From pbrobinson at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 22:47:59 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:47:59 +0000 Subject: Running joyride on Fedora using KVM/QUEMU Message-ID: <5256d0b0812011447w7f9a9d74o78c2f120885acd94@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, I was looking at running the joyride builds within a VM on a Fedora 10 box and it appears because I don't have a AMD cpu I need to run a custom build [1] of qemu to allow for CPU support, I'm not sure of the state of the custom build and as I use the qemu/kvm for other VMs I don't really want a non standard build. I'm assuming this is from upstream, does anyone know what the plan is for F-11 and versions of qemu and if there's any plans to pull in a later build, or even if there's a new qemu version due? I had a quick search on the qemu devel and there was discussion of a new official release back in October but I've not seen anything concrete. Peter http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Emulating_the_XO/Quick_Start/Linux From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 14:09:16 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:09:16 -0500 Subject: Running joyride on Fedora using KVM/QUEMU In-Reply-To: <5256d0b0812011447w7f9a9d74o78c2f120885acd94@mail.gmail.com> References: <5256d0b0812011447w7f9a9d74o78c2f120885acd94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4935418C.7090608@redhat.com> Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > I was looking at running the joyride builds within a VM on a Fedora 10 > box and it appears because I don't have a AMD cpu I need to run a > custom build [1] of qemu to allow for CPU support, I'm not sure of the > state of the custom build and as I use the qemu/kvm for other VMs I > don't really want a non standard build. I'm assuming this is from > upstream, does anyone know what the plan is for F-11 and versions of > qemu and if there's any plans to pull in a later build, or even if > there's a new qemu version due? I had a quick search on the qemu devel > and there was discussion of a new official release back in October but > I've not seen anything concrete. > > Peter > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Emulating_the_XO/Quick_Start/Linux If you want to build a vm with sugar on it from fedora, go ahead and try this: * yum install appliance-tools python-virtinst * Download the kickstart file copied from sdizillas in the kickstart repo: http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=acex.git;a=blob;f=sugarxo/resources/sugar-f10.ks; * appliance-creator --name sugarxo --config [PATH TO KSFILE] * virt-imavge sugarxo.xml * Then connect via virt-manager or virt-viewer This will get you a running VM with sugar in it. -- bk From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Wed Dec 3 12:47:16 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:47:16 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS Message-ID: <49367FD4.4000607@webpath.net> http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=3980.msg27525#msg27525 >> Quote >> - 5 second boot time ( http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/ ) > > Why hasn't anyone been able to do this for the OLPC? > > All we need is a simple, alternate boot that Rapidly boots up with > Wifi access and a browser. > That's it. Let's make this "Toy" practical for G1G1 participants. > > Yes, there are those that want the full Ubuntu flexibility and > features. The "full" Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora installs have already > been successfully implemented, and those willing to wait minutes for > their OLPCs to boot up with them are happy. > > However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as > interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to > offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: > > 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) > 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. > 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF > viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. > > What do we need to do to make this a reality? From mikus at bga.com Wed Dec 3 14:06:18 2008 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:06:18 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS Message-ID: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> From a post that included the following quote: >> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to >> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >> >> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >> >> What do we need to do to make this a reality? I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw. But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. mikus From meta.sj at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 15:30:29 2008 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:30:29 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> Message-ID: <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> This seems like a reasonable request to me, if a bit idealized. dwm on xo has a 1-min boot now. openwrt had a sub-20 sec boot earlier this year. and didn't etoys have a 6-second boot recently? with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c' doesn't sound like an insurmountable target. SJ On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > From a post that included the following quote: >>> >>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to >>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >>> >>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >>> >>> What do we need to do to make this a reality? > > I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least > three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical > design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw. > But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business > applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? > > My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities > go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. > > mikus > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > From meta.sj at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 15:32:44 2008 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:32:44 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein > with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c' > doesn't sound like an insurmountable target. To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how to combine them. I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable. SJ > SJ > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >> From a post that included the following quote: >>>> >>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to >>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >>>> >>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >>>> >>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality? >> >> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least >> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical >> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw. >> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business >> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? >> >> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities >> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. >> >> mikus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list >> > From ed at laptop.org Wed Dec 3 16:04:18 2008 From: ed at laptop.org (Ed McNierney) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:04:18 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a tradeoff by slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a quick boot only to have people think the machine was slow because the next 5 things they did took a long time. I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick boot" ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my MacBook Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, for a software update. It took over a minute to boot, and that fact has been completely irrelevant to me as a user. If we provide good suspend/resume and power management support, users aren't going to reboot very often. I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute boot makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the system (if not a difference in usability) and that's a very important goal. But striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I think, much less valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume experience (which my MacBook Pro does very well). - Ed On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein >> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c' >> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target. > > To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash > playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how > to combine them. > > I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background > to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable. > > SJ > >> SJ >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs >> wrote: >>> From a post that included the following quote: >>>>> >>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds >>>>> have to >>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >>>>> >>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality? >>> >>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are >>> at least >>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) >>> rugged physical >>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low >>> power draw. >>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer >>> business >>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? >>> >>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" >>> capabilities >>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. >>> >>> mikus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >>> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list From sverma at sfsu.edu Wed Dec 3 19:30:45 2008 From: sverma at sfsu.edu (Sameer Verma) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:30:45 -0800 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5fb387c70812031130t695bdfchf9a40dcc8e8f6958@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Ed McNierney wrote: > Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a tradeoff by > slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a quick boot > only to have people think the machine was slow because