On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 11:49 +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> a) is harder as every window switch currently involves saving current
> state to the DS (which resides on an abysmally slow SD card in my case),
> usually done synchronously.
It also generates log messages, right? In which case, a fix for
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:18:47PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
I think there's room for solid innovation here, especially since the
window manager of sugar was *my* personal roadblock to productive
on-XO activity development.
Interesting. What exactly about the window manager crippled your
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> Speaking of android, has anyone heard anything about google's other OS,
>> chrome OS?
>
> Installed Chrome OS on my XO-1.5 when I was using os64 - the install
> pulled in a whole barnful of dependencies. Did not find Chrome
> impressive -
> Speaking of android, has anyone heard anything about google's other OS,
> chrome OS?
Installed Chrome OS on my XO-1.5 when I was using os64 - the install
pulled in a whole barnful of dependencies. Did not find Chrome
impressive - but it probably is the most capable HTML5 implementation
current
Speaking of android, has anyone heard anything about google's other OS,
chrome OS?
kind regards,
David
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> NoiseEHC, I think your arguments would be more convincing if you
> didn't respond to every email, especially when you'd made that point
>
NoiseEHC, I think your arguments would be more convincing if you
didn't respond to every email, especially when you'd made that point
before in the same thread :-)
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:40 AM, NoiseEHC wrote:
>> The software is designed for learning. *That* is what Sugar was created for,
>
NoiseEHC wrote:
> What you do
> not want to recognize is that you are excluding a lot of developers who
> do not want to waste their time because of the lack of IDEs.
We are trying to provide stepping stones. One of those steps is the
Develop activity [1], which is a Sugar-oriented IDE for Acti
to do this you would have to declare one specific variation of these
tools as the 'One True Way' and eliminate all the others.
the advantage of a loosly coupled IDE is that one component can be
replaced by something else without having to change/loose all the
other things.
and
the advantag
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:15 PM, wrote:
> the advantage of a loosly coupled IDE is that one component can be replaced
> by something else without having to change/loose all the other things.
Bingo! As soon as git was working, I switched fulltime to it (and
dragged my team with me ;-) ). When val
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, NoiseEHC wrote:
2009/12/29 NoiseEHC :
me. Another (optional) question is why did you left out gdb from the list?
All sorts of things run on the 3/4 xterms i use. valgrind, gdb,
python -m pdb, tail -f /path/to/log, ipython, ps_mem.py, psql, git
commands...
And if al
2009/12/29 NoiseEHC :
me. Another (optional) question is why did you left out gdb from the list?
All sorts of things run on the 3/4 xterms i use. valgrind, gdb,
python -m pdb, tail -f /path/to/log, ipython, ps_mem.py, psql, git
commands...
And if all those tools would be integrat
2009/12/29 NoiseEHC :
> me. Another (optional) question is why did you left out gdb from the list?
All sorts of things run on the 3/4 xterms i use. valgrind, gdb,
python -m pdb, tail -f /path/to/log, ipython, ps_mem.py, psql, git
commands...
> All your code is perfect because you are a top-qualit
For the other people talking about IDEs: an usable IDE is not a text
editor.
Of course. What I do (and most other productive programmers I know do)
is use the window manager (gnome, kde, awesome...), xterms, a
webbrowser, etc, to make a "LIDE": loosely integrated dev environment.
I've le
> Are you aware the XO ships a full Smalltalk IDE? You know, like VisualAge
> which later became Eclipse? It's "hidden" in the Etoys activity, but
> (surprise!) it's a kids laptop.
Because someone will break your arms if you port Etoys to Android. Now I
understand.
> The software is designed
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:47 AM, NoiseEHC wrote:
> For the other people talking about IDEs: an usable IDE is not a text
> editor.
Of course. What I do (and most other productive programmers I know do)
is use the window manager (gnome, kde, awesome...), xterms, a
webbrowser, etc, to make a "LIDE":
On 29.12.2009, at 01:47, NoiseEHC wrote:
>
>
>> Ahem. With XO-1.5, I feel that I AM shipping a "full-fledged Linux
>> PC" to every child.
>> Since when did it take more than a GB of RAM and 4GB of disk to host
>> an IDE ?
