Re: Get involved - Measure Activity on the XO
Wait! Can we share Measure data between laptops and combine the streams? -- Exactly! (Im working on it, however patch submissions and developmental help most welcome) Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Chilling Effects paper at USENIX UPSEC
4. It is unfortunate that a respected conference did not do a better job at vetting this paper. The conference is a small USENIX workshop (Usability, Psychology and Security). USENIX workshops generally involve fewer than 100 participants, more timely work, and less pre-publication peer review. BitFrost (and criticism of the design, the spec, and the implementation of BitFrost) are directly on-point for this workshop. The paper appears in a short papers session, along with papers on RFID and authentication via electronic pets. 1. The BitFrost Specification is documentation, not detailed implementation. The author does not read code. Indeed, the paper would've been better if they had also been able to review the implementation, but based on the paper deadline and what they had available (a prototype XO from B3 or earlier), most of BitFrost was not implemented in what they had access to. 2. BitFrost does not promise anonymity to school children. This is a valid criticism of a social scheme such as give one laptop to every child, and as pointed out by the authors, a scheme being rolled out in some very violent, repressive countries like Nigeria. It would have been nice if the criticisms had been delivered directly to OLPC, instead of broadcast in a public forum, ... Almost every OLPC forum, including olpc-security, is a public forum. If the enemies of OLPC aren't reading its open mailing lists, they aren't very competent enemies. It's actually more likely that they would notice OLPC criticisms in OLPC forums, rather than at a small USENIX workshop. Indeed, it's the discussion of the paper here that has probably tipped off OLPC's enemies. Shh!!! I believe that the prevailing ethos in the white hat security community is to report newly-discovered vulnerabilities first to the company in question, thus giving them some amount of time to develop a patch before the public announcement. The authors didn't identify any buffer overflows or similar issues. The things they identified were wrong at the fundamental design level, and are not trivially patchable. Luckily, some of them were design goals that never got implemented, like signing everything with the child's private key. Thus, many of the BitFrost mistakes which they point out, are not actual problems in the current shipping XO. The authors appear to be academics, however, so they would get little credit for having contributed to OLPC security by privately contacting OLPC and giving us an opportunity to address their concerns. Ahem. I have given generously of my time to OLPC by following the project for some three years now; testing B1, B2, B4, and MP machines; supporting G1G1 users; recruiting and paying others to contribute; researching SD card protocols; contributing to discussions by email, phone, and IM; and filing dozens of bug reports. OLPC has seldom graciously addressed my concerns on fundamental design issues, such as BitFrost, activation, developer keys, GPL compliance, game keys, or anything else. When I wasn't ignored, I was criticized for attacking OLPC, or for failing to write up my concerns as a properly tested source code patch. It has been hard -- indeed, impossible -- for me to gin up the requisite perseverence to actually implement anything for OLPC, except small patches to SimCity. (Making those patches turned up numerous bugs, which I reported, which are still largely being ignored.) The BitFrost spec was so clearly a personal hobbyhorse of Ivan that questioning its basic assumptions was heresy, grudgingly tolerated due to my reputation, but otherwise ignored. I decided very early on that it wasn't worth wasting my time and making people mad by criticizing BitFrost in detail, partly because I expected it to fall flat on its face. The parts that were worth focusing on were the pervasive DRM (maybe now that Ivan's gone, I can go back to using the right name for crypto that disables the owner's control). And I was ignored and vilified on *that* until I escalated the DRM issue to Richard Stallman over OLPC's ongoing non-compliance with GPLv3 (and also pointed out non-compliance with GPLv2, which is ongoing). OLPC staff are overworked and underappreciated. Working in the glare of publicity has not made their jobs easier. But giving OLPC an opportunity to address your concerns is pretty much a null concept. OLPC barely has the opportunity to address its own opportunities. John ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
#6864 updated w/ new error logs
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6864 successfully reproduced the error and have uploaded all the log files and output errors I could. hope this helps. So far I am having a lot of issues w/ 703, I don't recommend it for Update.1 release. 702 had a lot less issues Bryan OLE Nepal Kathmandu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: #6864 updated w/ new error logs
I take back my criticisms of 703. looks like the problems stemmed from a corrupted .olpc.store/ directory on my usb key. same usb key caused same problem on 702 On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 13:04 +0545, Bryan Berry wrote: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6864 successfully reproduced the error and have uploaded all the log files and output errors I could. hope this helps. So far I am having a lot of issues w/ 703, I don't recommend it for Update.1 release. 702 had a lot less issues Bryan OLE Nepal Kathmandu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Server-devel] Transfers between xo and school-server