the next 5 things > they did took a long time. > Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs BetaMax etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be explained by perception alone! So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will (most probably) imply a faster system. I don't have statistical evidence for this, but I'll dig deeper and see if anyone has studied boot time perception. If there's none, maybe we can run a quick test with newbies :-) > I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick boot" > ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my MacBook > Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, for a software update. > It took over a minute to boot, and that fact has been completely irrelevant > to me as a user. If we provide good suspend/resume and power management > support, users aren't going to reboot very often. > Many Windows users reboot more than once a day :-) and I suspect most G1G1 users will be Windows users as opposed to Mac or Linux users... > I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute boot > makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the system (if > not a difference in usability) and that's a very important goal. But > striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I think, much less > valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume experience (which my > MacBook Pro does very well). > I agree that suspend/resume cycle makes a huge difference. Sugar's s/r cycle is *very* impressive. Given that it already works in Sugar, I'd imagine achieving that in GNOME shouldn't be that much of a stretch. Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ > - Ed > > > On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein >>> >>> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c' >>> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target. >> >> To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash >> playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how >> to combine them. >> >> I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background >> to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable. >> >> SJ >> >>> SJ >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >>>> >>>> From a post that included the following quote: >>>>>> >>>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >>>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to >>>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >>>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >>>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >>>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality? >>>> >>>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at >>>> least >>>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged >>>> physical >>>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power >>>> draw. >>>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business >>>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? >>>> >>>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" >>>> capabilities >>>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. >>>> >>>> mikus >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >>>> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list From sverma at sfsu.edu Wed Dec 3 19:32:31 2008 From: sverma at sfsu.edu (Sameer Verma) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:32:31 -0800 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5fb387c70812031132x6cc548e6lb012aed12d8d2cf7@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein >> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c' >> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target. > > To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash > playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how > to combine them. > If installing Flash from Adobe can be done by using a simple graphical wrapper it would be a lot easier. Something like what Synaptic does. -- Sameer > I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background > to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable. > > SJ > >> SJ >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >>> From a post that included the following quote: >>>>> >>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as >>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to >>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds) >>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing. >>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF >>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice. >>>>> >>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality? >>> >>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least >>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical >>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw. >>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business >>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ? >>> >>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities >>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead. >>> >>> mikus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >>> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > From ed at laptop.org Wed Dec 3 19:40:10 2008 From: ed at laptop.org (Ed McNierney) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:40:10 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5fb387c70812031130t695bdfchf9a40dcc8e8f6958@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: That conclusion implies that boot time perception is more heavily weighted by the user than application launch time perception, however, and we don't have any evidence to judge whether or not that is the case. - Ed On 12/3/08 2:30 PM, "Sameer Verma" wrote: > Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs BetaMax > etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In > fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be > explained by perception alone! > > So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower > loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will > (most probably) imply a faster system. From morgan.collett at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 19:47:12 2008 From: morgan.collett at gmail.com (Morgan Collett) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:47:12 +0200 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 17:30, Samuel Klein wrote: > This seems like a reasonable request to me, if a bit idealized. > > dwm on xo has a 1-min boot now. > openwrt had a sub-20 sec boot earlier this year. > and didn't etoys have a 6-second boot recently? SqueakNOS, and it was 20 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0fAUGRUDVA Regards Morgan From sverma at sfsu.edu Wed Dec 3 20:02:28 2008 From: sverma at sfsu.edu (Sameer Verma) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:02:28 -0800 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: References: <5fb387c70812031130t695bdfchf9a40dcc8e8f6958@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5fb387c70812031202mf3bec8pead2d5fdbcf6b027@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ed McNierney wrote: > That conclusion implies that boot time perception is more heavily weighted > by the user than application launch time perception, however, and we don't > have any evidence to judge whether or not that is the case. > Indeed. Such data would be quite valuable. Here's an interesting blog entry on MSDN for improving boot time on Windows 7. http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/08/29/boot-performance.aspx It highlights some interesting time ranges and user experiences. cheers, Sameer > - Ed > > > On 12/3/08 2:30 PM, "Sameer Verma" wrote: > >> Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs BetaMax >> etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In >> fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be >> explained by perception alone! >> >> So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower >> loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will >> (most probably) imply a faster system. From luke at laptop.org Wed Dec 3 20:24:08 2008 From: luke at laptop.org (Luke Faraone) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:24:08 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5fb387c70812031132x6cc548e6lb012aed12d8d2cf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> <5fb387c70812031132x6cc548e6lb012aed12d8d2cf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201ad4980812031224q6b63bb64ie39a79857c76c770@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:32, Sameer Verma wrote: > If installing Flash from Adobe can be done by using a simple graphical > wrapper it would be a lot easier. Something like what Synaptic does. Unfortunately, Flash isn't supported by OLPC or Fedora; in fact in the past we lacked even the right to distribute it. It is closed source, and will not be included in the repositories. By the way, PackageKit and Pup are the RPM analogs to Synaptic. -lf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katzj at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 20:24:20 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:24:20 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <5fb387c70812031130t695bdfchf9a40dcc8e8f6958@mail.gmail.com> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> <5fb387c70812031130t695bdfchf9a40dcc8e8f6958@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1228335860.13947.4.