On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A general observation about organizational behavior:
>
> Organizations do not act coherently to nearly the same extent as
> individual humans. Individuals change their minds, act in ways
> inconsistent with their state
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:32 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Sugar design guidelines.
>
> Windows developers would port existing applications (Word, for
> example) and provide simplified interfaces matching the Sugar UI
> guidelines, but these activities would not share any c
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 5:18 AM, NoiseEHC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have just found this link:
> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~driscoll/fuse-nt.pdf
> This is a report about a failed IFS-FUSE attempt.
> They ended with a loopback SMB server what should the Sugar windows port
> should follow IMH
I have just found this link:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~driscoll/fuse-nt.pdf
This is a report about a failed IFS-FUSE attempt.
They ended with a loopback SMB server what should the Sugar windows port
should follow IMHO.
ps:
The report contains the problems writing windows FSs.
___
Thanks for providing this summary!
What is not clear to me is whether we are talking about:
1. Windows on XO with Sugar
2. Sugar on Windows on any machine
3. Both
Also not clear what advantage could any variation provide to OLPC so
probably NN could be a little more concrete about Sugar on Window
-
From: Jeffrey Kesselman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Raymond F. Hayes Jr.
Cc: OLPC Devel
Subject: Re: A technical assessment of porting "Sugar" to Windows.
>From my POV, Ray?
Anything you can do that is cross platform and open is a great servic
not anything remotely connected to the OS or the kernel or
> OLPC)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:16 AM
> To: Raymond F. Hayes Jr.
> Cc:
ted to the OS or the kernel or
OLPC)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:16 AM
To: Raymond F. Hayes Jr.
Cc: 'OLPC Devel'
Subject: RE: A technical assessment of porting "Sugar" to Wind
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, NoiseEHC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean everything that actually calls into GDI.
>
> Right, my mis-speak. Given that almost all my interaction with
> Windows has been thro
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, NoiseEHC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean everything that actually calls into GDI.
Right, my mis-speak. Given that almost all my interaction with
Windows has been through GDI I tend to blur that distinction in my
mind.
--
~~ Microsoft help desk says: repl
You mean everything that actually calls into GDI. The kernel is fully
thread safe and preemptive on NT.
Since as I know GTK is thread affine as well, probably it is not a problem.
Jeffrey Kesselman wrote:
> This may be obviosu to everyone, but just a note if it isnt
>
> I have a lot of experi
This may be obviosu to everyone, but just a note if it isnt
I have a lot of experience *trying* to tlak Win32 into doing things
other then its own way from my time in the Sun Java Performance tuning
team. Java has a very X inspired window system. Retting that to run
reliably on Windows has b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:55 AM
> To: Raymond F. Hayes Jr.
> Cc: 'OLPC Devel'
> Subject: RE: A technical assessment of porting "Sugar" to Windows.
>
> why climb aboa
Below is exactly my attitude about getting in Bed with Microsoft. They
are not in the business of helping to distribute OPEN Software.
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 15:00 -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
> Thanks, Scott, for taking us away from the direction of flamage to
> many of the real issues. I have not
ehalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:55 AM
To: Raymond F. Hayes Jr.
Cc: 'OLPC Devel'
Subject: RE: A technical assessment of porting "Sugar" to Windows.
why climb aboard a sinking ship, particularly when yours is moving fast...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Raymond
C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our current implementation is based on Xapian,
> which "compiles" on Windows (but perhaps not much more):
> http://lists.tartarus.org/pipermail/xapian-devel/2006-March/000311.html
Um, "2006-March" - that message is over two years old! And even back t
t; version to be decided later on.
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Wade Brainerd
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: C. Scott Ananian
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michail Bletsas; O
24, 2008 3:11 PM
To: C. Scott Ananian
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michail Bletsas; OLPC Devel
Subject: Re: A technical assessment of porting "Sugar" to Windows.
Hey Scott, thanks for this. It's nice to see a clear, unbiased
analysis of a complex problem.
It shows that there are some cl
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The activation process allows them to tell potential
> thieves and potential purchasers of hot systems that the laptops will be
> useless bricks.
That is the key message, and everything we can do to make it clearer,
t
On Apr 24, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 24.04.2008 20:32, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> 11. Bitfrost: initial activation security.
>> ...
>> For completeness, I will note that although passive and active kill
>> theft-deterrence systems have been implemented on Sugar/GNU/Linu
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:32 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> That said, our Journal and datastore are in need of a rewrite.[...]
> This course requires skilled Windows developers who are comfortable
> with NTFS reparse points and/or filesystem development on Windows.
> Developing a single implementa
On Apr 24, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> AFAIK the hardware side of P_THEFT alias theft protection alias
> activation security/kill functionality has not been implemented,
> rendering all software efforts moot.
The set of required pins is not, in fact, being doused with epoxy a
On 24.04.2008 20:32, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> 11. Bitfrost: initial activation security.
>
> Our deployment countries are very concerned with theft of XOs. This
> item and the next address different mechanisms OLPC has designed to
> mitigate and manage this risk.
>
> "Initial activation security"
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A general observation about organizational behavior:
>
> Organizations do not act coherently to nearly the same extent as
> individual humans. Individuals change their minds, act in ways
> inconsistent with their state
On 24.04.2008 20:32, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> 4. Journal and Datastore.
>
> One part of the zooming UI not discussed in item #3 (above) is the
> "Journal" view, the XO's replacement for the traditional "files and
> folders" metaphor. Our current implementation is based on Xapian,
> which "compile
Hi Carol,
I believe MS LiveMesh is a higher level concept than the OLPC Mesh. I
think it requires a traditional LAN environment first, and adds
functionality on top of that.
Whereas the XO's mesh feature creates a traditional LAN environment
out of "thin air".
I could be wrong though, I haven't
Hey Scott, thanks for this. It's nice to see a clear, unbiased
analysis of a complex problem.
It shows that there are some clear technical advantages to the
GNU/Linux stack, while correctly stating that there are options for a
Windows port which would not be impossible.
I personally can't imagin
Thanks, Scott, for taking us away from the direction of flamage to
many of the real issues. I have nothing to add about the difficulty of
the actual technical issues that you discuss, but I have some comments
on the significance of the technical issues for corporate strategy and
marketing.
The fir
victor wrote:
>> For sound support, the situation is similar. I believe that a larger
>> number of basic APIs are used to access sound playback features than
>> are used to access the camera and microphone, making compatibility
>> more difficult. At minimum, we would need to use the windows port
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:48:55PM +0100, victor wrote:
> at the beginning, but it was not taken because of the lack of FOSS
> credentials (even though Darwin is FOSS, is it not?).
I believe Darwin uses a BSD license whereas GNU/Linux is GPL (version
whatever). For more background, see
http://en
>
> For sound support, the situation is similar. I believe that a larger
> number of basic APIs are used to access sound playback features than
> are used to access the camera and microphone, making compatibility
> more difficult. At minimum, we would need to use the windows port of
> CSound; it
Microsoft is in the process of launching a new initiative they call
"LiveMesh". In part this seems to be an effort to "enmesh" Windows users in
the MS version of Google and Amazon cloud storage, but it is more than that,
as it includes p2p synching of files within designated folders on multiple
ma
This document will give a technical overview of the challenges facing
any "Sugar on Windows" project. Mary Lou Jepson of OLPC was proud of
the fact that the XO did "seven new things" when most hardware
projects try to limit themselves to only one "new thing" per product.
I will outline the "new th
33 matches
Mail list logo
