Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child > > struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have always believed we need Sugar. One only has to watch a child > struggle with a conventional desktop (Windows, Linux or Mac) to see the > need It's a lot more than that . When you contrast the current WIMP UI and gener

Core activities (was Re: An OLPC Development Model)

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only > one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship in > the core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherwise, and (b) Rainbow's > activit

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Hi David, unfortunately I don't have time right now to enter again in this debate, but I wanted to do one comment: On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > many people have pointed out the limitations of the journal approach, and > problems with not naming activites and fil

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Slight correction, I should have said GNU/Linux below. Bernie Innocenti wrote: Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking > about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase > recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > Frankly, I don't see a logic difference between Negroponte talking > about extending the OLPC hardware to Windows (presumably to increase > recognition of the OLPC), and those talking about extending Sugar > to a standard desktop (presumably to increase recognition of

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:02:07PM -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > I'm under the impression that the Sugar shell was specifically > designed to be EASY TO LEARN for people lacking Western education. > Yes, there are many who desire to run desktop applications (without > having to re-program them

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Education <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; OLPC Devel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 4:59:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model > > On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >&

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

8 4:59:04 PM Subject: Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Bert, >> if you try and say that the entire world is wrong in how it writes >> software, >&

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 10.05.2008 00:13, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Bert, >> if you try and say that the entire world is wrong in how it writes >> software, >> > > Actually, that's exactly what I think, and "entire world" includes > yours truly ;) > Bu

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 09.05.2008, at 20:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bert, > if you try and say that the entire world is wrong in how it writes > software, Actually, that's exactly what I think, and "entire world" includes yours truly ;) But this isn't the place to talk about that (if you're curious, visit

Re: An OLPC Development Model

> *But* I also think it should be possible to run a Sugar activity on a > standard desktop and a desktop application in the Sugar shell. Integration is > great and we should encourage it, but we can't assume it will always happen. > And in the cases it doesn't happen, not-integrated is better than

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 9 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >> On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar. >>> [...] >>> a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized activities >>> use

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar. >> [...] >> a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized >> activities use >> a standard file picker call so that it could go to the

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > Bobby Powers wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote:

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 15:30 +0200, Bobby Powers wrote: > > The way I see it it is somewhat of a two way street. Personally, if > I'm going to run Sugar apps in Gnome I would prefer them to integrate > nicely with my other apps, just as I would prefer apps running in > Sugar to be 'sugary

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Bobby Powers wrote: > > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > what about Sugar software running as well as possibl

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

> > unfortunantly my time constraints drasticly limit the code I can > > work on, > > so I am mostly a tester and a provider of resources to nearby > > developers > > (I just received my two g1g1 machines back from the USC hackathon) > > > There is agreement that unmodified Linux software sh

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

2008/5/9 Bobby Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As for the sharing stuff, I know you can download and use the telepathy > libs, but would you also need a presence service running? Could this be > automatically started when an app wants to collaborate, or is it something > that would have to be runn

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux > > boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run > > everythi

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On 5/9/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each > >> of those packages to put in the main distro. the version

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On 09.05.2008, at 09:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > which is why I fail to see the big point of Sugar. > [...] > a perfect example was the suggeation to make the sugarized > activities use > a standard file picker call so that it could go to the journal on > the XO > machine, or to a normal fi

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe TWO sets of Activities need to be made available to users > who are not schoolkids linked to a school server. One set I'll call > 'stable Activities' - they are packaged in "Activity Packs" such as > the one

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in part the other response to my message that seemed to have the attitude > that 'fixing' the problem would reduce Sugar to 'just another WM' rendering > it worthless. That's not how I read Greg post but anyway... > there have been ot

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal linux > boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run > everything under sugar in one window. this doesn't mean that some > libraries won't need to be ins

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: >>> We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much >>> work to get there from here. >> >> at the moment it doesn't seem as

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ubuntu takes packages maintane

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: >> We must fix this Help greatfully appreciated. It isn't very much >> work to get there from here. > > at the moment it doesn't seem as if there's agreement yet that this does > need to get fi

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On 09.05.2008, at 09:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each of

Re: [sugar] An OLPC Development Model

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Gary C Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > H, sorry, run that past me again. I thought the intention was that > the Journal was an integral part of the Sugar UI, and the plan was > that the Journal code was going to be integrated to the Sugar Shell > for (I think

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each of >>> those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of the

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each >> of those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate >> packages are almost entirely independant o

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 9 May 2008, at 00:42, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian > >> ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only >> one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship >> in the >> core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherw

