On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Hey all.
>
> Check out the latest piece:
> Negroponte Sees Sugar As OLPC's Biggest Mistake
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/20/1628228
>
> (The title is bad FUD from OLPC News -- it's actually Negroponte
> saying that Sugar s
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Sascha
Silbe wrote:
> Even the OLPC wiki contains links [1] to misleading reports [2] about
> Windows on the XO without any further, clarifying comment.
> ...
> [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Dual-boot
Thanks for pointing this out.
== Basic Wiki tactics ==
*Always
[snipped]
> This is largely because you aren't doing normal Linux development.
>
"Normal". Now there's a term that's relative. Is GNOME normal? Or is it KDE?
Or XFCE, LXDE? Enlightenment, maybe? Sorry, but this approach does not fly.
Sugar is for a specific purpose. Using terms like "normal" onl
albert wrote:
> Ed McNierney writes:
>
> > We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
> > support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
> > If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
> > Mitch is quite right, but we've sa
Hello
we have an incompatibility betwen the graphic card and the installer of the
XS server. For this reason we need to get another GPU that works with
anaconda and we want to know which GPU can we buy.
Thanks.
--
Henry Vélez Molina
Administrador de red OLPC
Fundación MArina Orth
Tel :341 23 59
Ed McNierney writes:
> We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
> support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
> If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
> Mitch is quite right, but we've said just about all of that before
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> > More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
>> > to stop making a "scrambled egg" out of the software stack with his
>> > "omelet" analogy would go a long ways to reducing the confusion in the
>> > media as well. His
>
> Even the OLPC wiki contains links [1] to misleading reports [2] about
> Windows on the XO without any further, clarifying comment.
> OLPCNews' quote of NN didn't make it clear [3] as well:
>
> """
> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux
> platforms and to run under
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:47:58AM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/7/21 Martin Dengler :
> > ---
> > init.d/ul-warning | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > mode change 100644 => 100755 init.d/ul-warning
> >
> > diff --git a/init.d/ul-warning b/init.d/ul-warning
>
> > More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
> > to stop making a "scrambled egg" out of the software stack with his
> > "omelet" analogy would go a long ways to reducing the confusion in the
> > media as well. His continued insistence that Sugar is an operating
> > syst
Hi Tomeu,
Thanx a lot for the function. I would be using it as of now while creating
the infrastructure for the activity, would try to provide support to both
the new as well as the previous builds. I would be testing the function on
my 0.82 build soon.
Moreover, I am also planning to move to 0.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:53 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:37:44AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
>> More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
>> to stop making a "scrambled egg" out of the software stack with his
>> "omelet" analogy would go a long w
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:21:59AM -0400, Ed McNierney wrote:
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
Maybe "conspiracy theorists" don't care, but I do. Mitchs post cleared
up a _lot_ for me (thank
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:37:44AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
> to stop making a "scrambled egg" out of the software stack with his
> "omelet" analogy would go a long ways to reducing the confusion in the
> media as well. His c
Walter -
I figured I was pushing the envelope with Oswald :)
Yes, indeed - I think there's some hope of communicating more clearly
that the XO-1 and XO-1.5 first have to work properly, and reliably,
with sustainable power demands, before anyone can start debating what
applications get r
Ed,
Lee Harvey Oswald was part of an ensemble group. See:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/cached/introduction/link0.20.in-a-gadda-da-oswald_files/oswald.jpe
More seriously, I don't know if it is possible, but getting Nicholas
to stop making a "scrambled egg" out of the software stack wi
Ed McNierney writes:
> When we're finished clearing up the confusion about what OLPC is really doing
> (and has been doing for a long time), we can move on to proving that Apollo 11
> really did land on the Moon, Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Point
Ed McNierney writes:
> When we're finished clearing up the confusion about what OLPC is really doing
> (and has been doing for a long time), we can move on to proving that Apollo 11
> really did land on the Moon, Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Point
Folks -
We've tried many times to make the very simple story about Windows
support on the XO clear. The conspiracy theorists don't really care.
If you don't live in a fact-based universe, facts are irrelevant.
Mitch is quite right, but we've said just about all of that before to
little
Martin Langhoff writes:
> If you are going to wait or an official Linus Torvalds statement on
> things, you're going to wait a long time. Same with expecting SJ to
> write something up -- he doesn't answer my emails either :-)
Btw, linux was successful because Linus was paying attention to the
c
Martin Langhoff writes:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>> Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would have
>> more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
>
> If you are going to wait or an official Linus Torvalds statement on
> things,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12:42PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would
> have more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
I'm not able to help with that, sorry. I'm only a volunteer, and do not
represent OLPC.
--
James Ca
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 05:03:55PM +0800, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Hey Mitch! Great to hear. This actually proves that Nicholas is
> pro-open source.
I don't think that is relevant. What is best for the children is
relevant.
> May I have permission to post this email or portions of it to
> Slash
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
> Thanks. But a blog entry would still look more official, and would have
> more context explaining why those explanations are necessary.
If you are going to wait or an official Linus Torvalds statement on
things, you're going to wait a long time.