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:30 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote: > > I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute boot > > makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the system (if > > not a difference in usability) and that's a very important goal. But > > striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I think, much less > > valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume experience (which my > > MacBook Pro does very well). > > I agree that suspend/resume cycle makes a huge difference. Sugar's s/r > cycle is *very* impressive. Given that it already works in Sugar, I'd > imagine achieving that in GNOME shouldn't be that much of a stretch. For suspend/resume on the XO to be supported in Fedora, the patches for OLPC power management *must* get into the upstream kernel first. And that was dependent on also getting the geode gpio stuff detangled from what I remember. Jeremy From meta.sj at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 22:33:07 2008 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:33:07 -0500 Subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS In-Reply-To: <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> References: <4936925A.1080304@bga.com> <5396c0d10812030730s6a01828ev8c90f7b2b42b8f60@mail.gmail.com> <5396c0d10812030732i25b2cb18m116bc634cfffef7c@mail.gmail.com> <0DB95942-C52F-4CE9-B25F-3A1C3E6A38F8@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5396c0d10812031433x2b2cc18amedc63c50637dbed@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Ed McNierney wrote: > Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a tradeoff by > slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a quick boot > only to have people think the machine was slow because the next 5 things > they did took a long time. If it's just the next 5, that would be okay. If it's all future app launches, not. Spreading out boot effort over the idle cpu time of the first few minutes of each boot would be nice where possible. > I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick boot" > ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my MacBook > Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, Sometimes I travel with my XO and a spare battery as my only laptop. Rebooting happens at least once a day. I'll try with F10 specifically, but it can happen when - running out of power (leaving it unintentionally in the wrong state in a bag) - getting stuck in a resume loop - locking up in one particular program (NM seems to be a regular accessory to freezing) > to me as a user. If we provide good suspend/resume and power management > support, users aren't going to reboot very often. That hypothesis hasn't been borne out in Sugar. If it is used for long-term planning here, I hope it is with evidence this is viable. > But striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I > think, much less > valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume > experience (which my IME, this isn't specific to boot time for the machine; also for boot time for core apps (listed previously in the thread). This is also a core failure of OO for me -- it is designed to give you a good experience while running, but obviously not designed to have a smooth bootup sequence or to be rebooted often. I reboot OO regularly, and the required clickthrough/wait process for recovering interrupted files, and the slow boot time, are abidingly frustrating. SJ From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Thu Dec 4 02:21:00 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:21:00 -0500 Subject: OLPC News Fedora 10 Live SD Card for the XO Laptop Message-ID: <49373E8C.2020006@webpath.net> http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/fedora_10_sd_card_xo_laptop.html My article got posted at OLPC News - The cool part is that's not my picture. Someone there must have taken it. ~Karlie From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Thu Dec 4 02:32:41 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:32:41 -0500 Subject: Is there one place for XO support? Message-ID: <49374149.40403@webpath.net> Where should I send the masses besides the wiki's communicate page? The OLPCNews group could use a Fedora Tech or two to answer questions and get people into the proper support channels. Pick up the thread at - http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=3958.msg27430#msg27430 From luke at laptop.org Thu Dec 4 02:45:15 2008 From: luke at laptop.org (Luke Faraone) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:45:15 -0500 Subject: Is there one place for XO support? In-Reply-To: <49374149.40403@webpath.net> References: <49374149.40403@webpath.net> Message-ID: <201ad4980812031845g23c1b986j1e201776903865b8@mail.gmail.com> http://support.laptop.org/ , which redirects to a page on the wiki. (which is currently down for maintenance) -lf On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 21:32, Karlie Robinson wrote: > Where should I send the masses besides the wiki's communicate page? > The OLPCNews group could use a Fedora Tech or two to answer questions and > get people into the proper support channels. > Pick up the thread at - > http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=3958.msg27430#msg27430 > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ivazqueznet at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 03:10:01 2008 From: ivazqueznet at gmail.com (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:10:01 -0500 Subject: OLPC News Fedora 10 Live SD Card for the XO Laptop In-Reply-To: <49373E8C.2020006@webpath.net> References: <49373E8C.2020006@webpath.net> Message-ID: <1228360201.29612.107.camel@ignacio.lan> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 21:21 -0500, Karlie Robinson wrote: > http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/fedora_10_sd_card_xo_laptop.html http://digg.com/linux_unix/Fedora_10_Live_SD_Card_for_the_XO_Laptop_One_Laptop_Per_Ch -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mel at melchua.com Thu Dec 4 03:37:57 2008 From: mel at melchua.com (Mel Chua) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:37:57 -0500 Subject: Is there one place for XO support? In-Reply-To: <201ad4980812031845g23c1b986j1e201776903865b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <49374149.40403@webpath.net> <201ad4980812031845g23c1b986j1e201776903865b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49375095.9090409@melchua.com> Wiki is back! I'd actually suggest the formation of a Fedora-on-XO support group, run from the Fedora community - since this SD card is not-an-OLPC-product, it should be supported by not-an-OLPC-group, to let both groups grow into their separate (but collaborative) missions. Er... that may not have made sense. *reboots brain, tries again* - Karlie, OLPC's support staff/volunteers, and $other-people-in-the-world should have a place/group in Fedoraland to send the masses who want Fedora-on-XO support - Who in the Fedora community can step up and make some place for OLPC's support-gang to send them? - Brave volunteers for the above should probably let people like Karlie and Adam Holt (holt at laptop dot org, the man behind http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Support_gang) know when they're open for business, so users can duly be pointed that-a-way. Thoughts? -a mildly incoherent Mel Luke Faraone wrote: > http://support.laptop.org/ , which redirects to a page on the wiki. > (which is currently down for maintenance) > > -lf > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 21:32, Karlie Robinson > > wrote: > > Where should I send the masses besides the wiki's communicate page? > The OLPCNews group could use a Fedora Tech or two to answer > questions and get people into the proper support channels. > Pick up the thread at - > http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=3958.msg27430#msg27430 > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list From gdk at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 15:14:49 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:14:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Meeting reminder: #fedora-olpc, 1pm eastern time Message-ID: ...contingent upon me actually making my drive to Richmond, and arriving in time to find a place with decent wireless. I'll do my best to be on time. If I don't make it by 1:15pm, consider the meeting cancelled, with my apologies. But hopefully I'll see you all soon. --g -- Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] From ed at laptop.org Thu Dec 4 17:30:56 2008 From: ed at laptop.org (Ed McNierney) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:30:56 -0500 Subject: Meeting reminder: #fedora-olpc, 1pm eastern time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Greg - Chuck pulled rank on me and called another meeting at 1. My machine will be listening to the meeting, however, so if things get thrown my way I will eventually catch them. - Ed On 12/4/08 10:14 AM, "Greg Dekoenigsberg" wrote: > > ...contingent upon me actually making my drive to Richmond, and arriving > in time to find a place with decent wireless. > > I'll do my best to be on time. If I don't make it by 1:15pm, consider the > meeting cancelled, with my apologies. But hopefully I'll see you all > soon. > > --g > > -- > Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! > [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 22:44:06 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:44:06 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO Message-ID: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> Hi All, I am working on requirements for the next major release of the XO, 9.1.0 (see: overview at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0). There are two major requirements which would benefit from expert Fedora knowledge: - Rebase to Fedora 10 - Run Fedora applications The first draft requirements on them are defined here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else do we need to track? A few other questions (RTFM with URL responses OK): 1 - How big (MBs) are the supported X window managers? If we have to choose one or two which should we include? 2 - Is there a Netbook implementation of Fedora? We're going to need a bare minimum of default installed applications. Let me know if there are suggestions on which to include. 3 - Does Fedora 10 supports 802.11s? I will do more research on those but if anyone has a quick answer handy it will save me time. Also, send me a note if you're interested in working on either of those or anything on our not-yet-prioritized roadmap http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap. Thanks, Greg Smith OLPC Product Manager From cjb at laptop.org Thu Dec 4 23:01:31 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:01:31 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> (Greg Smith's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:44:06 -0500") References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> Message-ID: Hi Greg, > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS > Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? > What else do we need to track? FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of: "Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships with Sugar" Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more concrete. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball From pbrobinson at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 23:06:25 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:06:25 +0100 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812041506p5ed7dcb2jee80d39d9a253279@mail.gmail.com> > Hi All, > > I am working on requirements for the next major release of the XO, 9.1.0 > (see: overview at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0). > > There are two major requirements which would benefit from expert Fedora > knowledge: > - Rebase to Fedora 10 > - Run Fedora applications > > The first draft requirements on them are defined here: > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS > > Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else > do we need to track? > > A few other questions (RTFM with URL responses OK): > > 1 - How big (MBs) are the supported X window managers? If we have to choose > one or two which should we include? > > 2 - Is there a Netbook implementation of Fedora? We're going to need a bare > minimum of default installed applications. Let me know if there are > suggestions on which to include. Not yet, there's interest in a "FedoraMini" spin but there's not been a lot of movement on it as yet. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/FedoraMini > 3 - Does Fedora 10 supports 802.11s? I think this is mesh? If so not really, mostly from what OLPC supports. I've no idea what the status of getting the OLPC changes to NetworkManager are. > I will do more research on those but if anyone has a quick answer handy it > will save me time. > > Also, send me a note if you're interested in working on either of those or > anything on our not-yet-prioritized roadmap > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap. Not that i'm a coder but I can help out from a packaging and testing point of view. Peter From cjb at laptop.org Thu Dec 4 23:11:25 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:11:25 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> (Erik Garrison's message of "Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:07:46 -0500") References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> Message-ID: Hi, > This is the case for the official Fedora 10. It need not be the > case for an rpm-based system built out of the Fedora 10 > repositories. I am currently working on a solution which should > comfortably fit into the 1 GB of NAND FLASH. Call it a respin. > rpmxo. * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? * Would they live on different partitions? * How will we allocate space between them? * Will they be upgraded separately? * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? Anyway, you get the idea -- this brings up a massive amount of issues, so we should be talking about it more than we have been. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 23:36:53 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:36:53 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> Message-ID: <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> Hi Erik, Peter and Chris, Thanks a lot for the comments and offer of help! I updated the requirement to explain that the idea is a slimmed down version of Fedora which fits on our NAND. I added a comment about upgrading too. Here are some comments on the rest of Chris's questions: * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. * Would they live on different partitions? GS - Prefer a single partition. I added a requirement to say that libraries and files should be hard linked so that any code is used only once by both implementations. * How will we allocate space between them? GS - The goal is that they (Sugar and "standard" X-Window manager) are both just different "views" of the same image. So we don't allocate space between them. * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? GS - Not sure. How much do we need, minimum? It has to be less than 1GB - user file space but exact amount still needs definition. * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider losing that feature if needed. tbd. Keep them coming! FYI for the devel list, I pasted the original e-mail below. Thanks, Greg S Hi All, I am working on requirements for the next major release of the XO, 9.1.0 (see: overview at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0). There are two major requirements which would benefit from expert Fedora knowledge: - Rebase to Fedora 10 - Run Fedora applications The first draft requirements on them are defined here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? What else do we need to track? A few other questions (RTFM with URL responses OK): 1 - How big (MBs) are the supported X window managers? If we have to choose one or two which should we include? 2 - Is there a Netbook implementation of Fedora? We're going to need a bare minimum of default installed applications. Let me know if there are suggestions on which to include. 3 - Does Fedora 10 supports 802.11s? I will do more research on those but if anyone has a quick answer handy it will save me time. Also, send me a note if you're interested in working on either of those or anything on our not-yet-prioritized roadmap http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap. Thanks, Greg Smith OLPC Product Manager Erik Garrison wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS >> >> > Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined? >> > What else do we need to track? >> >> FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of: >> >> "Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop >> manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on >> all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships >> with Sugar" >> >> Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND >> at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more >> concrete. > > This is the case for the official Fedora 10. It need not be the case > for an rpm-based system built out of the Fedora 10 repositories. I am > currently working on a solution which should comfortably fit into the 1 > GB of NAND FLASH. Call it a respin. rpmxo. > > Erik > From pbrobinson at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 23:46:48 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:46:48 +0100 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812041546j655683ceq85c488af654b63d4@mail.gmail.com> > * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? > GS - Yes. Why are we planning on shipping two distros? Or am I missing something? As OLPC is essentially based on Fedora and isn't that divergent (and we're trying to make is less so) would we not be aiming for two different desktop interfaces that can be switched between (sort of like being able to switch between KDE and GNOME if you have them both installed). EG Things like xulrunner are large so why would we want two copies when we could use one and switch the interface? If I've missed something and that is the aim, from following some of the Fedora on XO threads on the various Fedora lists I think XFCE ran reasonably well and is reasonably lightweight so I'm not sure if that's an option? Peter From martin at martindengler.com Thu Dec 4 23:51:28 2008 From: martin at martindengler.com (Martin Dengler) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:51:28 +0000 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> Message-ID: <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: > [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? > GS - Yes. GS: I think you meant "desktop environments", not "distributions". > Greg S Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 00:22:59 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:22:59 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> Message-ID: <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> Hi Martin and Peter, Sorry got my Linux terminology a little munged there. I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. Thanks for the tips and comments. You can even edit the requirement to make it more crystal clear if you think my wording there is confusing. I'll see the edits and roll back anything which I think changes the fundamental requirement. Thanks, Greg S Martin Dengler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: >> [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? >> GS - Yes. > > GS: I think you meant "desktop environments", not "distributions". > >> Greg S > > Martin From cjb at laptop.org Fri Dec 5 00:44:20 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:44:20 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> (Greg Smith's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:22:59 -0500") References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> Message-ID: Hi, > I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" > Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should > have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball From mark at zjunk.net Fri Dec 5 01:11:30 2008 From: mark at zjunk.net (Mark Bauer) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:11:30 -0600 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> Message-ID: <76B3195B-B39E-4FB5-B204-92812770A1AB@zjunk.net> I second the motion of putting the xfce as an option in the control panel. As these kids with the machine get older, it gives them an option to continue learning and using a machine that will come closer to matching those in business. I have been playing with the gentoo xo spin, and it boots from off to gnome in 90 seconds. This is from the SD card. Running gentoo is harder for me because most of my machines are Fedora based. Mark On Dec 4, 2008 Thursday, at 6:44:20:0, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > >> I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" >> Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should >> have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. > > Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list From cjb at laptop.org Fri Dec 5 03:08:06 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:08:06 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> (pgf@laptop.org's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:45:08 -0500") References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: Hi, > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best > judge. :-) I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball From cjb at laptop.org Fri Dec 5 03:28:40 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:28:40 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:19:20 -0800 (PST)") References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: Hi, > debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit > on the NAND I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M) tells us that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring some package rework. Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball From sebastian at when.com Fri Dec 5 05:36:28 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:36:28 +0100 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: <4938BDDC.1010106@when.com> Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be > > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a > > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it > > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best > > judge. :-) > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. > > - Chris. Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it was a few MBs bigger... --Sebastian From pbrobinson at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:17:02 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:17:02 +0100 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812050217t366633bcie874786755e2e6e1@mail.gmail.com> > > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be > > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a > > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it > > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best > > judge. :-) > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. I think it should be more achievable once libgnome and friends are gone along with some splitting of some of the 'extra' features in some main packages out into sub packages. This ties quite nicely in with a NetBook "Fedora Mini" spin I've been looking at, which is how I got side tracked into OLPC :-) Peter From pbrobinson at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:22:53 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:53 +0100 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <4938BDDC.1010106@when.com> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> <28218.1228445108@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4938BDDC.1010106@when.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812050222u59ab50f4tc8b051bdc3da33d8@mail.gmail.com> >> > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be >> > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a >> > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it >> > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best >> > judge. :-) >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working > with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size > heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an > idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB > image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it > was a few MBs bigger... I don't think it would be too much bigger than the current joyride image (dependant on what apps you want to add) gnome is quite dependant on e-d-s but we already have the likes of xulrunner, abiword, totem etc for apps. The foot print to add their "standard" interfaces isn't massive. Then you need a windows manager, nautilus and gnome-panel. The question is then what deps they pull in and filing bugs to get them as slimmed down as possible. Some of the new deps will be pulled in anyway because Sugar wants to add support for things like printing. Peter From ed at laptop.org Fri Dec 5 12:22:06 2008 From: ed at laptop.org (Ed McNierney) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:22:06 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Chris - Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. While there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure we're providing what most users will want (users of this desktop, of course). Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as it's very important to move this topic into the real world of "what is possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to make?" - Ed On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, "Chris Ball" wrote: > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. > > - Chris. From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 12:32:47 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:32:47 -0500 Subject: Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <20081205122228.B94E16198D3@hormel.redhat.com> References: <20081205122228.B94E16198D3@hormel.redhat.com> Message-ID: Ed, Who are the real users you are referring to? I just got back from the Netbook World Summit and it seemed to be universally excepted that there were two very distinct groups: those who purchase netbooks as second computers and those who buy netbooks as first computers. The consensus was these groups had different use models and expectations. In the former group, close to instant on seemed to be important (which most people equate with instant boot instead of better power management a la CJB's work) and familiarity with existing interfaces, e.g., XP. In the latter group, there wasn't consensus. -walter On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:22 AM, wrote: > Send Fedora-olpc-list mailing list submissions to > fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > fedora-olpc-list-request at redhat.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > fedora-olpc-list-owner at redhat.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Fedora-olpc-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Greg Smith) > 2. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Chris Ball) > 3. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Mark Bauer) > 4. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Chris Ball) > 5. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Chris Ball) > 6. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Sebastian Dziallas) > 7. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Peter Robinson) > 8. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Peter Robinson) > 9. Re: Fedora 10 on XO (Ed McNierney) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:22:59 -0500 > From: Greg Smith > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: Martin Dengler > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, Erik Garrison , > fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: <49387463.7040100 at laptop.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Martin and Peter, > > Sorry got my Linux terminology a little munged there. > > I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" Fedora > X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said > "desktop environments" as Martin notes. > > Thanks for the tips and comments. You can even edit the requirement to > make it more crystal clear if you think my wording there is confusing. > I'll see the edits and roll back anything which I think changes the > fundamental requirement. > > Thanks, > > Greg S > > Martin Dengler wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: >>> [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? >>> GS - Yes. >> >> GS: I think you meant "desktop environments", not "distributions". >> >>> Greg S >> >> Martin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:44:20 -0500 > From: Chris Ball > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: greg at laptop.org > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > > > I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" > > Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should > > have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. > > Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:11:30 -0600 > From: Mark Bauer > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: Chris Ball > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: <76B3195B-B39E-4FB5-B204-92812770A1AB at zjunk.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > I second the motion of putting the xfce as an option in the control > panel. As these kids with the > machine get older, it gives them an option to continue learning and > using a machine that will > come closer to matching those in business. > > I have been playing with the gentoo xo spin, and it boots from off to > gnome in 90 seconds. > This is from the SD card. Running gentoo is harder for me because > most of my machines are > Fedora based. > > Mark > > > > On Dec 4, 2008 Thursday, at 6:44:20:0, Chris Ball wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" >>> Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should >>> have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. >> >> Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it >> sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months >> ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Chris. >> -- >> Chris Ball >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list >> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:08:06 -0500 > From: Chris Ball > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: pgf at laptop.org > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > > > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be > > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a > > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it > > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best > > judge. :-) > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:28:40 -0500 > From: Chris Ball > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: david at lang.hm > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, pgf at laptop.org, > fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > > > debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit > > on the NAND > > I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that > doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of > concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M) tells us > that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring > some package rework. > > Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, > and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:36:28 +0100 > From: Sebastian Dziallas > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: Chris Ball > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, pgf at laptop.org, > fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: <4938BDDC.1010106 at when.