Re: An OLPC Development Model

> It also needs to be decided how the available activities are > displayed. Initially we'd planned on simply launching Browse and > pointing to a predetermined URL (an "easy" way out, but requires > setting up the server side). That requires including Browse as part > of the base image. Another

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian ps. SJ, there are no 'core activities' that we ship. There is only > one security-privileged activity (Journal), which we currently ship in the > core build because (a) Sugar breaks otherwise, and (b) Rainbow's > activity-signing stuff is incomple

Re: An OLPC Development Model

I'd draw the distinction slightly differently. Presumably when one first loads a new build, you'd also load an associated activity stream, e.g., the Peru feed. At any time, one might want to either check for updates to existing activities -- they'll be decoupled from the OS build cycle, presumably

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We could also discuss how updates workperhaps there are two views > in the "get more activities" dialog, one of which only shows available > updates to already installed activities. I like thinking of this as two vie

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An appcast-like approach, where one could point to different feeds, > such as the Peru default, the G1G1 default, etc. is intriguing. But we > need to also consider connectivity limitations that many of our users > will/do

Re: An OLPC Development Model

An appcast-like approach, where one could point to different feeds, such as the Peru default, the G1G1 default, etc. is intriguing. But we need to also consider connectivity limitations that many of our users will/do experience. It might be interesting to be able to turn any XO into a feed for othe

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 08.05.2008, at 10:13, Michael Stone wrote: > Gentlefolk, > > It seems to me, upon a few hours' calm reflection that: > > Bert - you leapt to some unfounded conclusions about the > significance of > Dennis' work and he seems to have been hurt by the way you posed > some of > your questions.

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I look forward to people writing a simple "install activities" script > for joyride, or if they get ambitious they can have a go at > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_updater#Application_updater . > > A little script would c

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott - I don't need to bring the specter of drug abuse and mental > incompetency into an argument in order to tell someone that I strongly > disagree with them and that their position and demeanor are increasing > my fr

Re: An OLPC Development Model

Gentlefolk, It seems to me, upon a few hours' calm reflection that: Bert - you leapt to some unfounded conclusions about the significance of Dennis' work and he seems to have been hurt by the way you posed some of your questions. Scott - I don't need to bring the specter of drug abuse and mental

Re: An OLPC Development Model

Developers should eat their own dogfood, AND this doesn't seem like the right process. A one-click "install latest activities" link would work just fine, and be a way to test activity updating. It shouldn't be possible to ship without browse. I find shipping a more reasonable set of priority act

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:54:30PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Using the customisation key or one of the scripts floating around to > install an activity bundle. they will be installed in /home then and > its a one time deal. Yah, developers should eat their own dogfood.

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > >> the next joyride build and olpc3 build will only install Journal. > > Oh, yuck. What's the recommended way for developers to install the > activities, then? I don't think we're ready for this step -- the > reason we still had all the acti

Re: An OLPC Development Model

Hi, > the next joyride build and olpc3 build will only install Journal. Oh, yuck. What's the recommended way for developers to install the activities, then? I don't think we're ready for this step -- the reason we still had all the activities in Joyride was that we don't have an activity t

Changes to joyride build system? (Re: An OLPC Development Model)

2008/5/8 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > the next joyride build and olpc3 build will only install Journal. Could you explain more background about the change to joyride? (I wouldn't care about olpc3 at this time) For activity developers Joyride has been: 1) staging environment before addi

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/5/7 Samuel Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > It never hurts to be paranoid, but the educational priorities of our > tool > > and software development are not changing. There are priorities that > have > > not been

Re: An OLPC Development Model

2008/5/7 Samuel Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

2008/5/7 Steve Holton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Case in point, it bugs me when the wiki documents features of versions which > haven't been released yet, or declares a problem "fixed" because some later, > as yet unreleased version no longer shows the problem. > Well, it's correct to document features

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: An OLPC Development Model

>> Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change >> > from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled >> > OS without hand-holding (installing the G1G1 activity bundle). > > And, in fact, last I checked our Wiki had the correct instructions for > doing an upgrade

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is something I remember coming up a lot back when Red Hat first > started putting out Rawhide. We would get lots of tickets from people > who would install it and expect it to a) work and b) be supported. > This

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 23:04, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >>> And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in olpc3 is what Kim wanted in

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > > > >> And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in >

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > >> And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in > >> olpc3 > >> is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the > >> discuss

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > >> And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in > >> olpc3 > >> is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the > >> discussions. > > > > You're on crack, Bert.

