =NA9u -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] Sugar Camp Cambridge 17-21 Nov
Hi Rob, On this: I already added some of these above things to the roadmap wiki page as things to try and improve in 9.1. I'm not sure I found the place where you recorded that. Did you by any chance add it to the XO Feature Roadmap? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap There are some relevant sections there but you can also create your own if you prefer. If you placed it somewhere else you can still add it to the XO roadmap and link to it. FYI there is also an explanation of target scale and use of synchronous collaboration here: ttp://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0_Collaboration_Requirements linked from here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Synchronous_Collaboration If you can document the work needed to achieve those requirements, you can create a specification and get as detailed as you like. Or you can comment on or change the requirements if you think that is warranted. Comments or questions welcome, in e-mail or just edit the wiki pages. Thanks, Greg S *** Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:48:17 + From: Robert McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IAEP] [sugar] Sugar Camp Cambridge 17-21 Nov To: Bernie Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Brendan R. Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED], Collabora OLPC Team [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christian Marc Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED], IAEP iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, Sugar List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Bernie, Brendan, Bernie Innocenti wrote: Brendan R. Powers wrote: I would like to propose a discussion on making the collaboration a bit more standards compliant. The idea would be to get sugar to function more like a standard jabber IM client, as well as using existing standards in place of some of the custom solutions used now (xmlrpc instead of dbus perhaps?). I would also like to talk about using the colaboration API to talk to external services not on the jabber network(a moodle server for instance). As well as a possibly a few API changes to make these sorts of services easier to access for activity developers. Switching to XMLRPC?! This seems like some massive sidestep which would break the existing stuff as well as preventing any code sharing between Telepathy apps on Sugar and Telepathy apps on any other Linux platforms. D-Bus and the Telepathy APIs are the emerging standards for accessing real-time communications functionality on Linux desktops and embedded devices. It's already in GNOME in the Empathy client, as well as part of the GNOME Mobile platform, so Nokia's Maemo and Intel's Moblin platforms, and there's ongoing interest in using it in KDE which we hope to push forward at the combined Akademy/Guadec next summer. That aside, the rest of what you say matches up very well with a lot of the ideas we've had for improving collaboration in 9.1: * I've already filed a bug and spoken to Eben to get a UI in Sugar for seeing your JID, entering other people's, and doing authorisation requests. This allows you to deal with people from outside your XMPP server, so basically behaving as a real Jabber client (the Telepathy backends are entirely usable like this - my day-to-day IM client is Empathy). * I also proposed to gradually reduce the sugar-specific abstraction that the presence service does, so activities interact directly with the Telepathy backends more. We can implement the current Sugar presence service API with client code in the sugar library, but it can talk directly to Telepathy behind the scenes. This means: - fewer layers of abstraction - currently Presence Service does a load of caching and re-emitting of information through the curious D-Bus API we inherited when we started work on this way back... :) - any other Telepathy backends can be added and used for chatting, calling and file transfers on other protocols (we have IRC, SIP, MSN, AIM, ICQ, Yahii, and anything else supported by libpurple) without having to mangle presence service to do things it wasn't really intended - the APIs relied on by activities then become the same as Telepathy apps on other platforms, allowing code sharing in both directions - the APIs are the same in terms of documentation and utility code which can be enhanced in telepathy-python (and equivalent -glib and -qt4 libraries) to the benefit of all Having a standards base and flexible collaboration framework that extends beyond the sugar ecosystem offers some very interesting possibilities. I would also like to discuss some of the jabber scalability problems, as well as how we manage grouping students into classes, and collaborating with other schools over the internet. Sure, we've done a lot on enhancing scalability recently with the Gadget XMPP extension to take care of indexing buddies and activities. Groups and collaborating with other schools are the
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] Sugar Camp Cambridge 17-21 Nov
