On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
mavrot...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:59 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
laptop serial number. Was it a
pre-production XO-1 ?
Both XO-1s used to test the battery are C2 machines
#CSH7470023EA
#SHF80701C99
The
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Manuel Kaufmann humi...@gmail.com wrote:
In this page [1] says that the release date for 12.1.0 is on 2 July
2012 and for 11.3.1 is on 1 May 2012. I think that we should change
that :)
[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes
Well, 11.3.1 missed all its
On 30.05.2012, at 22:26, Martin Langhoff wrote:
We're pleased to announce our second release candidate of our
11.3.1 software release.
This RC supports XO-1, XO-1.5 and XO-1.75.
Information and installation instructions can be found here:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/11.3.1
Hi,
I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?
*XO-1.0*: df -H
S.ficheros Size Used Avail Use% Montado en
/dev/root 1,1G 581M 494M 55% /
tmpfs
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
Hi,
I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?
Because the 1.3GB XO-1.5 image wouldn't fit on the 1.0GB XO-1 flash.
I think that, for example,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Esteban Arias
ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy wrote:
Hi,
I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?
The XO-1 filesystem (jffs2) compresses its files, and the XO-1.5
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
I have the same activities.
And this difference packages:
Ah. Well, one difference will be that jffs2 uses compression and ext3
doesn't, but I wasn't expecting that to account for such a large change.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org
Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?
2012/6/1 Chris Ball c...@laptop.org
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
I have the same activities.
And this difference packages:
Ah. Well, one difference will be that jffs2 uses compression and ext3
doesn't, but I wasn't expecting that to account
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Esteban Arias
ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy wrote:
Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?
If you switch to a filesystem that supports it, yes. btrfs would be one option.
Note that this will kill performance.
Daniel
___
Devel mailing
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Daniel Drake wrote:
Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?
If you switch to a filesystem that supports it, yes. btrfs would be one
option.
Note that this will kill performance.
And reliability. :-)
(Before Linux 3.4, btrfs' preferred method of dealing with a detected
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Esteban Arias ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy wrote:
but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?
As others have pointed out, compression is the difference. The build
usually creates a .tar.lzma file, you can compare the size of the
tar.lzma
On 06/01/2012 10:12 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Done
See attached screenshot.
I don't see anything that looks obviously wrong. So here's a test to
see if the EC is going to sleep or not. Run the battery down to where
the red LED is active. Then power off the laptop. If the EC goes
On 05/30/2012 03:34 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
If you want an idea of low-level performance, I can suggest
running LMBench.
Got the Debian lmbench_3.0-a7 source that compiles and runs fine w/o bitkeeper.
Run the hardware part of the tests on the XO-1.5 (os880) and xo-1.75 (os12-
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
On 05/30/2012 03:34 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Most of the test had empty values but the informative ones (below) show
that the XO-1.5 is better in basic integer operations and memory bandwidth
while the
We should test the calibration again.
Walter, Guzman
Testing with TA140
It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction and
the ramp unit 1.75's
Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k and the
calibration is all wrong on 204
(TA
Thanks for testing, this sounds interesting.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:24:45AM +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
We should test the calibration again.
Walter, Guzman
Testing with TA140
It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the
preproduction and the ramp unit
Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k
and the calibration is all wrong on 204
Possibility of damage? How are you measuring this, so that I can
reproduce on units that I believe are undamaged?
Are you measuring DC impedance with laptop power off, or on?
DISCLAIMER: I am not asking for help; I'm just sharing my experiences.
With q2f11.rom on one of my vintage-1997 XO-1s, I could __not__ install
('copy-nand') os12 (12.1.0) from an USB stick -- sooner or later OFW
always stopped on a file read error. I finally flashed q2f05.rom to
that
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:36:08PM +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k
and the calibration is all wrong on 204
Possibility of damage? How are you measuring this, so that I can
reproduce on units that I believe are
I changed the XO1.5 firmware section on the wiki firmware page
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Firmware#XO-1.5
for the top two entries from 'Q4' to 'Q3'. The links were for Q3, but
the text said 'Q4'. I think it was a typo. If not, please change back.
Cheers,
KG
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:58:09PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
p.s. I also tried q2f11jb.rom - and nearly bricked the XO-1 (I do
not have security deactivated).
I'm curious, why do you have security enabled?
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
Thanks
The turtle code is forever print voltage
Could you please explain how to do this? I've not used Turtle Art, so
don't presume any foreknowledge.
look at the blocks submenu, the 4th item from the left in the main menu
look at the 'flow operators' pallette the 5th item in the submenu,
Most of the test had empty values but the
informative ones (below) show
that the XO-1.5 is better in basic integer
operations and memory bandwidth
while the XO-1.75 is better in float and double
operations as well as in
memory latency.
I'm not sure how much this means for real life
James
I think I have eliminated software differences.
Both laptops reflashed to OS8 (12.1.0)
Turtle Blocks V141 ( a new version is just released)
Phono plug with left-right-ground all shorted
forever print voltage displays:
0VSKU199
-1.3V SKU204
Tony
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:24 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
We should test the calibration again.
Walter, Guzman
Testing with TA140
It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction
and the ramp unit 1.75's
Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone
Wad,
thanks,
Tony
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:24 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
We should test the calibration again.
Walter, Guzman
Testing with TA140
It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction
and the ramp unit 1.75's
Testing on SKU199 and
26 matches
Mail list logo
