On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi Gary--thanks for the interesting mockup! My feedback:
> The spiral is interesting and worth exploring. But I would continue to focus
> the view on a single organizational system, whether ring, spiral, freeform,
> list, etc. This pr
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:05:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 01:47, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> > On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:20, James Cameron wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >>> Another option is having some script that adds c
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 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
> 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
I am asking for help:
Is there some documentation on the use of the option:
--base-on=BASE_ON ?
I am wondering if this is a functional option in f13-f14, and how is it
used?
how do I add a package to an existing .iso image
In: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fedora-livecd/:
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.
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,
Hi Gary--thanks for the interesting mockup! My feedback:
The spiral is interesting and worth exploring. But I would continue to focus
the view on a single organizational system, whether ring, spiral, freeform,
list, etc. This preserves the integrity and extensibility of the UI views
metaphor, and
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 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 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 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
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
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 11:55 AM, Gary Martin wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> On 8 Aug 2010, at 12:59, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>> See
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Spiral_Home_View#Detailed_Description
>> for the latest screen shots. I made some changes to the way I generate
>> the Spiral -- I s
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 Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 04:11:38PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hi, the GNOME people are having an interesting discussion about AMO.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tomeu
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Johannes Schmid
> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28
> Subject: Re: How about creating add
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 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
Hi, the GNOME people are having an interesting discussion about AMO.
Regards,
Tomeu
-- Forwarded message --
From: Johannes Schmid
Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28
Subject: Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
To: Jose Aliste
Cc: Tomeu Vizoso , foundation-l...@gnome.org
Hi!
On 8 Aug 2010, at 13:42, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> Le 08/08/2010 13:59, Walter Bender a écrit :
>> See
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Spiral_Home_View#Detailed_Description
>> for the latest screen shots. I made some changes to the way I generate
>> the Spiral -- I start from the outsi
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 8:42 AM, Hilaire Fernandes
wrote:
> Le 08/08/2010 13:59, Walter Bender a écrit :
>> See
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Spiral_Home_View#Detailed_Description
>> for the latest screen shots. I made some changes to the way I generate
>> the Spiral -- I start from the
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
Le 08/08/2010 13:59, Walter Bender a écrit :
> See
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Spiral_Home_View#Detailed_Description
> for the latest screen shots. I made some changes to the way I generate
> the Spiral -- I start from the outside rather than the inside to
> minimize the visual disrupt
See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Spiral_Home_View#Detailed_Description
for the latest screen shots. I made some changes to the way I generate
the Spiral -- I start from the outside rather than the inside to
minimize the visual disruption between the Ring and the Spiral. I
don't ever shrink
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