Hi, 2008/4/8 Robson Mendonça [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! Could you please copy it to wiki.laptop.org? Yep! I did it. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/AMADIS Thanks! What do you mean by update the XO through the web? You mean http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Olpc-update ? Yep again. I don't know if this have any relation with file transfer between xo and server. Not sure. That's for updating the part of the laptop that _isn't_ created by the user. We care here about the other ;) Don't know if the plan is for OS updates to be in the school server. Martin would know, I guess. But the focus of my question is don't repeat any existent work. However, if this is possible or not, only you can say me. I know about the network problems in the field, in the last year when many kids, at Porto Alegre trial school, tried to connect with the internet, few succeeded. Because of this, I saw that the Journal publication, in the proposal, couldn't be automatic. Thus can be a problem or hurt the OLPC concepts about backup, then you can talk to me, and lead me to maintain the means clear. There are many ways of arbitrating access to the backup service, and as you pointed out, this should happen without taking much bandwidth. See http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_backup_restore for a proposal. How Tomeu saw, If somebody is thinking in something closer with this, I still open to discussion, this is very important to me. I would like to know if there already exist any plans about backups. Martin? Thanks, Tomeu ___ Server-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: how to let activities write to file without risking security
FYI, this might crop up. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Talk:Bitfrost#org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.AccessDenied Basically, don't choose the solution of making both users have the same uid. -- Charles Merriam On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:24 AM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At OLE Nepal we need to let our etoys image allow writing to disk, however under rainbow the image is executed under another user id. What's the way to give an/our activity permission to write to certain directories without just making them world writable, which is surely not the way to go. Make them world writeable. I don't know why the Nepal team wants to insist on ultimate super high security all the time. Security is not there to make your life miserable. In many cases it isn't there for any reason at all; somebody did it for their own situation, which doesn't match your situation. If it gets in the way, turn it off! That's why there is a switch. John ___ 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: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year. component major minor bugfix organisation I strongly suggest we keep the year. Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year. It should dump support for software two or more years old. It should release based on time, not feature. Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number? Charles ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
New joyride build 1852
http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/joyride/build1852 Changes in build 1852 from build: 1850 Size delta: 0.00M -loudmouth 1.2.3-2.fc7 +loudmouth 1.3.4-1.olpc2 --- Changes for loudmouth 1.3.4-1.olpc2 from 1.2.3-2.fc7 --- + New upstream version for joyride -- This mail was automatically generated See http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/joyride-pkgs.html for aggregate logs See http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/joyride_vs_update1.html for a comparison ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
New faster build 1852
http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/faster/build1852 Changes in build 1852 from build: 1850 Size delta: 0.13M -loudmouth 1.2.3-2.fc7 +loudmouth 1.3.4-1.olpc2 --- Changes for loudmouth 1.3.4-1.olpc2 from 1.2.3-2.fc7 --- + New upstream version for joyride -- This mail was automatically generated See http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/faster-pkgs.html for aggregate logs See http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/joyride_vs_update1.html for a comparison ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Cutting a slice of wikipedia - CDPedia
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Martin Langhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday we had a mini-sprint with argentinian pythonistas and we discussed Alecu's CDPedia which is a Python toolchain that does are good job of cutting a slice of wikipedia and cutting off the least interesting parts to make it fit. His project is here http://code.google.com/p/cdpedia/ and it would be great if Alecu could explain a bit more what it does -- I am sure I didn't do it any justice above ;-) So - Alecu, meet the list, list, say hi to Alecu ;-) Hi all, First of all, let me stress that CDpedia is project of the local Python Users group, and not just a project of mine ;-) What we are looking for is one cd with a reasonable subset of the wikipedia, aimed at schools that already have some computers but no internet access, or with dial up modems that are not connected all the time. What we have developed is a set of scripts that take a static html wikipedia dump and thru some slicing and dicing end up producing an iso image with some bzip2 compressed blocks optimized for reading from a cd, and a small program that sets up a web server that serves up articles from this blocks for a local browser. No wikipedia images are included yet in this process, but we have a few ideas on how to make them fit. Right now we have released an alpha 0.1 iso image, that allows you to burn a cd that will automatically play back on xp, (and manually on linux distros). We need some more docs on how to make it work, though. cheers, -- alecu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Cutting a slice of wikipedia - CDPedia
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice to see a python toolchain for this (though I don't see any code at that url?) They exist in other languages as well. We've been working with Linterweb's Kiwix (kiwix.org) and the Schools-Wikipedia, which use their own toolchains. Alecu, take a look at the [[wikislice]] project on the olpc wiki and en wikipedia. We're looking to improve available tools, particularly in terms of giving slice-creators detailed options about the ratio of media to text. Hi SJ, I will take a look at those, thanks a lot! -- alecu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Cutting a slice of wikipedia - CDPedia