>>
>> My point still stands: until Android supports its own developmen
> Ahem. With XO-1.5, I feel that I AM shipping a "full-fledged Linux
> PC" to every child.
> Since when did it take more than a GB of RAM and 4GB of disk to host
> an IDE ?
>
> My point still stands: until Android supports its own development
> tools, you are
> turning it's users into second
On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 19:38 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> emacs is what I am using on both XO-1 and XO-1.5 so pretty good going
> ;-) (Along with vim! Peace!)
>
> Lots of people here want to claim we need Eclipse to have an "IDE". Of
> all the developers involved in the whole Linux
> kernel+Fedo
> > Since when did it take more than a GB of RAM and 4GB of disk to host
> > an IDE ?
>
> I think that was Emacs 23.
No, that was "Eight Megs and Continuously Swapping". I.e. in an
amazingly large and expensive Sun Workstation with 8 *megabytes* of
RAM, emacs would still make the system page-fau
wad wrote:
>
> Emacs forever ! (although it has gotten huge)
hmm. how's its Flash player? :-)
=-
paul fox, p...@laptop.org
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
On Dec 28, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> martin wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM, C. Scott Ananian
>> wrote:
>>> j/k. ;-)
>>
>> emacs is what I am using on both XO-1 and XO-1.5 so pretty good going
>> ;-) (Along with vim! Peace!)
>>
>> Lots of people here want to claim we need E
martin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > j/k. ;-)
>
> emacs is what I am using on both XO-1 and XO-1.5 so pretty good going
> ;-) (Along with vim! Peace!)
>
> Lots of people here want to claim we need Eclipse to have an "IDE". Of
> all the developers i
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> j/k. ;-)
emacs is what I am using on both XO-1 and XO-1.5 so pretty good going
;-) (Along with vim! Peace!)
Lots of people here want to claim we need Eclipse to have an "IDE". Of
all the developers involved in the whole Linux
kernel+Fedo
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:07 AM, John Watlington wrote:
> Ahem. With XO-1.5, I feel that I AM shipping a "full-fledged Linux
> PC" to every child.
> Since when did it take more than a GB of RAM and 4GB of disk to host
> an IDE ?
I think that was Emacs 23.
j/k. ;-)
--scott
--
I just installed Fedora Eclipse on an XO-1.5 and launched it
under Gnome.Granted, I ran into #9927 (/var/cache/yum too small)...
Cheers,
wad
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:54 AM, NoiseEHC wrote:
> You can still create applications with
> http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/
>
> With the existing tools it is true that children cannot create the
> same quality applications what is possible with the Android SDK
> environment (even if w
>> Actually, no. The .class -> .dex compiler consumes an enormous amount of
>> memory, so it is out of the question at least for now.
>
> How much is enormous ? A laptop/tablet is likely to have more than
> a smartphone...
>
With hundreds of classes in a .jar to convert it uses some 256M, with
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> I would argue that an operating system that doesn't
>> natively host its development tools is not appropriate for OLPC's
>> target audience.
>
> Does the XO-1 host its own development tools? I don't think anyone
> has ever rebuil
On Dec 27, 2009, at 5:52 PM, NoiseEHC wrote:
>
>> Does Android not host its development tools because it doesn't run
>> the
>> X Window System? Since X already runs on most of the hardware that
>> Android does, that wouldn't be too hard to remedy -- and would
>> benefit
>> the whole Android
> Does Android not host its development tools because it doesn't run the
> X Window System? Since X already runs on most of the hardware that
> Android does, that wouldn't be too hard to remedy -- and would benefit
> the whole Android community.
>
Actually, no. The .class -> .dex compiler cons
> Does the XO-1 host its own development tools?
For all practical purposes, it does not.
First, as you have noted, it takes quite a bit of bandwidth to install the
toolchain and development headers. (And you have to know what they're called.)
Second, to get anything done with C, you really nee
> I would argue that an operating system that doesn't
> natively host its development tools is not appropriate for OLPC's
> target audience.
Does the XO-1 host its own development tools? I don't think anyone
has ever rebuilt the system from source code on an XO-1. I don't even
know a
32 matches
Mail list logo
