Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
>> Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the >> possible alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware >> until decisions are final; it is the basis of serious negotiations >> among competing parties, under non-disclosure agreements. > > Lest rumors of more OLPC secrets get started, let me clarify that > much of this information is related to processor and chipset choices, > battery and power specs, display technology, etc, etc. These > critically depend on vendors, prices, contracts, and protracted > negotiation. We'll let you know those details as soon as the > contracts are signed. All of this worries me. Numerous mistakes were made last time. You ended up with no alternative vendor for the touchpad. Even when it became obvious that ALPS could not deliver a usable input device, you had to push on and ship anyway. You ended up with no alternative vendor for the wireless. Even when it became obvious that Marvell was giving you buggy firmware and would never release the source code, you had to push on and ship anyway. Nobody could help fix the bugs. You ended up with closed-source EC firmware. Your one NDAed EC developer has had quite a time dealing with the buggy junk that was supplied. Nobody else could help. The D-CON chip had bugs etched in silicon. You failed to let volunteers review the design, and the result isn't excellent. Minus the dollar figures of course, getting contracts out in public would be very good for you. Groklaw would be a great place to get things reviewed. You should interpret resistance to this as an indication that somebody may be trying to put something bad in a contract. > The best way to show > that a touch screen keyboard is workable, for example, is to try to > build one. Ditto for alternative input mechanisms, gestures and > multitouch, etc, etc. If you think we should do X, Y, or Z, show us > why it's a good idea. How can I show you that something is a bad idea? I could build a demo, but then you might naturally (rightly or not) say that the fault is in my implementation. FWIW, 1920x1080 (HDTV resolution) at 254 DPI is exactly 192x108 mm. This would be an excellent choice. It avoids round-off error in the measurements, it is perfect for video, and fast 2x scaling is well-suited to low-res web pages. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Martin has a good point: we're still in the phase of basic things like processor selection. And one of the really major questions is what touch technology to use; Mary Lou tells me there are many different technologies out there at the moment; we'll have to make another big decision there at some point. - Jim On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 09:49 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then the announcement should be: > > Don't take it so seriously. It's a "vision" set of mockups, and the > different technical aspects of how to get there will be fleshed out in > time and discussed in [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And when I say "fleshed out" I mean - you'll see us exploring the > alternatives, and figuring out what the best path is. So keep your > ears open, and be ready to jump into the fray when it gets interesting > (if you are keen to help with XO-2, that is). > > For the time being, XO-2 is far, far away. I tend to not care about > things I can't put into action right now :-) > -- Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On 5/23/08, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the possible > alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware until decisions are > final; it is the basis of serious negotiations among competing parties, > under non-disclosure agreements. Lest rumors of more OLPC secrets get started, let me clarify that much of this information is related to processor and chipset choices, battery and power specs, display technology, etc, etc. These critically depend on vendors, prices, contracts, and protracted negotiation. We'll let you know those details as soon as the contracts are signed. But most of the discussion so far here on devel@ has been about software issues and big-picture design, and there's no reason that needs to be under wraps. As always in software discussions, working code is the best argument. I hope that as a community we'll move beyond hot air to demos and code at some point. The best way to show that a touch screen keyboard is workable, for example, is to try to build one. Ditto for alternative input mechanisms, gestures and multitouch, etc, etc. If you think we should do X, Y, or Z, show us why it's a good idea. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Steve Holton wrote: > You missed a step. ;-) > > The 'what it will be' statement is usually derived from (and guided > by) the 'what it must be' statement. > Step 1 (the 'what it must be') is the list of Requirements. > > From the requirements we can dual track derive the possible > implementations which will meat those requirements and the set of > tests to ensure the requirements are met. Without the requirements as > a guide, we get the wild (and distracting) speculation, the missteps, > deficient features, etc. > > From the requirements we can ask questions like: > - Is this feature (a touch screen, for example) a requirement? > - What other features are dependent on this feature? > - If we decide to remove this requirement, of change fundamental > intervaces or attributes, who will need to be notified? > - What other features is this feature dependent upon? Public participation in discussion about hardware design choices? I guess, I got so accustomed to the lack of communication, such an idea didn't enter my mind. To be fair, I can understand lower expectation of getting good hardware design from community input rather than software (software developers already working using open source, hardware designers still tied to closed development model). So I am not really surprised about hardware not being discussed, but I see replacement of clear communication with "evil open source fundamentalists" in favor of CG dog and pony show as seriously counterproductive. -- Alex ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the possible alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware until decisions are final; it is the basis of serious negotiations among competing parties, under non-disclosure agreements. The best we can do is share the conceptual ideas, both because many of you may have good ideas to contribute, and that people having some idea of direction is essential; this is essential both for developers and our primary purchasers, governments and NGO's. - Jim -- Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then the announcement should be: Don't take it so seriously. It's a "vision" set of mockups, and the different technical aspects of how to get there will be fleshed out in time and discussed in [EMAIL PROTECTED] And when I say "fleshed out" I mean - you'll see us exploring the alternatives, and figuring out what the best path is. So keep your ears open, and be ready to jump into the fray when it gets interesting (if you are keen to help with XO-2, that is). For the time being, XO-2 is far, far away. I tend to not care about things I can't put into action right now :-) 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: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then the announcement should be: > > 1. Primarily to developers, in a much less pompous form, and without > "artwork". > > 2. Be in the form of "Next device within two years timeframe will likely > have a large, possibly dual, multitouch touchscreen and a keyboard may be > implemented in the same way (with or without touchscreen underneath, and > with or without key mechanism on top)". You missed a step. ;-) The 'what it will be' statement is usually derived from (and guided by) the 'what it must be' statement. Step 1 (the 'what it must be') is the list of Requirements. >From the requirements we can dual track derive the possible implementations which will meat those requirements and the set of tests to ensure the requirements are met. Without the requirements as a guide, we get the wild (and distracting) speculation, the missteps, deficient features, etc. >From the requirements we can ask questions like: - Is this feature (a touch screen, for example) a requirement? - What other features are dependent on this feature? - If we decide to remove this requirement, of change fundamental intervaces or attributes, who will need to be notified? - What other features is this feature dependent upon? > That would clearly communicate the tasks (touchscreen-friendliness of UI, > inclusion of latest development in input technology), avoid miscommunicating > commitment to all details of a particular announced CG drawing (dual screen? > lack of keyboard? no camera? particular size? those are likely to change > before the final product), and show commitment to using pieces of existing > technology. > > I am surprised how things that can be done in a clear, productive and > inoffensive way end up being showcases of miscommunication, cause all kinds > of hurt feelings, and actual information has to be derived through > over-analysis and guesswork. Or, to sum it up, is it required to be an education project, or is it required to be a laptop project? -- Steve Holton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Christoph Derndorfer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised
> by both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
> community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Nah. We all want to pull things to the open. But naturally some
discussions do contain confidential information. And to makesure it's
ok to publish there's a bit of work to do, and it sometimes falls
through the cracks. Someone who keeps track of those things would be
great.
It's a well known function, and most large open source teams that have
physical headquaters have such a role. Think mozilla, ubuntu, etc.
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: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On 5/22/08, Christoph Derndorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian schrieb:
> > On 5/22/08, Yamandu Ploskonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To begin with, could we pinpoint _what_ we are looking in such a
> person?
> > >
> > > 1.- obsessive openness, not subject to OLPC NDA
> >
> > I actually want the opposite. You are welcome to have a non-OLPC
> > community liason, but *I* want someone *employed by OLPC* who knows
> > *all* the secrets and works to make them public to the greatest degree
> > possible. Someone who attends all the meetings and continually
> > challenges us, "why isn't this public" and "why haven't I seen this on
> > devel@"?
> >
> So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised by
> both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
> community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Well, I like to think that I'm not *despised* by the community, but
I've certainly made myself unpopular at staff meetings. It's not too
bad. You get used to it.
But yes, really believing in what you are doing is a big help.
--scott
--
( http://cscott.net/ )
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
C. Scott Ananian schrieb:
> On 5/22/08, Yamandu Ploskonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To begin with, could we pinpoint _what_ we are looking in such a person?
>>
>> 1.- obsessive openness, not subject to OLPC NDA
>>
>
> I actually want the opposite. You are welcome to have a non-OLPC
> community liason, but *I* want someone *employed by OLPC* who knows
> *all* the secrets and works to make them public to the greatest degree
> possible. Someone who attends all the meetings and continually
> challenges us, "why isn't this public" and "why haven't I seen this on
> devel@"?
>
So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised
by both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Should be easy to find such a person!
;-)
> Having someone who only knows the stuff they've seen on devel@ or
> olpcnews isn't going to help us get more stuff onto devel@ and
> olpcnews.
> --scott
>
>
--
Christoph Derndorfer
Co-Editor
OLPCnews, http://www.olpcnews.com
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