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola, Alecu. ¿Como esta? Hola Edu, muy bien, muchas gracias. ¿Como estás vos? Is there a design spec for CDPedia? Yes, but it's mostly in spanish. But I see you may have no problem with it! ;-) http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/post/1/328 http://except.com.ar/cgi-bin/pycamp/wiki/WikipediaOffline We are working on improving the docs, and we will translate them if people are interested. Is one CD worth just a convenient round number, or is there some other reason for that size? One CD means it will be easier and cheaper to duplicate and distribute. But the 700mb value is just a value in a config file, so you'll be able to make a slice suited to your needs. Regarding multiple disc, we had a (long) discussion on this and agreed that it would be better if we sticked to just one. Shall we put this in the projects listing and make a Wiki page for it? Well, sure! thanks, -- alecu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Cutting a slice of wikipedia - CDPedia
Hi SJ, On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see the auto-selection code; I don't find it in the trunk atm. We played with some sample code, and have a bunch of ideas on the design docs, but the auto-selection is not finished yet. I do see hints of using mwlib, which is good; it is well-maintained. We didn't have such a good experience using mwlib. The problem I remember most clearly was that some strings were hard coded for the english and german wikipedias, but there were a few others. Facundo Batista was working on this, and does a great job of explaining it (again in spanish), here: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/post/1/328 For live slices, using MediaWiki's API rather than a dump, there's mwclient. http://fisheye.ts.wikimedia.org/browse/bryan/mwclient/trunk/README.txt?r=HEAD More scoring schemes are welcome. See also wikiosity's simple relevance-scoring code, which takes in a few keywords and considers 1st 2nd-order links. http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=projects/wikiosity;a=tree Hey, you surely have your eye set on this. Do you keep a list of all this related projects? thanks a lot, -- alecu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Chilling Effects paper at USENIX UPSEC
The most represive school systems we have been talking to have been the ones in the U.S.They even claim that they have a legal obligation to break internet access on the laptop everywhere but the school, to ensure compliance with the law. I personally configured the server to not log IP addresses on HTTP requests, but that will only be used in developing countries. You can bet that most school systems running their own cache/filter/proxy WILL log this info. Forget BitFrost, these kids are being betrayed by basic networking mechanisms (such as persistent MAC and IP addresses.) wad 2. BitFrost does not promise anonymity to school children. This is a valid criticism of a social scheme such as give one laptop to every child, and as pointed out by the authors, a scheme being rolled out in some very violent, repressive countries like Nigeria. It would have been nice if the criticisms had been delivered directly to OLPC, instead of broadcast in a public forum, ... Almost every OLPC forum, including olpc-security, is a public forum. If the enemies of OLPC aren't reading its open mailing lists, they aren't very competent enemies. It's actually more likely that they would notice OLPC criticisms in OLPC forums, rather than at a small USENIX workshop. Indeed, it's the discussion of the paper here that has probably tipped off OLPC's enemies. Shh!!! I believe that the prevailing ethos in the white hat security community is to report newly-discovered vulnerabilities first to the company in question, thus giving them some amount of time to develop a patch before the public announcement. The authors didn't identify any buffer overflows or similar issues. The things they identified were wrong at the fundamental design level, and are not trivially patchable. Luckily, some of them were design goals that never got implemented, like signing everything with the child's private key. Thus, many of the BitFrost mistakes which they point out, are not actual problems in the current shipping XO. The authors appear to be academics, however, so they would get little credit for having contributed to OLPC security by privately contacting OLPC and giving us an opportunity to address their concerns. Ahem. I have given generously of my time to OLPC by following the project for some three years now; testing B1, B2, B4, and MP machines; supporting G1G1 users; recruiting and paying others to contribute; researching SD card protocols; contributing to discussions by email, phone, and IM; and filing dozens of bug reports. OLPC has seldom graciously addressed my concerns on fundamental design issues, such as BitFrost, activation, developer keys, GPL compliance, game keys, or anything else. When I wasn't ignored, I was criticized for attacking OLPC, or for failing to write up my concerns as a properly tested source code patch. It has been hard -- indeed, impossible -- for me to gin up the requisite perseverence to actually implement anything for OLPC, except small patches to SimCity. (Making those patches turned up numerous bugs, which I reported, which are still largely being ignored.) The BitFrost spec was so clearly a personal hobbyhorse of Ivan that questioning its basic assumptions was heresy, grudgingly tolerated due to my reputation, but otherwise ignored. I decided very early on that it wasn't worth wasting my time and making people mad by criticizing BitFrost in detail, partly because I expected it to fall flat on its face. The parts that were worth focusing on were the pervasive DRM (maybe now that Ivan's gone, I can go back to using the right name for crypto that disables the owner's control). And I was ignored and vilified on *that* until I escalated the DRM issue to Richard Stallman over OLPC's ongoing non-compliance with GPLv3 (and also pointed out non-compliance with GPLv2, which is ongoing). OLPC staff are overworked and underappreciated. Working in the glare of publicity has not made their jobs easier. But giving OLPC an opportunity to address your concerns is pretty much a null concept. OLPC barely has the opportunity to address its own opportunities. John ___ 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: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