James Cameron writes:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Bastien wrote:
>> Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
>> post would help clarifying stuff.
>
> Here you go ...
>
> http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-July/025132.html
>
> Not exactly clas
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Bastien wrote:
> Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
> post would help clarifying stuff.
Here you go ...
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-July/025132.html
Not exactly classical blog format, but very efficient
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Christoph
Derndorfer wrote:
> Hence why I wrote "Maybe I missed it..." ;-)
:-)
> Anyway, crying over split milk doesn't really move us forward. Let's learn
> our lessons for the future and get back to work.
100%. Motion wins.
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Christoph
> Derndorfer wrote:
> > Maybe I missed it before but I'm really very surprised that this is the
> > first time I'm hearing this angle of the story in such detail. IMHO it
> would
> > have made a lo
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Christoph
Derndorfer wrote:
> Maybe I missed it before but I'm really very surprised that this is the
> first time I'm hearing this angle of the story in such detail. IMHO it would
> have made a lot of sense for OLPC to say exactly what Mitch wrote here when
> the M
Christoph Derndorfer writes:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Bastien wrote:
>
> Carlos Nazareno writes:
>
> > I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
> > don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
>
> Mitch just posted
CC'ing SJ this time...
Bastien writes:
> Thanks *very much* for these explanations.
>
> I hope this kind of information can find its way through the OLPC blog,
> maybe with a little more context. Then we can fight the FUD by linking
> to these explanations.
>
> Coyping sj, as I think he's respo
Martin Langhoff writes:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Bastien wrote:
>> Carlos Nazareno writes:
>>
>>> I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
>>> don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
>>
>> Mitch just posted useful information. Still,
> At the moment, OLPC is doing approximately zero work on Windows. That
> wasn't true last year. I spent several months last year making it
> possible to boot Windows from Open Firmware. The reason I did that was
> to prevent Microsoft from "taking over" the XO machine.
Hey Mitch! Great to hear
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Bastien wrote:
> Carlos Nazareno writes:
>
> > I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
> > don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
>
> Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
> post
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Bastien wrote:
> Carlos Nazareno writes:
>
>> I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
>> don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
>
> Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
> post wou
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bastien wrote:
> Sorry I meant: it's not worth trying to make everyone fix this
> communication bug. But of course, individuals are welcome to fix it!
Ok.
>> Or maybe OLPC is a tiny *tiny* group of people, utterly swamped with
>> HW, SW, deployment efforts, manuf
Carlos Nazareno writes:
> I'm more than happy to post stuff, having a Slashdot account. I just
> don't know what to post exactly as stuff is not yet clarified.
Mitch just posted useful information. Still, having a link to a blog
post would help clarifying stuff.
--
Bastien
__
Martin Langhoff writes:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Bastien wrote:
>> That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
>> hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
>> correct vision, etc. Or we can hope that OLPC will fix this issue by
>> takin
Thanks *very much* for these explanations.
I hope this kind of information can find its way through the OLPC blog,
maybe with a little more context. Then we can fight the FUD by linking
to these explanations.
Coyping sj, as I think he's responsible for OLPC's blog, but I might be
wrong about thi
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Apple quotes 7 hours of "wireless productivity", not just leaving the
> thing idling - they deliver more than 8 hours. Notice the praise and
> good word of mouth.
On a finished HW+SW combo after lots of testing. At very early stages
they'd ha
> That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
> hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
> correct vision, etc.
No need for anyone here to have mod points on Slashdot actually. If
anyone here just says something informative and not FUD, and clarif
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:33:14PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> That one-way road was unacceptable to Nicholas. He insisted that, if
> any machines were to be able to run Windows, they must be able to
> dual-boot.
Good work, both of you.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>
> Now AFAIK, there's little to no Windows work being done in-house by
> the OLPC team, and it's all or mostly at Microsoft's side that the
> work's being done.
>
At the moment, OLPC is doing approximately zero work on Windows. That
wasn't true last year. I spent several months last year ma
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Bastien wrote:
> That's my point. We can fix this issue by raising an army of small
> hands that will vote on your (correct) slashdot comment, spread the
> correct vision, etc. Or we can hope that OLPC will fix this issue by
> taking care of what people imagine an
Carlos Nazareno writes:
> The thing is, most of the people on Slashdot (aka the Internet
> Geek/Nerd Community) who post about OLPC topics know nothing about
> what's going on as they just get their info from 3rd-hand sources and
> haven't even touched an XO.
That's my point. We can fix this is
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:08, sumit singh wrote:
> Martin and Tomeu,
>
> Martin, thanx a lot for such a detailed answer. I have got what you want to
> say. But the problem with me right now is that I think the get_preview
> function is available only in the latest release of sugar 0.84 because I a
>> I'm sick and tired of the this OLPC-MS FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) on
>> Slashdot (one of the highest-traffic websites, so high that getting
>> linked on the frontpage is like being DDOSed) and it would be great if
>> the record on this could be set straight so that the MS FUD inanity on
>> Sla
47 matches
Mail list logo
