On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:50:30PM -0400, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>> How many Full Time Equivalent hours does a given developer represent?
>
> A guesstimate: about 25 hrs/wk of coding and 30 hrs/wk of talking for
> social fo
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 05:14:34PM -0400, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> IcedTea requires >=512 MB RAM to compile. I don't see a minimum
> memory requirement for using it.
>
> So yes, if you can find a compilation environment for me for it... I'd
> like to create an rpm which I could install on a current
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Noah Kantrowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Will anyone volunteer to mentor me (hold my hand) on this? Should I
>> contact the ticket's owner directly? How do you figure out the email
>> address by owner name?
>
> For privacy reasons, you cannot get a users email
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:devel-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Goebel
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:51 AM
> To: C. Scott Ananian
> Cc: devel@lists.laptop.org
> Subject: Re: OLPC: Open Organized Transparent>
[snip]
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:50:30PM -0400, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > A related issue is when people loudly insist that "OLPC" solve their
> > personal problem *right now*. Again, we have tens of thousands of
> > machines in the field now, and thousands more every day. You
> > personally may care a
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate"
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:38 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure I haven't said all the things you'd have liked me to say, but
> I've done my best to be open and honest here. Thank you for starting
> this discussion.
Thank
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:59:03PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
> And read the Alan Dean Foster novel Quozl, too. I showed Foster and
> many others an XO at the BayCon2007 Science Fiction convention, and he
> thinks what we are doing is totally wonderful.
Mild panic. Hope he doesn't mind me conti
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM, James Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> p.s. a @laptop.org address does not imply I am paid by OLPC. It is an
>> address that lets me participate more directly, that's all.
>
> Let m
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your opinions matter much more if they are backed up with
> working code, or with a community of volunteers to attack some task,
> or a well-written report. We get a lot of opinions. Many of them
> are, frankly, misdi
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM, James Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> p.s. a @laptop.org address does not imply I am paid by OLPC. It is an
> address that lets me participate more directly, that's all.
Let me try to head off another charge of cabalism here before it is
alleged: there is no
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 07:38:47PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> A related issue is when people loudly insist that "OLPC" solve their
> personal problem *right now*. Again, we have tens of thousands of
> machines in the field now, and thousands more every day. [...]
+1
Well put. My opinion
Well, since I'm apparently the one fingered as "smart", "holier than
thou", and "derisive", let me publicly apologize for being
short-tempered at times. I do get frustrated when I see the same
issues pop up over and over again: remember there are many many more
of you out there than there are here
[sorry to resurrect]
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:53:11PM -0400, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Going back through the archives, I have to admit that as often as not
> the smack talk came from someone without a laptop.org email address.
> But here are some examples of offensive, dismissive, and unanswered
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Garrett Goebel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Goebel
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The Cambridge Lab staff ought to do a little self-e
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Goebel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> The Cambridge Lab staff ought to do a little self-examination. Because
>> they would never guess how much to us outsiders they resem
Denver Gingerich ossguy.com> writes:
> I've never seen one of these "holier than thou" e-mails you mention.
> It certainly doesn't seem to be like any of the staff I've
> communicated with to do such a thing.
>
Sorry, but this impression on users (and I share it too) is inevitable.
The problem
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Goebel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The Cambridge Lab staff ought to do a little self-examination. Because
> they would never guess how much to us outsiders they resemble their
> upper management. I can't tell you how often these smart mostly male
> MI
I'm not the best person with words. But here goes anyway...
Yes, the OLPC project is an open source project, but in practice the
project itself suffers from being closed, disorganized, and opaque in
its operations.
We (if you're reading this, I mean you) need to put aside all this
personal "One T
18 matches
Mail list logo