On Thursday 10 April 2008, Charles Merriam wrote: Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year. component major minor bugfix organisation I strongly suggest we keep the year. Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year. It should dump support for software two or more years old. It should release based on time, not feature. Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number? I strongly feel that we should not put the year in releases. I personally think that we should use OLPC-Version.bugfix for the os so what has previously been called update.1 should be OLPC-2.0 any bug fixes based on this would be OLPC-2.1 etc Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Thursday 10 April 2008, Charles Merriam wrote: Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year. component major minor bugfix organisation I strongly suggest we keep the year. Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year. It should dump support for software two or more years old. It should release based on time, not feature. Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number? I strongly feel that we should not put the year in releases. I personally think that we should use OLPC-Version.bugfix for the os so what has previously been called update.1 should be OLPC-2.0 any bug fixes based on this would be OLPC-2.1 etc Dennis The question is really would the date be information that is useful. I am not sure. My feeling is that at the rate things are going with development it would not. Who cares for example if f8 came out in 2007 or 2008 and why would that be important information? -- === The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
2008/4/10 Martin Dengler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How about a two digit (zero-padded) version number that started with 08? The release date is data that belongs elsewhere -- and it's not accurate, a long-term- What you need is the critical information when you are deciding whether to install/update a given release: component : What it is that I am installing. major : can I expect an API break, is there a promise of long-term supportability? minor : incremental non-breaking feature upgrade? bugfix : maturity customizer : vanilla version or the localised/contextualised one? there are many large long-lived projects using this scheme or minor variations -- and it works great. Most importantly, people understand it very well. As an example, what we know as Apache is released as: httpd-1.3.x / httpd- 2.0.x / httpd-2.2.x We have other places where we actually add value. Lets do something clear and well understood here, and move on. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
XENified images for XO
Has anyone done any work on building XENified images for XO? I'm interested in this for building a large-scale virtualized XO environment for testing purposes. The other option is to run the XO image in HVM mode, but that limits which processors I can use to host such a thing. Cheers -- Marcus LeechMail: Dept 1A12, M/S: 04352P16 Security Standards AdvisorPhone: (ESN) 393-9145 +1 613 763 9145 Strategic Standards Nortel Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
Do you expect to make a major change to the API more than once per year? Would you like major changes to the server API to release contemporaneously with other components? Do you want subtle, minor changes to the API made over a year ago to be the cause of difficult to diagnose problems? Do you want both you and customers to have a context in which only one year of development need be considered? How bad is it if all minor bug-fixes and minor API changes are given a new major version once per year? - ask interesting questions ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: XENified images for XO
There's been some talk about building for multiple platforms: Aside from the XO-1 hardware, various other builds with advocates include Linux builds: Ubuntu (widely used for Actitivies development), Fedora 7 jh-build variant (widely used for OS and systems development), Gentoo, Cebian, and other Linuv variants, advocated by adherents to those operating systems. and also virtualization builds: VMware - which has free (gratis) server software for a variety of platforms. VMware players have had commercial success and the players tend to be stable. Q/Emu - An open source emulator. Used a lot. I suppose XEN could be added to the list. There is a debate going on about the build and release cycle: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/2008_Debate_of_Build_and_Release#Multiple_Targets.2FTimely_Builds It's currently bogged down in the minimum buy-in for time based releases (years in the release name). Charles On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Marcus Leech [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone done any work on building XENified images for XO? I'm interested in this for building a large-scale virtualized XO environment for testing purposes. The other option is to run the XO image in HVM mode, but that limits which processors I can use to host such a thing. Cheers -- Marcus LeechMail: Dept 1A12, M/S: 04352P16 Security Standards AdvisorPhone: (ESN) 393-9145 +1 613 763 9145 Strategic Standards Nortel Networks [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
cat-leases script to join leases files
Attached you'll find a trivial script to concat-and-sort various lease files. This makes life easier for regional teams that deal with various shipments. Usage: cat-leases.pl */lease.sig all_leases.sig do we have a random-grabbag-o'scripts git repo where this would belong? cheers, martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff cat-leases.pl Description: Perl program ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9
