On Aug 9, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Neil Graham wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 19:55 -0400, John Watlington wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Neil Graham wrote:
>>
>>> There is a small open handheld console. http://www.openpandora.org/
>>> http://pandorapress.net/ The openness and friendliness of t
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 06:02:58PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> In my opinion, developers of a product ought to be interested in
> learning about shortcomings perceived in that product by users.
Certainly interested. But not willing to prance about looking for
problems when some very neatly de
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 19:55 -0400, John Watlington wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Neil Graham wrote:
>
> > There is a small open handheld console. http://www.openpandora.org/
> > http://pandorapress.net/ The openness and friendliness of the community
> > environment is a model for how thing
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adam Holt wrote:
> Plz CC de...@laptop.org if you can help!
>
>
> Subject: Speak.Activity v16 on Build 802 - Problem Date: Sun, 08 Aug
> 2010 19:44:23 -0700 From: Tony Rizos
> To:
> devel@lists.laptop.org
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded my OLPC XO from Build 656 t
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:52:28PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > switching between the desktop
> > environments will certainly cause one of the following:
> > ...
> > 2. loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
> > been told to trust the access point).
>
> When phra
Hi,
I upgraded my OLPC XO from Build 656 to 802. Having not used the XO
for the last 2 years, I was pleased with the changes. I am planning
to give it to my niece who asked if she could have it.All works well
except the Speak activity. After running correctly the first time, it
w
Mikus,
OLPC/Sugarlabs did not introduce that terminology.
Take your wrath out on Linux and Apple (and possibly
M$, I don't use Windows enough to know if they have
also adopted that phrase.)
My Mac doesn't ask if I want to "use" an AP, it asks me
if I "trust" an AP. It then remembers that AP
> switching between the desktop
> environments will certainly cause one of the following:
> ...
> 2. loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
> been told to trust the access point).
When phrases such as "trust the access point" start being used, I have
great difficulty
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:37:14PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> The issue is not loss of an access point, and in my case at least,
> connection was established in both environments before lost during the
> switch.
> The issue is I lost eth0 altogether both from sugar and gnome. Mesh
> was
Please file a trac ticket on this, as you are flooding the mailing
list with your bug. (This may be one of several known and
fixed hardware problems, or not...)
wad
On Aug 8, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> --- On Sun, 8/8/10, James Cameron wrote:
>
>> From: James Cameron
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:08:48PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> Where should someone look for relevant problem info if this reappears,
> so a ticket can be filed?
It depends on how the problem is reported. Best thing is a description
of the steps that lead to the problem, including each
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:41:32AM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> Wifi "disappearing" after switching back and forth from sugar to gnome.
I've not tried to track down the original problem report that you are
referring to, but Sugar and GNOME manage connection to an access point
without refe
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Ed McNierney wrote:
> From: Ed McNierney
> Subject: Re: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" , "Chris Ball"
> , "Devel" , test...@lists.laptop.org
> Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 5:51 PM
> no, there is planned printing
> suppor
On Aug 8, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Neil Graham wrote:
> There is a small open handheld console. http://www.openpandora.org/
> http://pandorapress.net/ The openness and friendliness of the community
> environment is a model for how things can work.
The support page on that wiki points you to enter the
On 9 August 2010 11:02, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > in general I think it's entirely appropriate to expect
> > that people asking for help do so via the correct channels
>
> I believe that "asking for help" should not be the only supported
> motivation for contacting developers.
>
Not at all, but
> As long as activities are saving and restoring properly it could be
made pretty much transparent to the user. Of course that's easier
said then done...
Android has a whole mechanism for this:
http://blog.rlove.org/2010/04/why-ipad-and-iphone-dont-support.html
That explains the problem, b
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 18:02 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > in general I think it's entirely appropriate to expect
> > that people asking for help do so via the correct channels
>
> I believe that "asking for help" should not be the only supported
> motivation for contacting developers.
Along
On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:57, Lucian Branescu wrote:
>>>
>>> Separating the activity from the service would help here. In the case
>>> of music, MPD would use a lot less memory than one of its GUIs.
>>
>> Right, I was thinking to something along these lines too. I'm not sure how
>> the shell would e
On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:38, Lucian Branescu wrote:
>>
>> Imo a confirmation popup would become annoying very quickly. Also if the
>> user refuses, the kernel will have soon to kill an activity, which is worst.