Hi Rob, On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Robert McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bernie, Brendan, Bernie Innocenti wrote: Brendan R. Powers wrote: I would like to propose a discussion on making the collaboration a bit more standards compliant. The idea would be to get sugar to function more like a standard jabber IM client, as well as using existing standards in place of some of the custom solutions used now (xmlrpc instead of dbus perhaps?). I would also like to talk about using the colaboration API to talk to external services not on the jabber network(a moodle server for instance). As well as a possibly a few API changes to make these sorts of services easier to access for activity developers. Switching to XMLRPC?! This seems like some massive sidestep which would break the existing stuff as well as preventing any code sharing between Telepathy apps on Sugar and Telepathy apps on any other Linux platforms. D-Bus and the Telepathy APIs are the emerging standards for accessing real-time communications functionality on Linux desktops and embedded devices. It's already in GNOME in the Empathy client, as well as part of the GNOME Mobile platform, so Nokia's Maemo and Intel's Moblin platforms, and there's ongoing interest in using it in KDE which we hope to push forward at the combined Akademy/Guadec next summer. I actually did read Brendan's proposal as to add some xmlrpc in sugar so external components for example in the school server could interface with some aspects of it. But now I realize he said in place. Well, Guillaume, Daf and previously Simon did most of the actual legwork on the actual Telepathy backends which speak Sugar uses to speak XMPP, and the more recent work on the Gadget component to aid scalability on school servers. We'd be happy to send someone over to chat about this kind of thing with the Sugar devs but not only have we not been invited to participate at all, we've not heard anything back from OLPC about renewing our contract for several weeks now. :( Well, I don't know about the XOCamp, but everybody has been invited to the SugarCamp, though I agree with you in that it has been a quite chaotic process. I think that telepathy, mission control, etc are components that match very well with Sugar's architecture, so I think we'd like more of that rather than less. We have lots to win by keeping ourselves close to the GNOME community and Collabora employees have been very supportive during the last two years. Regards, Tomeu ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Requiring to send out a meeting agenda
Hello, I propose that we make sending out an agenda for all of our meeting a required step. We was supposed to have a Deployment meeting today, people came for it, but it didn't happen. That really sucks imo and we should be careful about not repeating it. I'm sure this will happen less often as we get more organized... But I think a the meeting is not happening unless an agenda has been sent out policy would be helpful. We would have to make that clear in the wiki though, since we have a calendar there. Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scratch license
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Bill Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mitch Resnick responded to my query as follows. I replied by saying I was not an expert on licensing and / or open source but that people on the IAEP list (and Tom) would be certain to provide some useful feedback. Hi Bill. To be honest, we've had a lot of uncertainty about what type of license is best for Scratch. We don't have any problem allowing commercial use of the Scratch binary (and are planning to update the license accordingly). But several people in our group have reservations about allowing commercial use of the Scratch source code. One main reason: We are concerned about multiple forks that could be confusing to users. We have put a lot of effort into building an online community around Scratch, so we don't want the community to fragment. Also, Scratch is based on some core educational ideas, and we are worried that alternate versions might not be consistent with these educational ideas, thus muddying the educational message underlying Scratch. Our current thinking is to create our own Linux version of Scratch, and then allow commercial use of the source (since we feel that there will be less reason for people to make forks, once we have create an official Linux version of Scratch). But, as I said, we're not sure about this reasoning. We'd be interested to hear your opinion. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions? Mitch Resnick (for the MIT Scratch Team) Reading over this again, it probably comes down to a deeper issue than trademarks, and the non-commercial part seems like a red herring. The problem is that the Scratch team doesn't care about your freedom, they prefer a locked-in community they can control, and they aren't particularly interested in collaboration, so it simply isn't apparent at all what their motivation for trying to come up with an open source licensing scheme is other than perhaps political correctness. Whether a code or community fork is commercial or not seems beside the point. The fact of the matter is research is fundamentally about control -- that's why they call them controlled experiments! And educational researchers are, by their nature, are interested in testing *their* theories, and they don't want their work being used to test or implement someone else's. It is their natural point of view, and it is not friendly to software freedom. I think these half-measures to be kind of open source but not really are unenforceable, ambiguous (and smart people avoid redistributing ambiguously licensed-software), and do much more harm to the educational technology community than simply applying a proprietary license would. Of course, I'd prefer if Scratch was unambiguously open source, but it doesn't appear that the team believes in that. --Tom ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Volunteer-driven development of educational software