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Chris Ball wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be >> > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a >> > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it >> > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best >> > judge. :-) >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working > with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size > heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an > idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB > image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it > was a few MBs bigger... > > --Sebastian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:17:02 +0100 > From: "Peter Robinson" > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: "Chris Ball" > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, pgf at laptop.org, > fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > <5256d0b0812050217t366633bcie874786755e2e6e1 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be >> > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a >> > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it >> > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best >> > judge. :-) >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. > > I think it should be more achievable once libgnome and friends are > gone along with some splitting of some of the 'extra' features in some > main packages out into sub packages. This ties quite nicely in with a > NetBook "Fedora Mini" spin I've been looking at, which is how I got > side tracked into OLPC :-) > > Peter > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:53 +0100 > From: "Peter Robinson" > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: sdz at fedoraproject.org > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > <5256d0b0812050222u59ab50f4tc8b051bdc3da33d8 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>> > is xfce the right choice? i know it's "easy", but we should be >>> > sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a >>> > relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it >>> > feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best >>> > judge. :-) >>> >>> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >>> >>> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >>> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >>> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >>> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >>> though.. >>> >>> - Chris. >> >> Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working >> with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size >> heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an >> idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB >> image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it >> was a few MBs bigger... > > I don't think it would be too much bigger than the current joyride > image (dependant on what apps you want to add) gnome is quite > dependant on e-d-s but we already have the likes of xulrunner, > abiword, totem etc for apps. The foot print to add their "standard" > interfaces isn't massive. Then you need a windows manager, nautilus > and gnome-panel. The question is then what deps they pull in and > filing bugs to get them as slimmed down as possible. Some of the new > deps will be pulled in anyway because Sugar wants to add support for > things like printing. > > Peter > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:22:06 -0500 > From: Ed McNierney > Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO > To: Chris Ball , Paul Fox > Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Chris - > > Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to > get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. While > there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure > we're providing what most users will want (users of this desktop, of > course). > > Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as > it's very important to move this topic into the real world of "what is > possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to > make?" > > - Ed > > > On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, "Chris Ball" wrote: >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > > End of Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6 > ********************************************** > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From ed at laptop.org Fri Dec 5 12:50:59 2008 From: ed at laptop.org (Ed McNierney) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:50:59 -0500 Subject: Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walter - I'm referring to the classes of end users who would use such a feature, as distinguished from the classes of developers working on it. I mainly want to be sure we don't slip into a debate over whose favorite desktop environment is preferred among the development community. I don't think that's happening and it sounds like a good discussion has begun. I'm not sure this is an obvious answer, as these classes of XO users span both of your categories below. Part of this work is to address the needs of G1G1 recipients, who are more likely to be "second computer" buyers than the other classes are. And part is to address the requests of XO deployment countries; I've asked Greg Smith to collect the details from the field on those. - Ed P.S. I'm not suggesting that G1G1 purchasers are more likely than not to be second-computer buyers - I have no idea whether that's the case. I'm suggesting that an XO recipient who is a G1G1 purchaser is more likely to be using it as a second computer than an XO recipient who got one as part of a country deployment. That may only be the difference between 1% and 0.001%. On 12/5/08 7:32 AM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > Ed, > > Who are the real users you are referring to? I just got back from the > Netbook World Summit and it seemed to be universally excepted that > there were two very distinct groups: those who purchase netbooks as > second computers and those who buy netbooks as first computers. The > consensus was these groups had different use models and expectations. > In the former group, close to instant on seemed to be important (which > most people equate with instant boot instead of better power > management a la CJB's work) and familiarity with existing interfaces, > e.g., XP. In the latter group, there wasn't consensus. > > -walter > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:22 AM, wrote: From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 12:56:09 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:56:09 -0500 Subject: Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was actually very surprised at the level of uptake of netbooks as second computers in Europe. According to an IDC study, it is the vast majority of the netbook market to date. As to the implications for G1G1, I don't know, but there are some data kicking around bout usage that someone might want to explore. regards. -walter On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Ed McNierney wrote: > Walter - > > I'm referring to the classes of end users who would use such a feature, as > distinguished from the classes of developers working on it. I mainly want > to be sure we don't slip into a debate over whose favorite desktop > environment is preferred among the development community. I don't think > that's happening and it sounds like a good discussion has begun. > > I'm not sure this is an obvious answer, as these classes of XO users span > both of your categories below. Part of this work is to address the needs of > G1G1 recipients, who are more likely to be "second computer" buyers than the > other classes are. And part is to address the requests of XO deployment > countries; I've asked Greg Smith to collect the details from the field on > those. > > - Ed > > P.S. I'm not suggesting that G1G1 purchasers are more likely than not to be > second-computer buyers - I have no idea whether that's the case. I'm > suggesting that an XO recipient who is a G1G1 purchaser is more likely to be > using it as a second computer than an XO recipient who got one as part of a > country deployment. That may only be the difference between 1% and 0.001%. > > > On 12/5/08 7:32 AM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > >> Ed, >> >> Who are the real users you are referring to? I just got back from the >> Netbook World Summit and it seemed to be universally excepted that >> there were two very distinct groups: those who purchase netbooks as >> second computers and those who buy netbooks as first computers. The >> consensus was these groups had different use models and expectations. >> In the former group, close to instant on seemed to be important (which >> most people equate with instant boot instead of better power >> management a la CJB's work) and familiarity with existing interfaces, >> e.g., XP. In the latter group, there wasn't consensus. >> >> -walter >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:22 AM, wrote: > > > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 13:15:30 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:15:30 -0500 Subject: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FudCon January 2009 In-Reply-To: <242851610812050349x6f2eca8bh2c63c7244ed89479@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851610812050349x6f2eca8bh2c63c7244ed89479@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If we can make progress on just this list, it would be great. -walter On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > Hi, > > do we have any new Sugar features to add to F11 other than Sugar 0.84? > Some areas I can think of: > > - server pieces like backup, etc > - fast user switching > - better integration with other desktops, for example by using the > same NM settings storage that GNOME, or by using the same presence > infrastructure (telepathy's mission control [0]), > - improved support or performance for live usb images, > - thin client improvements, > - more? > > If we have a substantial amount of value to bring to F11, may be a > good idea to have a session in FudCon explaining it. > > Regards, > > Tomeu > > [0] http://mission-control.sourceforge.net/ > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM, David Farning wrote: >> Great news, Fedora has invited Sugar Labs and OLPC to participate in >> FudCon[1] January 2009. >> >> Paul Frields, Fedora project leader, announces the purpose of FUDCon >> as, "FUDCon is usually meant to bring >> together Fedora community members to work on initiatives that will >> impact the next (and possibly future) release of our platform, Fedora >> 11 at the end of May 2009." >> >> By inviting us, that