On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the
need
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child
struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the
need
It's a lot more than that . When you contrast the current WIMP UI and
generic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; OLPC Devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 4:59:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model
On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bert,
if you try and say that the entire world
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking
about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase
recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about extending Sugar
to a standard desktop (presumably to increase recognition of
Slight correction, I should have said GNU/Linux below.
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking
about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase
recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about
Hi David,
unfortunately I don't have time right now to enter again in this
debate, but I wanted to do one comment:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many people have pointed out the limitations of the journal approach, and
problems with not naming activites and files.
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely independant of each
On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version
of each of
those packages
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much
work to get there from here.
at the moment it doesn't seem as if there's agreement yet that this does
need to get fixed.
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote:
We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much
work to get there from here.
at the moment it doesn't seem as if there's
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux
boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run
everything under sugar in one window. this doesn't mean that some
libraries won't need to be
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in part the other response to my message that seemed to have the attitude
that 'fixing' the problem would reduce Sugar to 'just another WM' rendering
it worthless.
That's not how I read Greg post but anyway...
there have been other
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized
activities use
a standard file picker call so that it could go to the journal on
the XO
machine, or to a normal file
On 5/9/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux
boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run
everything under
2008/5/9 Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for the sharing stuff, I know you can download and use the telepathy
libs, but would you also need a presence service running? Could this be
automatically started when an app wants to collaborate, or is it something
that would have to be running in
Bobby Powers wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 15:30 +0200, Bobby Powers wrote:
The way I see it it is somewhat of a two way street. Personally, if
I'm going to run Sugar apps in Gnome I would prefer them to integrate
nicely with my other apps, just as I would prefer apps running in
Sugar to be 'sugary'.
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
Bobby Powers wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about Sugar
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized
activities use
a standard file picker call so that it could go to the journal on
On Fri, 9 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar.
[...]
a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized activities
use a standard file
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each of
those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely independant of each other. they then do a lot of
testing and some
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each
of
those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate
packages are almost entirely
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in
olpc3
is
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is something I remember coming up a lot back when Red Hat first
started putting out Rawhide. We would get lots of tickets from people
who would install it and expect it to a) work and b) be supported.
This was
2008/5/7 Steve Holton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Case in point, it bugs me when the wiki documents features of versions which
haven't been released yet, or declares a problem fixed because some later,
as yet unreleased version no longer shows the problem.
Well, it's correct to document features of
28 matches
Mail list logo