>
> Activities already write_file when they lose focus, they could
> write_file periodic
On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:40, Tiago Marques wrote:
> The idea of killing activities with the content closed seems ok but it would
> probably be a good idea to have a way to opt out of it for some apps. I'm
> thinking a PDF that may be left open on purpose to serve as reference to
> something, a brow
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:40, Tiago Marques wrote:
> > Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want
> > your product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more
> > acceptable(and a lot better than having the system randomly behaving like
Le 06/08/2010 11:04, Bert Freudenberg a écrit :
> For people unfamiliar with Squeak, you might want to add a note about how to
> quit (e.g., not to save when asked).
Right.
I though I had to stop with last minute enhancements, so I decided to
left this for the next release with some other improv
On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:08, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want your
> product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more
> acceptable(and a lot better than having the system randomly behaving like
> it's crashed). Either w
> in general I think it's entirely appropriate to expect
> that people asking for help do so via the correct channels
I believe that "asking for help" should not be the only supported
motivation for contacting developers.
In my opinion, developers of a product ought to be interested in
learning a
"Every member of the OLPC technical staff is on the de...@laptop.org mailing
list, and we all see bugs filed in trac."
Sorry - that's not correct. I forgot that Mitch Bradley unsubscribed from
de...@laptop.org last December, as he found "the noise level has gotten out of
control". He does, ho
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ed McNierney wrote:
> But it is absolutely true that anyone who is volunteering (or getting paid)
> to test OLPC software and hardware should know how to submit a trac ticket.
> That is the mechanism we use to track reported problems, so using trac should
> be
Brenda -
I'm assuming your teachers and education ministry decision makers don't
normally interact with OLPC by asking questions on OLPCNews forums, which was
the context and the specific question I was answering. The topic of, "what are
all the ways all interested parties worldwide communicat
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Christoph Derndorfer
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
>>> 1. Report bugs at http://dev.laptop.org/newticket - if necessary, register
>>> first at http://dev.laptop.org/register (
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Ed McNierney wrote:
> From: Ed McNierney
> Subject: Re: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" , "Chris Ball"
> , "Devel" , test...@lists.laptop.org
> Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 5:27 PM
> Yioryos -
>
> You asked for instructi
> So if you please go back to the original mail and answer any question you
> think you can so tickets can be filed.
No, no reflexes - the only other question in that email I can answer
immediately is, no, there is planned printing support in 10.1.2 or later. I
have not heard of anyone interes
Christoph -
(you're talking about OLPC and SugarLabs, of course, but I'm only responding
from an OLPC perspective)
There's a difference between "approachable" and "findable". Every member of
the OLPC technical staff is on the de...@laptop.org mailing list, and we all
see bugs filed in trac.
On 9 August 2010 09:09, Christoph Derndorfer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
>
>> Instructions:
>>
>> 1. Report bugs at http://dev.laptop.org/newticket - if necessary,
>> register first at http://dev.laptop.org/register (as mavrothal kindly
>> points out)
>> 2. If yo
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Christoph Derndorfer
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
>>
>> Instructions:
>>
>> 1. Report bugs at http://dev.laptop.org/newticket - if necessary, register
>> first at http://dev.laptop.org/register (as mavrothal kindly points out)
>> 2.
Yioryos -
You asked for instructions for "the olpcnews.com/forum/ kind of people", and
that's the information I provided. I wasn't dismissing or ignoring anything;
if we widely disseminate those instructions and they are followed, bugs will be
far less likely to be dismissed or ignored. But a
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Instructions:
>
> 1. Report bugs at http://dev.laptop.org/newticket - if necessary, register
> first at http://dev.laptop.org/register (as mavrothal kindly points out)
> 2. If you have interesting experiences or user information to contribute,
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Ed McNierney wrote:
> From: Ed McNierney
> Subject: Re: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" , "Chris Ball"
> , "Devel" , test...@lists.laptop.org
> Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 3:56 PM
>
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Yioryo
On 8 August 2010 20:51, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:38, Lucian Branescu wrote:
>>>
>>> Imo a confirmation popup would become annoying very quickly. Also if the
>>> user refuses, the kernel will have soon to kill an activity, which is worst.
