, June 09, 2010 4:35 AM
To: Peter Robinson
Cc: Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero; marketing; b...@alum.mit.edu; iaep
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Marketing] OLPC rules out Windows for XO-3
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
Linux has been running well on ARM for a long long time.
Yeah. In specific, today I got Sugar running on the ARM SoC we'll be
using for XO-1.75 and XO-3, and it didn't require any porting at all.
It would have
Hi,
What's the plan for the boot loader, is it planned to use OF
still and port it to the ARM platform or is it planned to use one
of the more mainline ARM bootloaders such as uboot or the like.
Right now we're using uboot, but the plan is to port and continue
using OFW. (OFW is
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta sayami...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
Linux has been running well on ARM for a long long time.
Yeah.
I strongly encourage the Sugar team to consider rethinking the Sugar
UI from the ground up for touch. The simple port is likely to yield
a very unsatisfactory experience; fat fingers are just not precise
pointing devices, and a lot of gestures which seem intuitive for a
mouse don't really work
On 06/03/2010 01:45 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
My suggestion would be to first convene a ground up rethink of what
a touch-based Sugar could be.
...
The result should be a
*book*, which describes the ideal UI. That will be the long term
(think, next decade!) goals for Sugar.
That's a
On 4 June 2010 06:21, Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
On 06/03/2010 01:45 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
My suggestion would be to first convene a ground up rethink of what
a touch-based Sugar could be.
...
The result should be a
*book*, which describes the ideal UI.
Hi Tim,
As soon as I heard that OLPC was moving to ARM, I winced
slightly. This is going to make life much more difficult, because
of our longstanding Linux, Python and recent GNOME heritage. What
is Sugar Labs' role with the XO-3+?
I don't understand -- the XO-3 (and XO-1.5)
On 4 June 2010 09:07, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi Tim,
As soon as I heard that OLPC was moving to ARM, I winced
slightly. This is going to make life much more difficult, because
of our longstanding Linux, Python and recent GNOME heritage. What
is Sugar Labs' role with
On 06/03/2010 05:29 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
I guess life is slightly different when you can
talk to a manufacturer and avoid Windows CE altogether.
Yes, hacking open someone else's closed hardware can be a pain, and we
don't have that problem.
Also, given that Android doesn't use many GNU
Hi,
Linux has been running well on ARM for a long long time.
Yeah. In specific, today I got Sugar running on the ARM SoC we'll be
using for XO-1.75 and XO-3, and it didn't require any porting at all.
It would have happened yesterday, but I had to work out how to get
past the Sugar
Hi All...
See comment/question below
Caryl
From: w...@laptop.org
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:27:12 -0400
To: csc...@cscott.net
CC: marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org; to...@sugarlabs.org;
i...@lists.sugarlabs.org; raf...@sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Marketing] OLPC rules out Windows
12 matches
Mail list logo