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Caroline Meeks wrote: World wide there are many programmers paid to create and maintain activities with strong pedagogical elements intended solely for kids. Many of these activities are distributed without cost and some are open source. Some that I'm familiar with are NSDL, PBS Teachers Domain, Concord Consortium. I think one of the tasks of the Marketing Team, which I see you head, is to convince organizations that are already creating activities that they want to use Sugar as a Learning Platform to deliver their activities. If we succeed in that then I think that many of these programmers will also contribute to maintaining and extending Sugar itself, because it will be code that they are using regularly for their jobs. It will become their itch. Brilliant, Caroline. I think you're exactly right. One of our main missions should be outreach to these developers. I hope you can help here, since you're clearly more familiar with the space than I am. :) --g ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Requiring to send out a meeting agenda
This one was my fault. I got my times mixed up. In my defense, I did post an agenda on the wiki in the meeting section of the Deployment Team pages. Next week won't work for me as I'll be over the Atlantic, but I will work with you to put together an agenda before hand. @Marco, I guess the calendar is not sufficient--I'll start sending email reminders as well. -walter On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Marco. Deployment meeting is scheduled for november 19, per: http://sugarlabs.org/go/DeploymentTea/Meetings#2008-11-19_meeting we will send an agenda before it happens, and agree with you, we should always send an agenda before the meetings if not the meeting is not going. cheers!. Rafael Ortiz On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I propose that we make sending out an agenda for all of our meeting a required step. We was supposed to have a Deployment meeting today, people came for it, but it didn't happen. That really sucks imo and we should be careful about not repeating it. I'm sure this will happen less often as we get more organized... But I think a the meeting is not happening unless an agenda has been sent out policy would be helpful. We would have to make that clear in the wiki though, since we have a calendar there. Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Requiring to send out a meeting agenda
Hello Marco. Deployment meeting is scheduled for november 19, per: http://sugarlabs.org/go/DeploymentTea/Meetings#2008-11-19_meeting we will send an agenda before it happens, and agree with you, we should always send an agenda before the meetings if not the meeting is not going. cheers!. Rafael Ortiz On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hello, I propose that we make sending out an agenda for all of our meeting a required step. We was supposed to have a Deployment meeting today, people came for it, but it didn't happen. That really sucks imo and we should be careful about not repeating it. I'm sure this will happen less often as we get more organized... But I think a the meeting is not happening unless an agenda has been sent out policy would be helpful. We would have to make that clear in the wiki though, since we have a calendar there. Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Kicking off the Sugar Labs marketing team: wanna play?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Caroline Meeks wrote: I'd like to help. Are you around Cambridge next week? Absolutely. We're gonna have a lot to talk about. :) --g On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all. I'd like to have a formal kick-off meeting of the Sugar Labs marketing team sometime in the next week. I've fleshed out the marketing team pages: http://sugarlabs.org/go/MarketingTeam If you are interested in any of the following: 1. Helping to coordinate the events schedule, or attending events yourself; 2. Talking with press folks about Sugar; 3. Figuring out clever Web 2.0 ways to get more exposure for Sugar; 4. Any other ways of spreading the good word of Sugar; ...then please get in touch and let me know if you would be interested in attending the kickoff meeting, along with possible dates and times. I may well run this meeting in conjunction with next week's mini-conference in Boston. --g ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Announcing Fedora Sugar Spin!