>>
>> Activities already write_f
On Aug 8, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> (instructions for the olpcnews.com/forum/ kind of people would be
> appreciated...:-)
Instructions:
1. Report bugs at http://dev.laptop.org/newticket - if necessary, register
first at http://dev.laptop.org/register (as mavrothal kin
On 8 August 2010 20:33, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:40, Tiago Marques wrote:
>> The idea of killing activities with the content closed seems ok but it would
>> probably be a good idea to have a way to opt out of it for some apps. I'm
>> thinking a PDF that may be left ope
>
> > Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want
> > your product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more
> > acceptable(and a lot better than having the system randomly behaving like
> > it's crashed). Either way, this is the extremely important use
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:15, Martin Langhoff
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> I tihnk I have been sloppy with my words, so let me clarify two things:
>>>
>>> - killing processes should be done only to avoi
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Well, we certainly should not poll, I started this thread because
> recent kernels have a mechanism for getting notified when a certain
> threshold of free memory is reached (see below).
...
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/201
--- On Thu, 8/5/10, Chris Ball wrote:
> From: Chris Ball
> Subject: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
> To: "Fedora OLPC"
> Cc: test...@lists.laptop.org, "Devel"
> Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 2:45 PM
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/10.1.2
>
> http://build.laptop.org/10.1.2/xo-1.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 18:11, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Hi Tomeu,
>
> in general, I think we are saying the same thing :-)
My impression as well.
> With one exception -- OOM happens because memory is allocated.
> Sugar-shell cannot (and I say should not) try to arbitrage in there.
> If we try to
On 8 Aug 2010, at 15:18, Jon Nettleton wrote:
>>
>> But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems
>> (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired,
>> scenario for sugar ecosystem:
>>
>> * there is an activity,
>> * several users might decide to experime
Hi Tomeu,
in general, I think we are saying the same thing :-)
With one exception -- OOM happens because memory is allocated.
Sugar-shell cannot (and I say should not) try to arbitrage in there.
If we try to do it from sugar-shell, all we can do is poll. If we poll
infrequently, we won't catch th
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 17:42, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> Can't we just _close it nicely_?
>>
>> When you are about to get into OOM?
>
> Early on so we avoid OOM for most cases. Right now our OOM use cases
> have nothing to do with misbehaved a
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> (Not sure what the
> state of play is with seeding the OOM scores from userland).
http://linux-mm.org/OOM_Killer
The pid of the activity should have its oomadj bumped up a bit -- so
OOM knows to spare sugar-shell and friends...
m
--
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> Can't we just _close it nicely_?
>>
>> When you are about to get into OOM?
>
> Early on so we avoid OOM for most cases. Right now our OOM use cases
> have nothing to do with misbehaved
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> Can't we just _close it nicely_?
>
> When you are about to get into OOM?
Early on so we avoid OOM for most cases. Right now our OOM use cases
have nothing to do with misbehaved activities.
Once you're in "about to get into OOM", sugar-shell
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:18:51AM -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> >
> > But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems
> > (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired,
> > scenario for sugar ecosystem:
> >
> > * there is an activity,
> > * several users migh
>
> But the one of core ideas to not use only regular packaging systems
> (via PackageKit or directly) is having this, natural and desired,
> scenario for sugar ecosystem:
>
> * there is an activity,
> * several users might decide to experiment w/ this activity
> (i.e. change its code) and share t
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:15, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> I tihnk I have been sloppy with my words, so let me clarify two things:
>>
>> - killing processes should be done only to avoid OOM (because
>> currently the kernel kills the wrong thing m
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> I tihnk I have been sloppy with my words, so let me clarify two things:
>
> - killing processes should be done only to avoid OOM (because
> currently the kernel kills the wrong thing most of the time).
Can't we just _close it nicely_?
I have
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:05:06PM +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
> wrote:
> > On 07/06/2010 11:51 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> >> Ok, I think the requirements for activity bundles could be:
> >>
> >> 1) Support multiple CPU architectures
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:05:06 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2010 11:51 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>> Ok, I think the requirements for activity bundles could be:
>>>
>>> 1) Support multiple CPU architectures
>>>
>>>
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 22:08, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>
>> El Sat, 07-08-2010 a las 18:14 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
>>
>> > So we would have a periodic wakeup? The test would be the amount of
>> > free memory plus buffers and
On 8 Aug 2010, at 01:37, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:08, Tiago Marques wrote:
>> Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want
>> your product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more
>> acceptable(and a lot better than having
58 matches
Mail list logo