I doesn't seem that this is a firmware issue then. M - Original Message - From: Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04/10/2008 09:03 PM GMT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 #6869: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 --+- Reporter: carrano | Owner: ashish Type: defect | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Never Assigned Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0|Blocking: Blockedby: | --+- Comment(by carrano): Does 5.110.22.p8 have the same issue? Yes. 5.110.22.p8 also fails in the mesh-view/avahi issue. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6869#comment:12 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ OLPC bug tracking system ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
Agreed. The date doesn't need to be in the build #, and only makes it longer. And I don't know how meaningful it is to have a build named OLPC -- as noted a few times, we are building more than one thing. If anything, that should be a clarifier at the end noting that OLPC was the 'customizer' of the build. SJ On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Konstam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Thursday 10 April 2008, Charles Merriam wrote: Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year. component major minor bugfix organisation I strongly suggest we keep the year. Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year. It should dump support for software two or more years old. It should release based on time, not feature. Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number? I strongly feel that we should not put the year in releases. I personally think that we should use OLPC-Version.bugfix for the os so what has previously been called update.1 should be OLPC-2.0 any bug fixes based on this would be OLPC-2.1 etc Dennis The question is really would the date be information that is useful. I am not sure. My feeling is that at the rate things are going with development it would not. Who cares for example if f8 came out in 2007 or 2008 and why would that be important information? -- === The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [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: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9
Yes, starting from .p8 is what we should do now. . - Original Message - From: Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04/10/2008 09:16 PM GMT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 #6869: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 --+- Reporter: carrano | Owner: ashish Type: defect | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Never Assigned Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0|Blocking: Blockedby: | --+- Comment(by carrano): In face of the above summary. I believe we should not proceed testing this firmware version, since it's baseline is compromised. The strategy of skipping 22.p8 was not successful. I suggest we go back to 22p8 in order to investigate the avahi/mesh view issue. After finding the root cause and fixing it, we will need to release another version and test it and only them we would add the ready firmware event. M, what do you say? -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6869#comment:14 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ OLPC bug tracking system ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
Redundancy is not bad. There are people who care about year (it is far easier to remember that the last time I updated was 2 years ago, than remember the build number then) and they should have something to hold on to. I vote including the year in addition to whatever else, but not using it to replace major. 2008/4/10 Samuel Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Agreed. The date doesn't need to be in the build #, and only makes it longer. And I don't know how meaningful it is to have a build named OLPC -- as noted a few times, we are building more than one thing. If anything, that should be a clarifier at the end noting that OLPC was the 'customizer' of the build. SJ On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Konstam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Thursday 10 April 2008, Charles Merriam wrote: Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year. component major minor bugfix organisation I strongly suggest we keep the year. Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year. It should dump support for software two or more years old. It should release based on time, not feature. Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number? I strongly feel that we should not put the year in releases. I personally think that we should use OLPC-Version.bugfix for the os so what has previously been called update.1 should be OLPC-2.0 any bug fixes based on this would be OLPC-2.1 etc Dennis The question is really would the date be information that is useful. I am not sure. My feeling is that at the rate things are going with development it would not. Who cares for example if f8 came out in 2007 or 2008 and why would that be important information? -- === The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming
2008/4/10 Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Redundancy is not bad. There are people who care about year (it is far easier to remember that the last time I updated was 2 years ago, than remember the build number then) and they should have something to hold on to. I vote including the year in addition to whatever else, but not using it to replace major. Do remember that the year is inaccurate and therefore misleading for anything that is in long-term-support. fooz-2006-1.3.4-australia was perhaps released in 2007. And it generates confusion - will the major number reset to 1 in 2007? The ubuntu numbering scheme causes quite a bit of confusion for example. This is not about being creative. Look at the software you use, the version scheme it uses, and whether it is clear to end users. I fully support calendar-based release schedules, but the date does not belong in the release name (except for development snapshots likw fooz-cvs20050607.tar.gz). cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] sugar roadmap