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Morgan. Much appreciated. --g On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Morgan Collett wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 18:02, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Bill Kerr wrote: Meaning what, exactly? Can you be more specific? Well, it's meant to be possible for collaboration to work out of the box. This did not happen with Wolfgang's Live CD converted to USB keys. Someone reported earlier on this list that collaboration did work from USB keys on a Ubuntu network from morgan collett: Link local presence should just work, but I've never used the LiveCD images. At any rate Morgan asked us for some files and after they were sent reported back: from morgan collett: Thanks for the logs. presenceservice.log shows that salut (LinkLocalPlugin) starts up successfully but doesn't detect anyone on the local network. gabble (ServerPlugin) repeatedly attempts to connect to a jabber server but fails - nevertheless salut is running. After this one of my students built a jabber server and we could do collaboration through that I was hoping that with the new Fedora USB key we could do collaboration out of the box, meaning without using the jabber server All I tested with the new Fedora USB key was trying to connect through Chat but that didn't work Let me know if you want more information or diagnostic files again - I can look up the details or ask joel for help if needed - just tell me exactly the information you need a bit more detail of the history here: http://xo-whs.wikispaces.com/connectivity Ah, right. So what we have is a complex policy issue, but it boils down to this: With whom should a new Sugar user be collaborating by default? Many options here. Machines on the local mesh subnet? Should there be a default jabberd server? Should there be discoverability of all jabberd servers in the world? A quick explanation about the built-in policy of sugar-presence-service: On startup, telepathy-salut is started for link local presence and collaboration (avahi etc). If network manager reports a valid IP address, then telepathy-gabble is started to try and connect to the configured jabber server. Until such time as gabble connects successfully, salut continues to be the presence mechanism. When gabble connects, salut is stopped and presence is done via the jabber server. That policy is in the code base and is not configurable without modifying code. OLPC XO releases ship with no jabber server configured (and in the past, with a non-existant jabber server like ship2.jabber.laptop.org) since our ejabberd setup falls over with more than about 150 people on the server. (That is a more complex discussion which we have had several times - ask me if you want the explanation. A 9.1.0 feature should improve that.) Discoverability of jabber servers is unfortunately a good way to kill them all, with the above limitation. Servers listed on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_Jabber_Servers are regularly down for long periods because of this. With Sugar 0.82 it is easy to set a jabber server in the control panel, but it should only be done by informed decision: Jabber servers should only be run for specific communities, like an XO community in a specific city, or a for a specific school, etc. We do not have an access control mechanism to restrict that, but when people go Oh cool, let me try that one at random then it denies service to the intended users of the server. Debian Lenny and Ubuntu Intrepid ship the required patches in their ejabberd packages, and there are rpms available as part of the XS project, for those who want to set up community servers. My take: 1. Whatever default policy we choose will be wrong for a significant subset of users. The way OLPC builds ship, two XOs on the same mesh channel or the same AP will see each other, out of the box. There's no server than can handle being the default, so it's simple: ship with no server configured. That relies on link local presence/collaboration actually working: if it isn't, you something to fix, since it works fine on OLPC 8.2.0 and other distros. 2. Collaboration must be one of the killer apps, and even if it doesn't work out of the box *trivially*, it should be possible for users to iterate through the possible collaboration network options with miminal pain. 3. Can we discuss this at next week's Sugar conference? To me, answering these questions is worth a day or more of face time. Unfortunately I won't be there in person but I'll try to participate remotely if time zones permit. Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Announcing Fedora Sugar Spin!
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 18:02, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Bill Kerr wrote: Meaning what, exactly? Can you be more specific? Well, it's meant to be possible for collaboration to work out of the box. This did not happen with Wolfgang's Live CD converted to USB keys. Someone reported earlier on this list that collaboration did work from USB keys on a Ubuntu network from morgan collett: Link local presence should just work, but I've never used the LiveCD images. At any rate Morgan asked us for some files and after they were sent reported back: from morgan collett: Thanks for the logs. presenceservice.log shows that salut (LinkLocalPlugin) starts up successfully but doesn't detect anyone on the local network. gabble (ServerPlugin) repeatedly attempts to connect to a jabber server but fails - nevertheless salut is running. After this one of my students built a jabber server and we could do collaboration through that I was hoping that with the new Fedora USB key we could do collaboration out of the box, meaning without using the jabber server All I tested with the new Fedora USB key was trying to connect through Chat but that didn't work Let me know if you want more information or diagnostic files again - I can look up the details or