On Monday 19 May 2008 8:59:01 am Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
If we are trying use the OLPC XO as the trojan horse of
disseminating a better idea of computer including operating system, it
is unfortunate that we needed to use Linux. It is the most practical
system to use in the short term, but
I don't recollect reading about any effort to pick a standard - de facto or
otherwise. Any other interpretation is revisionist history. I
Building a system that was open and discoverable was a goal from the
very beginning--we wanted to go beyond black boxes. But you are
correct is saying that
Creating content that is culturally and personally meaningful to children
across the world is a huge challenge.
The thorny issue of content has also been a subject of debate from the
very beginning. The gist of the debate was in regard to the proper
balance between OLPC providing content
Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
If there is any real operating system researchers around, they would
raise eyebrows when they hear the idea of letting the kids learn
Linux as *the* example. Remember the discussion between Linus
Torvalds and Andrew Tannenbaum, and Tannenbaum was right about Linux
OK, I'll jump in here. Sometimes you do things for no reason other than it
sells. OK, there may be limited practical application of the view source
button but honestly, I fully expected to see it running and live in the XO
that I received after doing the G1G1 program. It was actually a let down to
I believe the only two reasons that view source isn't yet what we all
hope it to be is a) because, when we got down to it, it became a
little difficult to specify exactly what that hope is, and b) because
there are so many other items on the plates of developers that the
last thing worth
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Eben Eliason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the only two reasons that view source isn't yet what we all
hope it to be is a) because, when we got down to it, it became a
little difficult to specify exactly what that hope is, and b) because
there are so many
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Morgan Collett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Eben Eliason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the only two reasons that view source isn't yet what we all
hope it to be is a) because, when we got down to it, it became a
little
This is a great thread. It is bringing out a lot of useful information
from many points of view. You ask good questions, Yoshiki, which is a
more important skill than giving good answers. It's a pleasure to work
with you.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Morgan Collett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think one of the difficulties is maintaining some sort of context
for progressive View Source operations. For example, View Source on a
web page shows the page source in Write. View Source again should
ideally dive
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what do field experiments with kids reveal about View Source?
There are no such experiments to date that I am aware of,
Although we have no experiments on this View Source button, there is
plenty of literature on the
Ok, I started this thread. So here's why I was asking.
I'm on board with Todd's comments. I got a XO though G1G1 and one of the
listed features was 'view source'. Meaning specifically to open the
Python underlying an activity.
I discovered that 1) very few activities currently support this. 2)
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, is there any documentation on 'activity.info'? Different instances
have different fields and it isn't immediately clear to me what they all
are supposed to do.
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles
Marco
Edward Cherlin wrote:
Eh, LISP machine, Smalltalk machine, FORTH machine, APL machine. All
great technical innovations, all market flops, if they were even
implemented fully. Computers should be general-purpose.
I hope you are not saying that it is wrong for me to design Smalltalk
machines for
So, I'm really not (at this time) interested in peeling layers, or that
it's a no-brainer in squeak, or frankly (again at this time) deeper
implications or philosophy.
The philosophy is interesting and challenging, but I just want to figure
out how to implement a feature that the XO was
Indeed, that is one of the virtues of Squeak. Python was somewhat of a
compromise in this respect, but it has the virtual that opens up ready
access to most of the rest of the GNU/Linux world.
I'm not sure if Python has that edge over Squeak, but probably it
does.
Alas, this is a feature
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Neil Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
activity in develop. You wouldn't want a single key for that since it's a
significant operation that you don't want to launch by mistake.
The key combination is fn-space (which has a gear icon on it).
Indeed, that is one of the virtues of Squeak. Python was somewhat of a
compromise in this respect, but it has the virtual that opens up ready
access to most of the rest of the GNU/Linux world.
Both are pretty friendly development environments. It is probably
easier to design an onion-like view
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Robert Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'View Source' is touted as one of the user win features of the XO. There
doesn't seem to be much useful discussion of it on the wiki.
What's the best path for making an activity 'view source' friendly?
Reverse engineering
Ok, back to development issues.
'View Source' is touted as one of the user win features of the XO. There
doesn't seem to be much useful discussion of it on the wiki.
What's the best path for making an activity 'view source' friendly?
Reverse engineering from Chat, which is? Some other way?
On Saturday 17 May 2008 11:27:29 am Robert Myers wrote:
'View Source' is touted as one of the user win features of the XO. There
doesn't seem to be much useful discussion of it on the wiki.
What's the best path for making an activity 'view source' friendly?
Reverse engineering from Chat,
Don't think of it just as source code, but do think of it as a way
expose the inner workings of whatever the activity is doing. For
example, view source in the browser might take you into an HTML
editor, a Javascript editor, or the Python code for the browser itself
as a progression of steps.
What's the best path for making an activity 'view source' friendly?
Reverse engineering from Chat, which is? Some other way?
Perhaps you could write it in Squeak. The entire dynamic and static
state and environment including source code is readily available for
viewing to the user, and you
23 matches
Mail list logo