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 22:11, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > >> And it's certainly no coincidence that the list of activities in >> olpc3 >> is what Kim wanted in ticket 6598. You certainly remember the >> discussions. > > You're on crack, Bert. *None* of the activities listed in 6598 are in > the core b

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, my trust in OLPC is being probed every other day. I take your > word, and I t

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 21:46, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > >> Well, my trust in OLPC is being probed every other day. I take your >> word, and I trust a few other people there, but I also have to >> acknowledge that priorities at OLPC are changing. So muc

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, 7 May 2008 21:34:15 +0200 Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not rea

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > Well, my trust in OLPC is being probed every other day. I take your > word, and I trust a few other people there, but I also have to > acknowledge that priorities at OLPC are changing. So much so that some > of the people I trusted most are leavi

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 19:54, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: >> >>> I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a >>> set of core activities and make

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 21:23, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bert Freudenberg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The update could come with a simple (or even better: obvious) method >> to let people get the activities back. >> >> There probably was no time to do this 2 months

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The update could come with a simple (or even better: obvious) method > to let people get the activities back. > > There probably was no time to do this 2 months ago. But in the mean > time, if someone was interested t

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a > > set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we > > have already everything in place to do so).

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 20:57, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change >> from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled >> OS without hand-holding (installin

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where we fail to meet expectations is when G1G1 users change > from the old, monolithic, OS + activities to the new, unbundled > OS without hand-holding (installing the G1G1 activity bundle). And, in fact, last I check

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On May 7, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Eben Eliason wrote: >> Dammit, why are we having the discussion again! >> >> We do not *ship* any image or machine with no activities installed. >> End of story. > > I thought that was exactly what we were doing, and that the only way > to have activities wind up on

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 07.05.2008, at 20:30, Kim Quirk wrote: > > > If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your > > activities (that would be a bug if you did). > > This is exactly what happens when you upgrade

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 20:30, Kim Quirk wrote: > If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your > activities (that would be a bug if you did). This is exactly what happens when you upgrade to the latest update.1 build. - Bert -

Re: An OLPC Development Model

*shipping* refers to what leaves the factory in China. We do not *ship* anything without activities installed. If you already have a build and you upgrade, you shouldn't lose your activities (that would be a bug if you did). If you do a 'cleaninstall' based on the old methods of cleaninstall, th

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:10 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Well, I think we should provide a set of default activities. And I > > think those should include the educational ones. Shipping d

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Well, I think we should provide a set of default activities. And I > > think those should include the educational ones. Shipping d

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that the meat of this proposal was *not* aimed at @laptop.org > employees, who I assume are savvy enough to get appropriate changes > upstream. The real point here was to outline a devel strategy that > would wor

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I think we should provide a set of default activities. And I > think those should include the educational ones. Shipping default > images with no activities on them doesn't send the right message > either, i

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > > I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a > > set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we > > have already

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > > I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a > > set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we > > have already

Re: An OLPC Development Model

Note that the meat of this proposal was *not* aimed at @laptop.org employees, who I assume are savvy enough to get appropriate changes upstream. The real point here was to outline a devel strategy that would work for 'out of core' changes made by external developers. So worrying about the "comple

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On 07.05.2008, at 19:36, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a > set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we > have already everything in place to do so). I hate the "core activities" idea. What are the core a

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For example, we may have a "sugar" build with the latest > > sugar UI bits, a "security" build which implements Bitfrost more > > fully, a "printers" build which works on printer support, > > That makes sense if (

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:17 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each > > of > > those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate > > packages are almost

Re: [Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

On Tue, 6 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally and picks what version of each of > those packages to put in the main distro. the versions of these seperate > packages are almost entirely independant of each other. they then do a lot of > testing and so

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ubuntu takes packages maintaned externally Yes. Debian does most of the work, ubuntu polishes a subset of packages, and then a much smaller subset of packages are software that Ubuntu develop themselves. Just like us ;-) We only devel

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:52 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The model is simple: fork and merge. That is to say, rather than >> trying to maintain a single "upstream" that follows all the > > That thread you point out is a good

Re: An OLPC Development Model

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:52 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The model is simple: fork and merge. That is to say, rather than > trying to maintain a single "upstream" that follows all the That thread you point out is a good resource to understand how current kernel devs handle

An OLPC Development Model

[this is pretty technical, feel free to skip ahead to the 'project ideas' email if development models don't interest you.] A recent thread on the linux-kernel mailing list has given me some insight on OLPC's problems interacting with external developers. At the bottom of this email, I'll give you