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Bryan Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have looked at all 3 docs and they look good have some comments 1. Who is in charge of Sugar? the team lead. I remember that Blizzard used to be the team lead. Is it JG now? Actually, is there a way to find out who is in charge of _anything_? Walter Bender tells me that he is out of the loop these days, but I haven't heard who has taken over any of his responsibilities. 2. Need a really easy way to play music and video files including ones w/ proprietary codecs. Kid finds mp3 file on the internet using browse, kid double-clicks file. It should open with the activity that supports that file type. Use Case: The kid should be able to access the same file again later from the Journal and open up in the appropriate activity/player (should one be loaded) OLPC won't have to pre-load the proprietary codecs for this to work. Leave that to deployment people like myself. just make it easy for us to load them using mechanisms like the customization key. Yes proprietary is bad but allowing kids to explore on their own -- an essential aspect of constructionism -- is more important. We cut off many avenues of exploration when we make it hard for them to access content that happens to use proprietary codecs -- which is the majority of interesting content on the Internet. 2.1 The XO needs a rock-solid media player. To me this is as essential as the Journal. Rob Savoye says that if we could provide, find, recruit...a few developers to finish the current Gnash roadmap, we would have it. I haven't heard anybody step up. Why? -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9
And what happens if we go one revision back? M - Original Message - From: Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04/10/2008 09:03 PM GMT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 #6869: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 --+- Reporter: carrano | Owner: ashish Type: defect | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Never Assigned Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0|Blocking: Blockedby: | --+- Comment(by carrano): Does 5.110.22.p8 have the same issue? Yes. 5.110.22.p8 also fails in the mesh-view/avahi issue. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6869#comment:12 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ OLPC bug tracking system ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Notes from a Planning Session
Thank you for sharing this discussion. Upon reading it I had two questions. *Sugar.* I have seen offers on this list from a class ofuniversity graduate students to do usability testing. Maybe someone responded to them privately. (That would have been perfectly appropriate.) But in reading the portion of the planning discussion about APIs and sugar, I was struck by the unstated assumption that the sugar interface is unquestionably a good thing. Where is the usability testing with children of the age groups OLPC targets that proves that this is so, in comparison with a more conventional desktop model? In watching 5-6 year olds use the interface for a week, I was struck by sugar's complexity in pursuit of simplicity. It was a difficult interface for the children to learn. Too many steps, including going among different screens. Perhaps I am wrong. But I would like to see the same care in usability testing for younger kids that has been given to ensuring that all the underlying components are written in Python and thus potentially modifiable by the oldest target audience. Please point me to the usability studies I have missed. *Networking:* how much of the problems still outstanding with the mesh could be addressed by throwing money at it, i.e. sending commercial APs to the small schools not currently using them. If this addresses the most pressing problems in the most common use cases, wouldn't it make sense to do so, given the opportunity cost of devoting engineering resources to the mesh issues when so many other problems vie for this time? Carol Lerche On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear devel@ cjb, marcopg, tomeu, myself, and several others conducted a 2-hour planning session this morning. I've created a transcript of that discussion [1]. If you're interested, please review the questions that were raised and contribute your thoughts. (FYI: The end goal of this effort is a convincing written statement of where we want to go in the next four months, why we want to go there, and how we intend to get there.) Michael [1]: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Mstone/August_planning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Always do right, said Mark Twain. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9
M, Release 22p6 is not affected. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what happens if we go one revision back? M - Original Message - From: Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04/10/2008 09:03 PM GMT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 #6869: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 --+- Reporter: carrano | Owner: ashish Type: defect | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Never Assigned Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0|Blocking: Blockedby: | --+- Comment(by carrano): Does 5.110.22.p8 have the same issue? Yes. 5.110.22.p8 also fails in the mesh-view/avahi issue. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6869#comment:12 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ OLPC bug tracking system ___ 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: Notes from a Planning Session