ask joel for help if needed - just tell me exactly the information you need a bit more detail of the history here: http://xo-whs.wikispaces.com/connectivity Ah, right. So what we have is a complex policy issue, but it boils down to this: With whom should a new Sugar user be collaborating by default? Many options here. Machines on the local mesh subnet? Should there be a default jabberd server? Should there be discoverability of all jabberd servers in the world? A quick explanation about the built-in policy of sugar-presence-service: On startup, telepathy-salut is started for link local presence and collaboration (avahi etc). If network manager reports a valid IP address, then telepathy-gabble is started to try and connect to the configured jabber server. Until such time as gabble connects successfully, salut continues to be the presence mechanism. When gabble connects, salut is stopped and presence is done via the jabber server. That policy is in the code base and is not configurable without modifying code. OLPC XO releases ship with no jabber server configured (and in the past, with a non-existant jabber server like ship2.jabber.laptop.org) since our ejabberd setup falls over with more than about 150 people on the server. (That is a more complex discussion which we have had several times - ask me if you want the explanation. A 9.1.0 feature should improve that.) Discoverability of jabber servers is unfortunately a good way to kill them all, with the above limitation. Servers listed on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_Jabber_Servers are regularly down for long periods because of this. With Sugar 0.82 it is easy to set a jabber server in the control panel, but it should only be done by informed decision: Jabber servers should only be run for specific communities, like an XO community in a specific city, or a for a specific school, etc. We do not have an access control mechanism to restrict that, but when people go Oh cool, let me try that one at random then it denies service to the intended users of the server. Debian Lenny and Ubuntu Intrepid ship the required patches in their ejabberd packages, and there are rpms available as part of the XS project, for those who want to set up community servers. My take: 1. Whatever default policy we choose will be wrong for a significant subset of users. The way OLPC builds ship, two XOs on the same mesh channel or the same AP will see each other, out of the box. There's no server than can handle being the default, so it's simple: ship with no server configured. That relies on link local presence/collaboration actually working: if it isn't, you something to fix, since it works fine on OLPC 8.2.0 and other distros. 2. Collaboration must be one of the killer apps, and even if it doesn't work out of the box *trivially*, it should be possible for users to iterate through the possible collaboration network options with miminal pain. 3. Can we discuss this at next week's Sugar conference? To me, answering these questions is worth a day or more of face time. Unfortunately I won't be there in person but I'll try to participate remotely if time zones permit. Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] AMO patch set accepted
After lingering purgatory, aka Mozilla's Bugzilla, for the last couple of months, the first set of patches to allow amo to serve Sugar activities has made it into the upstream tree:-/ Looks like I can pick this back up. david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] AMO patch set accepted
BRILLIANT. Well done, David. This is a Big Deal. --g On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, David Farning wrote: After lingering purgatory, aka Mozilla's Bugzilla, for the last couple of months, the first set of patches to allow amo to serve Sugar activities has made it into the upstream tree:-/ Looks like I can pick this back up. david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Announcing Fedora Sugar Spin!
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:23 +0200, Morgan Collett wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 18:02, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Bill Kerr wrote: Meaning what, exactly? Can you be more specific? Well, it's meant to be possible for collaboration to work out of the box. This did not happen with Wolfgang's Live CD converted to USB keys. Someone reported earlier on this list that collaboration did work from USB keys on a Ubuntu network from morgan collett: Link local presence should just work, but I've never used the LiveCD images. At any rate Morgan asked us for some files and after they were sent reported back: from morgan collett: Thanks for the logs. presenceservice.log shows that salut (LinkLocalPlugin) starts up successfully but doesn't detect anyone on the local network. gabble (ServerPlugin) repeatedly attempts to connect to a jabber server but fails - nevertheless salut is running. After this one of my students built a jabber server and we could do collaboration through that I was hoping that with the new Fedora USB key we could do collaboration out of the box, meaning without using the jabber server All I tested with the new Fedora USB key was trying to connect through Chat but that didn't work Let me know if you want more information or diagnostic files again - I can look up the details or ask joel for help if needed - just tell me exactly the information you need a bit more detail of the history here: http://xo-whs.wikispaces.com/connectivity Ah, right. So what we have is a complex policy issue, but it boils down to this: With whom should a new Sugar user be collaborating by default? Many options here. Machines on the local mesh subnet? Should there be a default jabberd server? Should there be discoverability of all jabberd servers in the world? A quick explanation about the built-in policy of sugar-presence-service: On startup, telepathy-salut is started for link local presence and collaboration (avahi etc). If