On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
>>>
>>> ./AdobeAIRInstaller.bin -silent -eulaAccepted
>>
>> Excelent! Where the #$%^ did you find that that documented?
>>
>
> http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AIR/1.5/air_runtime_redist/ai
On Apr 6, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Reuben K. Caron
> wrote:
>> ./AdobeAIRInstaller.bin -silent -eulaAccepted
>
> Excelent! Where the #$%^ did you find that that documented?
>
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AIR/1.5/air_runtime_redist/air_runtime_
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
> ./AdobeAIRInstaller.bin -silent -eulaAccepted
Excelent! Where the #$%^ did you find that that documented?
cheers,
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get di
On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Reuben K. Caron
wrote:
Yes and no. Anyone technically capable to rebuild our build system,
as you
mention below, will be able to easily script the installation of AIR.
Nope. I am fairly good with it, an
I hate to reply twice, but
John Watlington wrote:
> it has never been tested in court
This is a non sequitur. A codec cannot be proved patent-free in a court.
It can only be proved that some particular patent does not apply. If
this is your standard, then buying licenses doesn't help, because
Changing the subject (slightly), I spoke with some folks from
deployments today about Flash support. Here are a couple of data
points, for what it is worth:
The Brazilian government has invested "$73M" over the past 3 years in
the development of educational materials in Flash (I am guessing they
d
John Watlington wrote:
> EVERY codec need licenses. I know that the FOSS community
> thinks that Theora is unencumbered, but it has never been tested
> in court (there hasn't ever been anybody worth suing using it.)
Google, Opera, and Mozilla have all funded work on Theora and are
distributing i
On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Oh dear. Googling HQTube ended up with the top 2 entries being porn
> sites :-/ I think something needs a project name change :)
>
> Indeed, hence the link in my e-mail, to avoid confus
Thanks Ben,
That is a big problem. Or is OLPC allowed to ship codecs without issues?
Best regards,
Tiago
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Tiago Marques wrote:
> > I don't think H.264 needs licensed codecs but I'm not sure on that.
>
> H.
Tiago Marques wrote:
> I don't think H.264 needs licensed codecs but I'm not sure on that.
H.264 is at the top of MPEG-LA's list of codecs that require patent
licensing. All the MPEG codecs are on the list, including MP3 and AAC.
If you don't want to buy a license, Theora and Vorbis (the Ogg cod
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > I can tell you that youtube is well within reach of both the XO-1 and
> 1.5,
> > currently (or at least up to build 114), it was running better and faster
> on
> > the XO-1 rather than on the XO 1.5 due to the presence of Xv support. The
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Oh dear. Googling HQTube ended up with the top 2 entries being porn
> sites :-/ I think something needs a project name change :)
>
Indeed, hence the link in my e-mail, to avoid confusion.
>
> Anyway, wouldn't there be a problem if we bun
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 11:42 -0300, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
> My personal observation is that this came from a high demand on two
> fronts: kids and teachers complaining about youtube and online games
> on one side, and local companies used to develop web pages and such
> that wanted to create content
> I can tell you that youtube is well within reach of both the XO-1 and 1.5,
> currently (or at least up to build 114), it was running better and faster on
> the XO-1 rather than on the XO 1.5 due to the presence of Xv support. The
> problem is that I can only have decent performance by not using F
Oh dear. Googling HQTube ended up with the top 2 entries being porn
sites :-/ I think something needs a project name change :)
Anyway, wouldn't there be a problem if we bundled HQTube because
VLC/Xine/MPlayer would still need licensed codecs to be able to decode
audio/video streams? (FFmpeg/Gstrea
Hi Carlos,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> I don't get it.
>
> 1) Flash is no more "evil" as Java was years ago when it was closed
> source and it was being taught at universities.
>
> There is now an open-source SDK (Flex SDK (there's 2 versions, the
> closed source an
Hi all,
I can tell you that youtube is well within reach of both the XO-1 and 1.5,
currently(or at least up to build 114), it was running better and faster on
the XO-1 rather than on the XO 1.5 due to the presence of Xv support. The
problem is that I can only have decent performance by not using F
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 15:42, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
> Hello, interesting thread.
>
>> FYI: One of our largest deployments and two other smaller deployments have
>> received approval to ship Adobe Flash in their builds.
>
> In Uruguay, Ceibal started shipping Adobe Flash with their official
> build
Hello, interesting thread.
> FYI: One of our largest deployments and two other smaller deployments have
> received approval to ship Adobe Flash in their builds.
In Uruguay, Ceibal started shipping Adobe Flash with their official
build at the beginning of 2009.
My personal observation is that thi
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 15:19, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 24.03.2010, at 14:12, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
>>>
>>> 2) it is nowhere near possible to properly edit Flash content in a GUI
>>> on an XO because the software to do so does not exis
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
> Yes and no. Anyone technically capable to rebuild our build system, as you
> mention below, will be able to easily script the installation of AIR.
Nope. I am fairly good with it, and I cannot script the installation
of AIR. If you have a t
On 24.03.2010, at 14:12, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
>>
>> 2) it is nowhere near possible to properly edit Flash content in a GUI
>> on an XO because the software to do so does not exist, and suffers
>> from a complex and underspecified set of c
Reuben -
You're welcome, but it wasn't much of an effort - I filled out a form on
Adobe's Web site and replied to one email message!
- Ed
On Mar 24, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Great news. Thanks for letting us know and thank you for doing the legwork to
> get
Ed,
Great news. Thanks for letting us know and thank you for doing the
legwork to get that accomplished.
Reuben
On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Folks -
>
> OLPC already has a license from Adobe to redistribute Adobe Flash.