I second Carol's pragmatic approach. What we should do is to use access points in schools whenever possible. The mesh network was not designed to compete with infra-structure. It was designed to be used when there is no infra-structure. That being said, I will keep repeating myself that non-infrastructure is the default and will be the default scenario for years to come. So I believe we want and we need to have a working mesh and the good news is: we have! The kids under the tree scenario (i.e. the mesh) works and it works pretty well. In my testbed with 10 XOs removed from any infra-structure, the XOs can effectively collaborate. What we have are scalability issues that are being addressed gradually. And application issues that will happen even in infrastructure mode. The fact that we can't have 50 XOs collaborating through the mesh now does not mean we don't have a working mesh. And it is important for all the involved people to realize that we will progress to have N laptops, but there'll always be N+1. *Networking:* how much of the problems still outstanding with the mesh could be addressed by throwing money at it, i.e. sending commercial APs to the small schools not currently using them. If this addresses the most pressing problems in the most common use cases, wouldn't it make sense to do so, given the opportunity cost of devoting engineering resources to the mesh issues when so many other problems vie for this time? Carol Lerche On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear devel@ cjb, marcopg, tomeu, myself, and several others conducted a 2-hour planning session this morning. I've created a transcript of that discussion [1]. If you're interested, please review the questions that were raised and contribute your thoughts. (FYI: The end goal of this effort is a convincing written statement of where we want to go in the next four months, why we want to go there, and how we intend to get there.) Michael [1]: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Mstone/August_planning ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Always do right, said Mark Twain. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Notes from a Planning Session
2008/4/10 Ricardo Carrano [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I second Carol's pragmatic approach. What we should do is to use access points in schools whenever possible. The mesh network was not designed to compete with infra-structure. It was designed to be used when there is no infra-structure. Don't worry - this (APs in infrastructure mode) is what is happening on the ground mostly. Still, it's not good as it kills the mesh-to-the-school scheme which is one of the key technical goals. The kids under the tree scenario (i.e. the mesh) Yes - that works, but it's not the whole picture. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [OLPC library] Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn on HB5000
There was been strong Etoys experiment going in Illinois, especially at Columbia College and UIUC. I don't know how much olpc-chicago overlaps with that group, but it would be nice to be able to say that we already have been doing the test of (a part of) software long time in the state. -- Yoshiki At Tue, 8 Apr 2008 20:42:36 -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is fascinating. I would say that the first triaging you should do to make this a reality for September is to reduce the number of grade levels you target to an absolute minimum. More than 3 would be crazy, two is better. This is presently set up to be the choice of the schools or school districts. But we can of course inform them of the resources currently available, and what might become available. Possibilities: 6/7: pros: 2/3 of the students in a junior high, yet you can count on having most of them there for 2 or 3 years. cons: late grade = lots of testing; jealous 8th graders. 3/4 or 4/5 : good ages, but not good saturation. 3/6 : good variety, more logistics. Once you decide this, a lot more will follow. I want to do K-2. The laptop works well for illiterate users. It has a minimum of text and a maximum of icons in the Sugar User Interface, and we will have literacy software built in. I also want to do 3-5, the ages where we know we can have the maximum impact with programming in Smalltalk. We will have to have the whole discussion, and not try to optimize beforehand. Premature optimization is the root of all evil.--Donald Knuth, quoting C. A. R. Hoare Also I had a link for you: http://www.ck12.org/ -- just starting up but has some funding and possibly an inside track to getting more, trying to make open-source textbooks attractive to public schools, worth giving them a call to see if they are interested in (ready to) collaborating with you. Illinois would definitely be a feather in their cap. You need all the help you can get with can get with content. Excellent. They are just up the road from me. I'll go see them right away. Good luck! Jameson On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I talked with Ryan Croke of Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn's office today. They are keen on this project, and would like to arrange for us to assist in getting the program designed for the best possible outcome. HB5000 is moving rapidly through the House, and will then go to the Senate, which is likely to turn it over to the Education Committee for public hearings. We should organize to bring our XOs and our children to Springfield for the hearings. Among the questions: Schools will be allowed to choose from among the available laptops. The program should capture the differences in outcomes between schools using different hardware and software, using appropriate measures LG Quinn's office agrees. Nicholas Negroponte is strongly opposed to bake-offs, but the world doesn't work the way he wants. We need to work with the legislature, the Education authority, and with schools on appropriate integration of laptops into curricula, and provide at least draft versions of electronic textbooks on all requested subjects. Much of what we want to do has yet to be designed. In fact, the software that we want to build the textbooks on has in some major cases yet to be designed. How much can we promise for the start of the next school year in September? That depends very strongly on who steps up to do it. It is very important in pilot projects to do good experimental design before hand so that the results contain usable information, not merely data. We need to talk to people who know something about these issues, who also understand what we are trying to measure. What training can be put together for the summer before? We need to demonstrate the meaning and value of learning by doing through collaborative discovery, aka Constructionism. Then we need to provide the toolkit for teachers to apply it, and provide feedback mechanisms so that their experience and insights steadily improve the process. This program requires dedicated resources, and management, on our side and several others. That means that we need to look for funding. Anybody know a good grant writer? No Child Left Behind creates perverse incentives that can interfere with the program. Can we get waivers from the Federal Government for the trials? -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Library mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/library
Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9
Yeah, in testing today, 22.p8 was failing amazingly in school mesh mode. I'm writing up and posting the logs/traces. I'll announce them when done. wad On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:16 PM, Ricardo Carrano wrote: M, Release 22p6 is not affected. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what happens if we go one revision back? M - Original Message - From: Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04/10/2008 09:03 PM GMT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: #6869 HIGH Never A: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 #6869: Firmware release - 5.110.22.p9 -- +- Reporter: carrano | Owner: ashish Type: defect | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Never Assigned Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0|Blocking: Blockedby: | -- +- Comment(by carrano): Does 5.110.22.p8 have the same issue? Yes. 5.110.22.p8 also fails in the mesh-view/avahi issue. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6869#comment:12 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ OLPC bug tracking system ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [OLPC library] Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn on HB5000
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was been strong Etoys experiment going in Illinois, especially at Columbia College and UIUC. Excellent. Can you point us to some groups or individuals, or published documents, or whatever? I don't know how much olpc-chicago overlaps with that group, but it would be nice to be able to say that we already have been doing the test of (a part of) software long time in the state. Indeed. Thanks. -- Yoshiki At Tue, 8 Apr 2008 20:42:36 -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Jameson Chema Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is fascinating. I would say that the first triaging you should do to make this a reality for September is to reduce the number of grade levels you target to an absolute minimum. More than 3 would be crazy, two is better. This is presently set up to be the choice of the schools or school districts. But we can of course inform them of the resources currently available, and what might become available. Possibilities: 6/7: pros: 2/3 of the students in a junior high, yet you can count on having most of them there for 2 or 3 years. cons: late grade = lots of testing; jealous 8th graders. 3/4 or 4/5 : good ages, but not good saturation. 3/6 : good variety, more logistics. Once you decide this, a lot more will follow. I want to do K-2. The laptop works well for illiterate users. It has a minimum of text and a maximum of icons in the Sugar User Interface, and we will have literacy software built in. I also want to do 3-5, the ages where we know we can have the maximum impact with programming in Smalltalk. We will have to have the whole discussion, and not try to optimize beforehand. Premature optimization is the root of all evil.--Donald Knuth, quoting C. A. R. Hoare Also I had a link for you: http://www.ck12.org/ -- just starting up but has some funding and possibly an inside track to getting more, trying to make open-source textbooks attractive to public schools, worth giving them a call to see if they are interested in (ready to) collaborating with you. Illinois would definitely be a feather in their cap. You need all the help you can get with can get with content. Excellent. They are just up the road from me. I'll go see them right away. Good luck! Jameson On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I talked with Ryan Croke of Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn's office today. They are keen on this project, and would like to arrange for us to assist in getting the program designed for the best possible outcome. HB5000 is moving rapidly through the House, and will then go to the Senate, which is likely to turn it over to the Education Committee for public hearings. We should organize to bring our XOs and our children to Springfield for the hearings. Among the questions: Schools will be allowed to choose from among the available laptops. The program should capture the differences in outcomes between schools using different hardware and software, using appropriate measures LG Quinn's office agrees. Nicholas Negroponte is strongly opposed to bake-offs, but the world doesn't work the way he wants. We need to work with the legislature, the Education authority, and with schools on appropriate integration of laptops into curricula, and provide at least draft versions of electronic textbooks on all requested subjects. Much of what we want to do has yet to be designed. In fact, the software that we want to build the textbooks on has in some major cases yet to be designed. How much can we promise for the start of the next school year in September? That depends very strongly on who steps up to do it. It is very important in pilot projects to do good experimental design before hand so that the results contain usable information, not merely data. We need to talk to people who know something about these issues, who also understand what we are trying to measure. What training can be put together for the summer before? We need to demonstrate the meaning and value of learning by doing through collaborative discovery, aka Constructionism. Then we need to provide the toolkit for teachers to apply it, and provide feedback mechanisms so that their experience and insights steadily improve the process. This program requires dedicated resources, and management, on our side and several others. That means that we need to look for funding. Anybody know a good grant writer? No Child Left Behind creates perverse incentives that can interfere with the program. Can we get