network manager reports a valid IP address, then telepathy-gabble is started to try and connect to the configured jabber server. Until such time as gabble connects successfully, salut continues to be the presence mechanism. When gabble connects, salut is stopped and presence is done via the jabber server. That policy is in the code base and is not configurable without modifying code. OLPC XO releases ship with no jabber server configured (and in the past, with a non-existant jabber server like ship2.jabber.laptop.org) since our ejabberd setup falls over with more than about 150 people on the server. (That is a more complex discussion which we have had several times - ask me if you want the explanation. A 9.1.0 feature should improve that.) Discoverability of jabber servers is unfortunately a good way to kill them all, with the above limitation. Servers listed on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_Jabber_Servers are regularly down for long periods because of this. With Sugar 0.82 it is easy to set a jabber server in the control panel, but it should only be done by informed decision: Jabber servers should only be run for specific communities, like an XO community in a specific city, or a for a specific school, etc. We do not have an access control mechanism to restrict that, but when people go Oh cool, let me try that one at random then it denies service to the intended users of the server. Debian Lenny and Ubuntu Intrepid ship the required patches in their ejabberd packages, and there are rpms available as part of the XS project, for those who want to set up community servers. My take: 1. Whatever default policy we choose will be wrong for a significant subset of users. The way OLPC builds ship, two XOs on the same mesh channel or the same AP will see each other, out of the box. There's no server than can handle being the default, so it's simple: ship with no server configured. That relies on link local presence/collaboration actually working: if it isn't, you something to fix, since it works fine on OLPC 8.2.0 and other distros. 2. Collaboration must be one of the killer apps, and even if it doesn't work out of the box *trivially*, it should be possible for users to iterate through the possible collaboration network options with miminal pain. 3. Can we discuss this at next week's Sugar conference? To me, answering these questions is worth a day or more of face time. Unfortunately I won't be there in person but I'll try to participate remotely if time zones permit. I'm only here to break the thread against fedora-announce-list. Ignore and move on... ;-) -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel,
Re: [IAEP] AMO patch set accepted
Yup, congrats, David. That remembers me I have one patch in the purgatory to take care of... Regards, Tomeu On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BRILLIANT. Well done, David. This is a Big Deal. --g On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, David Farning wrote: After lingering purgatory, aka Mozilla's Bugzilla, for the last couple of months, the first set of patches to allow amo to serve Sugar activities has made it into the upstream tree:-/ Looks like I can pick this back up. david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Volunteer-driven development of educational software
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Greg Dekoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Caroline Meeks wrote: World wide there are many programmers paid to create and maintain activities with strong pedagogical elements intended solely for kids. Many of these activities are distributed without cost and some are open source. Some that I'm familiar with are NSDL, PBS Teachers Domain, Concord Consortium. I think one of the tasks of the Marketing Team, which I see you head, is to convince organizations that are already creating activities that they want to use Sugar as a Learning Platform to deliver their activities. If we succeed in that then I think that many of these programmers will also contribute to maintaining and extending Sugar itself, because it will be code that they are using regularly for their jobs. It will become their itch. Brilliant, Caroline. I think you're exactly right. One of our main missions should be outreach to these developers. I hope you can help here, since you're clearly more familiar with the space than I am. :) Well of course its easier said then done. But my thinking is that NSF grants and many of the philanthropic grants require the grantee to say how they will disseminate what they are creating. We would ideally like Sugar to be a popular answer to that question, for both Grantors and Grantees. So what are the advantages Sugar has to offer activity creators? Brainstorming some of the advantages Sugar might offer activity creators. - An installed base from XO installations - Potential for deep integration with local servers. - Built in collaboration features - others? How do we communicate this to them? Maybe follow the money backwards and write letters to the Grant reviews. It ought to be possible to figure out who reviewed the major funding for interesting activity creation, I don't think there is that much of it. -Caroline --g -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] Sugar Camp Cambridge 17-21 Nov
Bernie and I just took a look at the CIC spaces; they are beautiful. We're using the same space for the Monday night hackathon (especially invited: new contributors). I'll send out another email about that in a moment. -Mel On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Bernie Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bernie Innocenti wrote: Walter is looking for another place for Thursday and Friday. We can probably use the Media Lab for the weekend. Walter just confirmed another meeting room at CIC for Thu and Fri. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar packages for non-mainstream distros