> We can provide that to any deployment that req
On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Maybe the reason we're miscommunicating is that you don't
>>> understand that we aren't willing to expect that our users have
>>> access to another computer running Windows (because they don't)
>>> [..]
>
>> This is an odd argument consi
Folks -
OLPC already has a license from Adobe to redistribute Adobe Flash. We can
provide that to any deployment that requests it; if a deployment decides they
need it, we don't need to force them to install it themselves.
However, Adobe pointed out that since OLPC's Linux distro (a Fedora Rem
On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Reuben K. Caron
> wrote:
>> IMHO, OLPC would be able to provide deployments with the option of
>> including
>> Adobe Flash, while continuing to include Gnash as default
>
> There are some aspects that are
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Who shall be the official contact from OLPC they should talk to? (name
> + email address)
d...@lists.laptop.org just like everyone else. We don't give linux
kernel developers any "special" contact, same with Sugar devs.
cheers,
m
--
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
> IMHO, OLPC would be able to provide deployments with the option of including
> Adobe Flash, while continuing to include Gnash as default
There are some aspects that are outside of OLPC control
- We need RPMs from Adobe -- in the case if
Hey Reuben!
Thanks for clarifying that.
So should I start talking to some of the Adobe peeps I know about this?
Who shall be the official contact from OLPC they should talk to? (name
+ email address)
Re: AIR on Sugar/Fedora -> yeah, AIR is an iffy proposition due to
Sugar's weird file structure
Hi,
>> Maybe the reason we're miscommunicating is that you don't
>> understand that we aren't willing to expect that our users have
>> access to another computer running Windows (because they don't)
>> [..]
> This is an odd argument considering it is quite difficult for a
> user
Subject: Adobe Flash 10.1 + AIR 2.0 on the XO
To: devel@lists.laptop.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi guys.
I know most people here prefer free as in Libre as opposed to free as
in beer, but what do you think of coordinating with Adobe to get Flash
10.1
This is an odd argument considering it is quite difficult for a user
to create a simple reflash USB stick while using Sugar. Instead we
recommend using another computer that uses a regular "Desktop.(1)"
(1)http://wiki.laptop.org/go/No-fail_update
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, devel-requ...@li
In reaction to all the posts, I installed AIR on my XO-1.5.
- The AIR install took multiple steps, and used mainstream procedures
rather than OLPC procedures
- Install of an AIR application -- ditto. [The AIR application would
not install under user olpc - only under user root.]
-
Okay, here's the thing:
AFAIK, the Adobe peeps don't have access to XO machines, that's why
before when I was reporting to Mike Melanson
(http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/ Linux Flash guy at Adobe) the
camera bug with Flash on the XO-1, he couldn't help much.
I'm relatively sure the Adobe peeps
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:10:06AM +0800, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> What's wrong with other people who have content creation tools
> providing free content for the people who'll only have access to XOs?
I don't see anyone disallowing that, and I'm sure our users would love
that, so please ... make
> Maybe the reason we're miscommunicating is that you don't understand
> that we aren't willing to expect that our users have access to another
> computer running Windows (because they don't), or for them to use a
> text editor to edit content that was created in a GUI (since that's
> *much* harder
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> There is now an open-source SDK (Flex SDK (there's 2 versions, the
You don't say open source in the OSI sense right?
> Martin's previous arguments about the quality of educational content
> is not a problem with a platform like flash, it
Hi,
(Don't have time to reply to everything you said, sorry.)
> I think this is a case of open source fundamentalism trumping
> educational goals.
No. My IAEP post listed only educational goals; there was nothing
about open source being a virtue for its own sake. You can disagree
with ho
On 24.03.2010, at 01:42, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
>
> I don't get it.
> [...]
> Why is allowing additional tools & a new pool of content creators bad for
> OLPC?
We're not preventing anything. You're free to package the Adobe player and
anything else needed to run your game into a Sugar activity.
crap. hit the send key before proof-reading.
Edits:
-> There are thousands of Java developers in the world today, and for all
intents and purposes, AS3 has more or less the same syntax as Java so
you now have an additonal large pool of developers who can create
content.
Also, an aside, JRE is a r
I don't get it.
1) Flash is no more "evil" as Java was years ago when it was closed
source and it was being taught at universities.
There is now an open-source SDK (Flex SDK (there's 2 versions, the
closed source and the open source one)) with which you can produce
AVM2 SWFs, and you can give awa
On 24.03.2010, at 00:36, Chris Ball wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> For what it's worth, I wrote up my personal opinion about this on the
> sugar-devel@ list last year:
>
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-January/003516.html
>
> (This isn't an official OLPC polic
Hi,
> What do you guys think?
For what it's worth, I wrote up my personal opinion about this on the
sugar-devel@ list last year:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-January/003516.html
(This isn't an official OLPC policy; I didn't talk with anyone at OLPC
before writing it.)
- C
>> What do you guys think?
> That you've applied for a job at Adobe, or will do it soon ;-)
No, I'm a flash game developer and there are *A LOT* of flash game
developers out there, and it's now the easiest platform to develop
games for.
I'm 100% sure that a number of Flash game developers (profes
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> I know most people here prefer free as in Libre as opposed to free as
> in beer, but what do you think of coordinating with Adobe to get Flash
> 10.1 + AIR 2.0 on the XO?
Flash 10 AFAIK is available as an rpm, so a local deployment hoping
Hi guys.
I know most people here prefer free as in Libre as opposed to free as
in beer, but what do you think of coordinating with Adobe to get Flash
10.1 + AIR 2.0 on the XO?
Adobe already supports a lot of open-source initiatives and have
already open-sourced the Flex SDK which you can use to c
47 matches
Mail list logo
