Re: [Server-devel] XO 1.5 to XS-onXO1 behavior

2009-12-20 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:41 AM, John Gilmore wrote: > The least common denominator in the XO-1 and XO-2 clients is a > connection to an access point.  So making the XS (on any hardware) > provide a standard 802.11 access point would probably be the easiest > path forward. That's right. But Samee

powerd or ohm?

2009-12-20 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
Hi, I think f11 for the XO 1.5 uses ohmd but from a recent message from Paul I think the images for the XO-1 are configured to use powerd or at least doesn't start ohmd by default. Steve, is there any plan on this? Thanks, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using

Testing OS64 on XO1.5

2009-12-20 Thread milan zimmermann
I was testing latest os (OS64) on XO1.5 with latest firmware (Q3A25) this weekend. There are some thing that I think may be bugs, but before reporting it I'd like to see if others experienced similar problems. Everything below applies to Sugar on OS64 on XO1.5 - I did not test gnome. 1) After re

Re: Testing OS64 on XO1.5

2009-12-20 Thread Ed McNierney
Milan - > 1) After reboot, or after a brief period of inactivity, the system > sometimes does not connect to network, or disconnects from the > network, and shows nothing on the network neigborhood screen (many > dots button), only the middle xo symbol, while there are many wireless > networks aro

Re: Testing OS64 on XO1.5

2009-12-20 Thread Paul Fox
milan wrote: > I was testing latest os (OS64) on XO1.5 with latest firmware (Q3A25) > this weekend. There are some thing that I think may be bugs, but > 5) With power unplugged, leaving the XO1.5 untouched for 15 minutes > (or so, did not measure exactly), all lights go off, only the powe

Re: [Server-devel] XO 1.5 to XS-onXO1 behavior

2009-12-20 Thread James Cameron
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 03:00:44PM -0800, Sameer Verma wrote: > When the XO1.5 associates with school-mesh-0 (I have to click on it in > the Neighborhood view) the association happens, but the XO1.5 gets > 169.254.xxx.xxx address, and beyond that the network is unusable. This is http://dev.laptop.

Re: Little issue with Midore

2009-12-20 Thread Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
Hi, On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 20:38, César D. Rodas wrote: > Hello All, > > In the FC-11, The Midore Browser comes as the default browser. It looks > good so far, but it has a little bug, well it is not a proper bug, the > font-size is too big displaying messages. > > As I said before, it is not a

Re: Testing OS64 on XO1.5

2009-12-20 Thread James Cameron
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:20:37PM -0500, milan zimmermann wrote: > 1) After reboot, or after a brief period of inactivity, the system > sometimes does not connect to network, [...] Deficiency of the B2 hardware, won't be fixed in B2, but will be (is) fixed in the next hardware revision. > 2) In

Re: [Server-devel] XO 1.5 to XS-onXO1 behavior

2009-12-20 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:14 AM, James Cameron wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 03:00:44PM -0800, Sameer Verma wrote: >> When the XO1.5 associates with school-mesh-0 (I have to click on it in >> the Neighborhood view) the association happens, but the XO1.5 gets >> 169.254.xxx.xxx address, and bey

XO-1.5 video rendering not always smooth

2009-12-20 Thread Mikus Grinbergs
In the new snow-1.xo Activity, the falling "white spots" are noticeably jerkier in os64 (XO-1.5) than in os10 (XO-1). Also, on os64 the (software?) cursor sometimes "flickers" annoyingly. It is always noticeable in the google-chrome browser (on Sugar), and for instance in the new version of the ca

Re: XO-1.5 video rendering not always smooth

2009-12-20 Thread Daniel Drake
2009/12/20 Mikus Grinbergs : > In the new snow-1.xo Activity, the falling "white spots" are noticeably > jerkier in os64 (XO-1.5) than in os10 (XO-1). > > Also, on os64 the (software?) cursor sometimes "flickers" annoyingly. > It is always noticeable in the google-chrome browser (on Sugar), and for

Re: XO-1.5 video rendering not always smooth

2009-12-20 Thread Mikus Grinbergs
> The support for the (brand new) video hardware > found in the XO-1.5 is still in teething stages -- this is why the > performance is bad. We've got the appropriate tickets open but it will > take us some time to get there. I searched, but did not find tickets specifically addressing "poor motion