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Aleksey Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just some thoughts and some practices (specific?) of Sugar packaging process http://sugarlabs.org/go/DeploymentTeam/jhconvert Sounds very very similar to what Guy (in cc) has been doing for debian! Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] wiki vs infrastructure component
Tickets 4, 5, 6, 12 should really be assigned to wiki or am I missing something? Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Scratch license
Might I suggest that you contact the Software Freedom Law Center? They do stuff like this precisely. Trying to do a license without a lawyer these days is like pinning a bull's eye on your project. PJ Jonas Smedegaard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tom, Bill and others, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:34:28PM -0500, Tom Hoffman wrote: Scratch is, or should be a trademark. [details snipped] Mozilla has very strict terms for trademark use -- so much so that it is called Iceweasel in Debian: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/ I suspect Scratch would want to find some language which says you may only call this Scratch if you have not modified the source. Ultimately, IANAL, and I don't know *exactly* how to do it, but it is in this ballpark. To me, this seems like a good approach to protect the _branding_ value of your marvellous product, while allowing uncontrolled growth - which includes the risk of forks. Through this similar dilemma I now much better understand the hysterical trademark standpoint of Mozilla. Earlier, Mitch Resnick wrote (proxied by Bill Kerr): We don't have any problem allowing commercial use of the Scratch binary (and are planning to update the license accordingly). But several people in our group have reservations about allowing commercial use of the Scratch source code. One main reason: We are concerned about multiple forks that could be confusing to users. We have put a lot of effort into building an online community around Scratch, so we don't want the community to fragment. Also, Scratch is based on some core educational ideas, and we are worried that alternate versions might not be consistent with these educational ideas, thus muddying the educational message underlying Scratch. Our current thinking is to create our own Linux version of Scratch, and then allow commercial use of the source (since we feel that there will be less reason for people to make forks, once we have create an official Linux version of Scratch). But, as I said, we're not sure about this reasoning. We'd be interested to hear your opinion. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions? I welcome this approach, and have no better idea to solve the dilemma. It would certainly be better in my opinion if you could see the benefit of more widespread distribution of Scratch as outweighing the danger of loosing touch (or control) with your users. But I respect if your judgement on this. - Jonas Debian developer - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkka54wACgkQn7DbMsAkQLh/lwCfZabe86ljc03xJ5ozmyH1Eh3o IGMAnA0kmksrvJwzP8H2fNI8Wg0jEhMW =NA9u -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] wiki move ReleaseTeam to DevelopmentTeam/Release
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:16 AM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a heads up. I moved ReleaseTeam to DevelopmentTeam/Release and deleted the related cruft. Please let me know if anything major broke. Thanks for taking care of it David! Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
In the interest of trying to make room for the unexpected around the Nov 17 G1G1 launch, I've tried to compress most of the technical talks into a single day, Wed. Nov 19. There will be plenty of flex time during the rest of the week to get to topics not covered, delve in depth, or try to hack out some prototypes. I've identified four big issues in the list of http://sugarlabs.org/go/Sugarcamp#Proposals -- ideas that have more than one speaker willing to address them -- and assigned them an hour each. The rest of the time I've grouped by person, assigning each person 30 minutes (I recommend 20 for talk, 10 for questions). I will leave it to the individual person whether they will chose to present a single one of their proposals in that time, compress all of their proposals to fit, or deed some of their time to some other proposal quite deserves more. I encourage those who will be present to lobby your favorite speakers to ensure that your favorite topic will be addressed. Refer to [[Sugarcamp#Proposals]] for details on the talks each person listed below has proposed. Wednesday: 10am: Desktop legacy compatibility. (Marco, C. Scott, possibly Saymindu by phone?) 11am: Eben Eliason / Ed Cherlin. 12pm - 2pm: lunch. 2pm: Community. (Mel Chua / Greg DeK) 3pm: Martin Langhoff / Chris Ball 4pm: Internationalization (Marco, C. Scott, possibly Saymindu by phone and/or cjb on language learning) 5pm - 7pm: dinner. 7pm: Marco / Michael Stone 8pm: C. Scott / Tomeu 9pm: Infrastructure (Bernie, Michael Stone) There are so many excellent talks that were proposed. I hope that this schedule, although compressed, encourages us to take the time to make our talks short (Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte., Blaise Pascal, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pascal). There is time during the rest of the week to expand on our points and give the talks that don't fit on Wednesday. (Also, I hope we use the lunch and dinner time for good networking, discussion, and beer.) Does this schedule seem reasonable to others? (Esp. those I've pencilled in for talks?) If you are going to be in town, made a 9.1 proposal (or forgot to), and aren't listed above, let me know. --scott ps. I apologize for the late planning on this; things have been pretty crazy. -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this schedule seem reasonable to others? (Esp. those I've pencilled in for talks?) If you are going to be in town, made a 9.1 proposal (or forgot to), and aren't listed above, let me know. I should have also included the information that Walter will be giving his 'Portfolio' talk at 9am on Friday. Just in case anyone was wondering about his absence from the above schedule. Oh, and we'll do our best to get all of these talks recorded, digitized, and posted for anyone not present (or enjoying an overly-leisurely lunch, say). --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] coming to Sugarcamp
