Re: [Sugar-devel] Browse.xo performance & resolution - Hulahop 200dpi vs Browse 134dpi

Qt on Maemo's problem was similar, but not quite the same. http://ariya.blogspot.com/2008/08/qt-44-and-maemo.html Qt used 32bit colors internally, but Maemo could only output 16bit. So Qt was forced to convert between the two all the time. The solution was to allow Qt to use 16bit internally, whic

Re: [Sugar-devel] Browse.xo performance & resolution - Hulahop 200dpi vs Browse 134dpi

This is very interesting, similar to the problem Qt used to have on Maemo. I was always surprised by report of being slow on the XO, it's probably the fastest and the lowest overhead drawing technology available to JavaScript. 2009/5/15 Martin Langhoff : > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Martin

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Ben, > > > Of course, this equation gets still more complicated depending on > > whether we have MTD or FTL flash. Choosing a filesystem will be > > an interesting exercise. > > I think it's clear that we'll be using an FTL of some k

Re: Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:14 PM, NoiseEHC wrote: > > > Sorry, should have explained myself better, as I was also talking about > memory speed and not size, this time. > > Ahh, if you wrote about memory size then never mind my comments. :) > > > Thing is, most flash controller implementations are

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

Hi Ben, > Of course, this equation gets still more complicated depending on > whether we have MTD or FTL flash. Choosing a filesystem will be > an interesting exercise. I think it's clear that we'll be using an FTL of some kind. (Which kind in particular will depend on more testing wit

Re: XO id transfer to SD OS install

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Chris Marshall wrote: > I would like to upgrade my XO to boot from > an SD install of the OS.  Is there a way > to transfer the identity information from > the original install to the SD boot so that: > > (1) XO colors are the same > (2) Nickname is the same > (3)

Re: Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

Sorry, should have explained myself better, as I was also talking about memory speed and not size, this time. Ahh, if you wrote about memory size then never mind my comments. :) Thing is, most flash controller implementations are crap, and it will probably be the case with the one in Gen

Re: Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

Tks, I keep forgetting that OLPC-Devel doesn't have the list as the default reply-to. On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM, NoiseEHC wrote: > Please, always use reply-all. Answers inlined where I have an answer. > > Tiago Marques wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, NoiseEHC wrote: > >> >>

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> If you're interested in contributing, we'd certainly love your help, >>> and you can find us on the fedora-olpc mailing list¹, and freenode >>> IRC's #fedora-olpc channel.  Our existing F11 build images for the >>> XO-1 are here², and we'

Re: Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

Please, always use reply-all. Answers inlined where I have an answer. Tiago Marques wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, NoiseEHC > wrote: The 1GHz C7 is still a slow cpu, as it seems from reviews of similar netbooks: http://www.notebook

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

>> If you're interested in contributing, we'd certainly love your help, >> and you can find us on the fedora-olpc mailing list¹, and freenode >> IRC's #fedora-olpc channel.  Our existing F11 build images for the >> XO-1 are here², and we'll soon begin publishing images for the XO-1.5 >> too.  XO-1.

Re: Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

> The 1GHz C7 is still a slow cpu, as it seems from reviews of similar > netbooks: > > http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4352 > > For most tasks it is slower than an 600MHz Celeron M and that's not > exactly fast. Does anyone more familiar with the hardware have any > idea of how

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Chris Ball wrote: > We have some good news:  OLPC has decided to base its software release > for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11.  Unlike previous releases, we > plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving > users the option to switch

Fwd: The XO-1.5 software plan.

-- Forwarded message -- From: Tiago Marques Date: Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:18 PM Subject: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan. To: b...@alum.mit.edu On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz < bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

The reason why people haven't seen a public discussion about the F11/Gnome thing is because the decision was made internally within OLPC (the hardware organization - not Sugar Labs). OLPC has to ship *something* on the hardware that we deliver to our volume customers. By far our largest volum

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Ball wrote: > We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software release > for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11. Unlike previous releases, we > plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving > users the opti

XO id transfer to SD OS install

I would like to upgrade my XO to boot from an SD install of the OS. Is there a way to transfer the identity information from the original install to the SD boot so that: (1) XO colors are the same (2) Nickname is the same (3) Friends are the same (4) It stays "Friends" with other XOs transparentl

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > I'm afraid with Gnome installed by default there won't be much space > left to install anything else. The DebXO Gnome install size is ~ 1.5 GB, which would leave 2.5 GB or ~ 60% free disk space. (Remember this whole discussion is about t

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

I'll ask Adam, the OLPC employee who is at the meeting. He may know. -walter On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 08:48 -0400 schrieb Walter Bender: >> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Christoph Wickert >> wrote: >> > Am Samstag, den 16.05.200

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 08:48 -0400 schrieb Walter Bender: > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Christoph Wickert > wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 12:58 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson: > >> >> >> We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software > >> >> >> release > >> >> >>

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 12:58 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson: >> >> >> We have some good news:  OLPC has decided to base its software release >> >> >> for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11.  Unlike previous releases, we >> >> >> plan t

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 12:58 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson: > >> >> We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software release > >> >> for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11. Unlike previous releases, we > >> >> plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

>> >> We have some good news:  OLPC has decided to base its software release >> >> for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11.  Unlike previous releases, we >> >> plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving >> >> users the option to switch into a standard GNOME install instea

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

Am Samstag, den 16.05.2009, 12:05 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson: > >> We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software release > >> for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11. Unlike previous releases, we > >> plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving > >> use

Re: Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

>> We have some good news:  OLPC has decided to base its software release >> for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11.  Unlike previous releases, we >> plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving >> users the option to switch into a standard GNOME install instead. > > If yo

Why not Xfce? (was: Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.)

Am Freitag, den 15.05.2009, 16:17 -0400 schrieb Chris Ball: > We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software release > for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11. Unlike previous releases, we > plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving > users the option to

Re: The XO-1.5 software plan.

On Saturday 16 May 2009 01:47:49 am Chris Ball wrote: > We have some good news: OLPC has decided to base its software release > for the new XO-1.5 laptop on Fedora 11. Unlike previous releases, we > plan to use a full Fedora desktop build, booting into Sugar but giving > users the option to switc