Subject: [IAEP] Are you coming to Sugarcamp? Unfortunately, won't make it. I will be in the Boston for much of January. Is XOCamp still in the works following FUDCon? Tony Anderson and I were both planning to attend. -- Bryan W. Berry Technology Director OLE Nepal, http://www.olenepal.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this schedule seem reasonable to others? (Esp. those I've pencilled in for talks?) If you are going to be in town, made a 9.1 proposal (or forgot to), and aren't listed above, let me know. I should have also included the information that Walter will be giving his 'Portfolio' talk at 9am on Friday. Just in case anyone was wondering about his absence from the above schedule. Oh, and we'll do our best to get all of these talks recorded, digitized, and posted for anyone not present (or enjoying an overly-leisurely lunch, say). --scott scott It looks like Bernie start a on-line schedule at http://sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugarcamp thanks david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:07 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4pm: Internationalization (Marco, C. Scott, possibly Saymindu by phone and/or cjb on language learning) I'm not giving talks about i18n :) Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:18 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It looks like Bernie start a on-line schedule at http://sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugarcamp Yes, Bernie and I are working together on this. I just thought I'd post a proposal to the list in general to find out if I'm totally smoking crack before we finish scheduling the rest of the week. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:07 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4pm: Internationalization (Marco, C. Scott, possibly Saymindu by phone and/or cjb on language learning) I'm not giving talks about i18n :) By golly, you're right. Well, that gives me a little slack in the schedule perhaps to use to fix whatever else I've got wrong. ;-) --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope there are gobby sessions for all events, and that they are more brainstorming and writing than presentation and recording video. No. Wednesday talks are well-structured, compressed data, idea, open question and prototype dumps. Brainstorming is scheduled for Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:07 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this schedule seem reasonable to others? (Esp. those I've pencilled in for talks?) If you are going to be in town, made a 9.1 proposal (or forgot to), and aren't listed above, let me know. There is a lot of interest about a talk on collaboration, Brendan offered to lead at least part of it. Perhaps we could make it a 2 hours slot on the other days, similar to Walter/Christian. Sorry, I'd originally left that out because we didn't have someone to lead it; I was a bit behind on my mail and didn't see Brendan's proposal/offer. Also, it seems like Yamandu will be attending; I'd missed his proposal in my original schedule as well. My current vague thinking is to group the less-technical learning-and-content-oriented talks (Yamandu's, OLE's presentation, and Chris/Michael's Uruguay report) on another day (Tuesday? Thursday? I'll have to sit down with Bernie again), and to add Yamandu-on-i18n to the i18n hour on Wed, if he'd like to make a 10-15min presentation. I think I can squeeze in 30 mins for collaboration on Wed if Brendan wants to make a formal proposal; if we all just want to sit down and brainstorm collaboration, then a 2 hour block on not-Wednesday sounds perfect. I was really hoping to get Morgs or Collabora to give a 'state of collaboration' talk to set the stage. Hopefully we can get that in January's meeting. Keep the comments coming -- it seems that no one is completely appalled by the idea of cramming all the technical talks into one day? If this level of non-dissent continues, Bernie and I will pencil in Wed as 'technical talk day' on the wiki, and folks can start adding details for their talks, trading talk slots, etc. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:39 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope there are gobby sessions for all events, and that they are more brainstorming and writing than presentation and recording video. No. Wednesday talks are well-structured, compressed data, idea, open question and prototype dumps. Ok. I hope there are gobby sessions for all events, well-structured compressed data events as well as for brainstorming. Brainstorming is scheduled for Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Lovely. SJ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure if (a) I understand how Bernie's schedule (Talk:Sugarcamp) works; but (b) Friday morning at 9am is the only time that works for Evangelina, who is able to jooin us for the Portfolio discussion. I don't think we'll need more than 90 minutes, so perhaps Christian could take the latter half of the morning for UI/design. Scott, it'd be great if you could join us. Yup, I think that matches what Bernie and I had pencilled in. We'll finish fleshing out the rest of the week's schedule tomorrow. Unless the photons in our network pipe go on strike, www.laptop.org catches fire, or Barack Obama pays a visit to 1cc, I'll be there. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