must mean that Fedora considers the initiatives >> at Sugar Labs and OLPC as having an impact in the future Fedora >> releases:) I know that I think that the work we are doing at Sugar >> Labs will have an impact, it is great to see the Fedora thinks so too. >> >> Working closely with Fedora will have a number of advantages for both >> Sugar Labs and OLPC. Fedora and Red Hat have been successful players >> in the software market for several years. >> >> Paul asks that we: >> 1. Sign up as participants on the FUDon11[1] web page. There will be >> limited funding available. >> >> 2. Get a rough estimate of how many people will be attending for Sugar Labs. >> >> 3. Start listing event Ideas on the webpage. >> >> Ed is setting up XoCamp to align with FUDCom. We should be hearing >> more on that later today! >> >> thanks >> david >> >> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon/FUDConF11 >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 16:31:43 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:31:43 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <20081205161649.GH16879@eggs> References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081205161649.GH16879@eggs> Message-ID: <4939576F.4010406@laptop.org> Hi Erik, My general impression is that its not used that often. Mostly because very few deployments have upgraded and some may choose to clean install when they do. The main value of it is for Beta testers and technical people who work on validating the new releases. Hopefully this feature is not needed by the time an image is qualified for deployment in the schools... Thanks, Greg S Erik Garrison wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: >> * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND >> at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now? >> GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider >> losing that feature if needed. tbd. > > I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in > deployments. > > Erik > From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 16:33:42 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:33:42 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: <49385D36.9080900@laptop.org> <20081204230746.GE16879@eggs> <49386995.3000809@laptop.org> <20081204235128.GK4009@ops-13.xades.com> <49387463.7040100@laptop.org> Message-ID: <493957E6.6050605@laptop.org> Hi Chris, That sounds good! Please call up Dr. Frankenstein and resurrect the beast for inspection :-) Can you also put a link to any description of it (or to the code, relevant e-mail threads or whatever is available) in the specifications section of the feature? Thanks, Greg S Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > > I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" > > Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should > > have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes. > > Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. > > Thanks, > > - Chris. From sverma at sfsu.edu Fri Dec 5 16:43:08 2008 From: sverma at sfsu.edu (Sameer Verma) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:43:08 -0800 Subject: Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5fb387c70812050843o3545207fjbb4d53d0a50b54db@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Ed McNierney wrote: > Chris - > > Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to > get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. This is a very important point from the adoption perspective. User adoption is largely driven by perception, as tied to their environment. This is the demand side of the equation. GNOME, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc are on the supply side and RAM disk space, processor etc. are our constraints. I'm going with the assumptions that 1) most G1G1 users already have a primary computer and 2) given that Windows has a large market share, G1G1'ers are Windows users. The problem is to assess the needs of G1G1 users and *then* try to fit GNOME, XFCE etc. all within the constraints mentioned above. IMO starting with the supply side will be problematic. Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ > While > there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure > we're providing what most users will want (users of this desktop, of > course). > > Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as > it's very important to move this topic into the real world of "what is > possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to > make?" > > - Ed > > > On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, "Chris Ball" wrote: >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel at lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Sat Dec 6 17:02:12 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:02:12 -0500 Subject: Production pictures and XO's at Ubuntu Loco meeting Message-ID: <493AB014.6060806@webpath.net> Just in case you're curious about what's going on around here with SD cards. Packaging the cards - http://on-disk.com/images/packaging1.jpg http://on-disk.com/images/production2.jpg I've also been entertaining requests for groups wanting to see the XO's up close and personal. Here's a bad photo of our two XO's at the Rochester NY Ubuntu LoCo Meet-up on Dec 4. One running Sugar, the other running Fedora. (Sorry you'll have to take my word for it. I seem to do too much talking when I'm at these get togethers.) http://on-disk.com/images/ubuntumeetup_08-12-04.jpg From mpgritti at gmail.com Thu Dec 11 12:02:20 2008 From: mpgritti at gmail.com (Marco Pesenti Gritti) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:02:20 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Gadget fedora package In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If someone has a chance to review this, it would be very useful. We need it to improve collaboration scalability/reliability with a jabber server. Thanks! Marco ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marco Pesenti Gritti Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM Subject: Gadget fedora package To: server-devel at lists.laptop.org Just fyi, I submitted a gadget fedora package for review. It's going to require ejabberd 2.0.2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475971 Marco From gdk at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 14:54:01 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:54:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reminder: Fedora OLPC meeting, 1pm Eastern US time Message-ID: On #fedora-olpc on freenode. Since the F10 testing on Fedora is largely completed, I think this meeting will focus on recalibrating our efforts to the next useful set of things we can be focusing on, and updating our action items to reflect that. --g -- Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] From todd at webpath.net Fri Dec 12 16:29:00 2008 From: todd at webpath.net (Todd Robinson) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: Speeding up Fedora on the XO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4942914C.4040605@webpath.net> Just a couple of notes to anyone offering advice in any forums on using the F10 XO release. Simply removing 'reset_overlay' from olpc.fth resulted in boot times dropping from around 7 minutes to about 3 3 minute boot time = 2 min to the login + 1 to load the desktop (rounded to the nearest minute) Also, by making the background a solid color (no graphic) and using the "Mist" theme things are much snapier. And by creating a file named .gtkrc-2.0 in the home directory which contains only one line /gtk-menu-popup-delay = 0/, the menus respond much quicker. Before I forget...installing flash plugin the "normal fedora way" is just about impossible without the unit freezing up at some point. And running the installer with firefox open results in a sure crash (not enough RAM). But this worked pretty easily for me: Go to http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ and download the RPM (don't select the option to install it, just save it. Then close the browser and open the "download" folder and click on the file you downloaded and install it. Obviously the reset_overlay has to be removed or when the unit is restarted it would need to be installed again. From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Fri Dec 12 18:28:18 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:28:18 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Att: Karlie] Message-ID: <4942AD42.6050606@webpath.net> this email sort of sums up what we talked about in the meeting yesterday. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Att: Karlie Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:03:09 +0000 From: nickgo[snip] To: on-disk[snip] Dear Karlie, I spoke to you on Wednesday by phone to inquire about returning the Fedora 10 for OLPC disk that I purchased from you through Amazon.com. The problem is, first, that the program keeps freezing when I try to do various things (such as downloading a plug-in for FireFox or attempting to zoom in or out of the browser view), and, second, that each time I boot up I get the following message: ?Nautilus cannot be used now due to an unexpected error from Bonobo when attempting to locate the factory. Killing bonobo-activation-server and restarting Nautilus may help fix the problem.? I don't know whether the fact that Nautilus can't be used has anything to do with the freezing up problem. As you suggested over the phone, I tried to get some support from Fedora 10. I posted my questions and concerns on their forum, as well as searching the OLPC forum, and the answer in both forums was, essentially, that Fedora 10 was too bulky for the XO computer. There was some sentiment in the OLPC forum that the disk I bought should not have been released (?irresponsible? was one term used), while in the Fedora 10 forum I got the response that Fedora 9 derivative would have been more compatible with the XO, but that perhaps I should try to ?disable some unneeded services.? Since you did say that you would be willing to accept a return of the disk, I would like to return it to you for a refund. I would appreciate your sending me the instructions for returning the disk to you. My Amazon order # was 104-0098588-2483405. Thanks, Nicholas Gordon From karlie_robinson at webpath.net Mon Dec 15 18:19:21 2008 From: karlie_robinson at webpath.net (Karlie Robinson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:19:21 -0500 Subject: One SD card Left Message-ID: <49469FA9.9010109@webpath.net> I expect to sell the last SD card today. Well at least the last of the initial 160 that were ordered. So we'll be sold out until we receive more SD cards on Jan 2. The cards will be in a back order/pre-sale type situation at On-Disk.com. I'm not sure what will happen to the Amazon.com listing while we're out of stock. I added another 25 with an "in stock" date of January 2, but I don't know if it will simply show out of stock or what. ~Karlie From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 21:42:48 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:42:48 -0500 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) Message-ID: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> Hi All, Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html To reiterate, the goal is one distribution with two Desktop Environments (Sugar and one "standard" one). I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we need and will fit on the XO NAND. Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on an XO? If so, can you record the packages and available space in the specifications section here? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO RTFM answers with URLs also welcome. Chris and Erik, Where are we with getting a proof of concept for this feature in place? You both mentioned some work in this area (Chris on resurrecting something Scott did and Erik on other work). Let me know the status and next steps. The hard part will come when we need to pick the bare minimum set of functionality. I especially want to know what additional libraries/RPMs/features we need to install beyond what we alrady have in XO 8.2.0. Thanks, Greg S From gdk at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 00:25:35 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:25:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Change to bundlebuilder breaking Sugar packaging guidelines? Message-ID: Hi folks. I've been working on My Very Own First Activity (yaaay!) but ran into some problems (boooo.) So I'm trying to package XoIRC, and thanks to dgilmore's help, I finally got it to build, but it looks like a change in bundlebuilder's behavior has led to some... oddness. Speficially this bit: def install(self, prefix): self.builder.build() activity_path = os.path.join(prefix, 'share', 'sugar', 'activities', self.config.bundle_root_dir) Which means a couple of things. First, the proper %install section, which once looked like this: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{sugaractivitydir} python setup.py install $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{sugaractivitydir} ...now appears to look like this: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{sugaractivitydir} python setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} I'm surprised that no one has found this -- I don't know when those changes to bundlebuilder went in, but anyone who would have tried to build a new activity RPM using the old invocation of setup.py would have gotten breakage. In fact, I think this implies that anyone who rebuilds any newly-rebuilt bundle *will* get this breakage... am I right? What was the reason for this addition to bundlebuilder, does anyone know? I'm going to change the Sugar packaging guidelines here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SugarActivityGuidelines ...unless someone tells me that bundlebuilder's new behavior is in error. --g -- Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] From cjb at laptop.org Tue Dec 16 17:56:47 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:56:47 -0500 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> (pgf@laptop.org's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:47:43 -0500") References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: Hi, > (but seriously: we only need to add to what we have -- we don't > need to start from scratch, rebuilding and/or subtracting from > fedora.) In particular, I think: * take a Joyride build * yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment" * http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/cscott/sugar-xfce-control should be portable to GNOME in a mechanical (s/xfce/gnome/g) fashion. * follow the rest of the instructions in: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce#Install_Sugar.2FXFCE_Control_Panel to launch GNOME if it's been selected in the control panel * write a GNOME menu item/desktop icon to switch back to Sugar - Chris. -- Chris Ball From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 18:12:30 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:12:30 -0500 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) In-Reply-To: <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: <4947EF8E.3080907@laptop.org> Hi Paul, I mean slimmed down Fedora (probably shouldn't even call it Fedora at that point) plus Gnome, KDE of XFCE window manager. Is that precise enough? If its as easy as yum install gnome on top of 8.2.0 image, that would be great! Thanks, Greg S pgf at laptop.org wrote: > greg wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to > > run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html > > > > To reiterate, the goal is one distribution with two Desktop Environments > > (Sugar and one "standard" one). > > > > I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we > > need and will fit on the XO NAND. > > > > Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on > > an XO? > > yes. install any joyride. > > i'm being flip, of course, but please be precise. our installs > _are_ "slimmed down fedora" releases. and sugar _is_ a window > manager. > > (but seriously: we only need to add to what we have -- we don't > need to start from scratch, rebuilding and/or subtracting from > fedora.) > > paul > =--------------------- > paul fox, pgf at laptop.org > give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.laptop.com/xo > From cjb at laptop.org Tue Dec 16 19:10:15 2008 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:10:15 -0500 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: (Chris Ball's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:56:47 -0500") References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: Hi, > * yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment" I gave this a try with latest Joyride (2592), and get a couple of depsolving problems. Maybe one of the RPM ninjas on fedora-olpc-list could take a look at how we could resolve these? Alternatively, maybe we should be hand-picking the list of packages to add, since I see some deps in there we don't want, e.g.: --> Processing Dependency: texlive = 2007-35.fc10 for package: kpathsea --> Processing Dependency: httpd >= 2.2.0 for package: gnome-user-share Here's the list of dependency errors: --> Finished Dependency Resolution gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems -> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball From pbrobinson at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 21:58:00 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:58:00 +0100 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO In-Reply-To: References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812161358n18c670ebj7116bedeadf650f4@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > * yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment" > > I gave this a try with latest Joyride (2592), and get a couple of > depsolving problems. Maybe one of the RPM ninjas on fedora-olpc-list > could take a look at how we could resolve these? Alternatively, maybe > we should be hand-picking the list of packages to add, since I see some > deps in there we don't want, e.g.: > > --> Processing Dependency: texlive = 2007-35.fc10 for package: kpathsea > --> Processing Dependency: httpd >= 2.2.0 for package: gnome-user-share > > Here's the list of dependency errors: > > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed > by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > -> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed > by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is > needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is > needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Do you have an old OLPC-3/8.2 repo hanging around. Those should all be either fc10 (unless they weren't recompiled in the F-10 rawhide) or olpc4 so you shouldn't be seeing any olpc3/fc9 packages. Peter From pbrobinson at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 22:00:36 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:00:36 +0100 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) In-Reply-To: <4947EF8E.3080907@laptop.org> References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <2129.1229449663@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4947EF8E.3080907@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812161400i2f260460n6246281963f6f138@mail.gmail.com> > Hi Paul, > > I mean slimmed down Fedora (probably shouldn't even call it Fedora at that > point) plus Gnome, KDE of XFCE window manager. Is that precise enough? > > If its as easy as yum install gnome on top of 8.2.0 image, that would be > great! It should be that simple with some caveats..... well one word really. dependencies! Peter From pbrobinson at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 23:32:58 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:32:58 +0100 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) In-Reply-To: <20081216172745.GH30108@eggs> References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <20081216172745.GH30108@eggs> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812161532r80e3addl11548265c6bacf78@mail.gmail.com> >> The hard part will come when we need to pick the bare minimum set of >> functionality. I especially want to know what additional >> libraries/RPMs/features we need to install beyond what we alrady have in >> XO 8.2.0. > > I have been quite frustrated with the Fedora toolset in this regard. > Getting a bare minimum of functionality is not something which these > tools are typically used to do. The experience of building a Fedora > system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, > where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is > well-supported by the community. > > It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora > community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt > like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which > will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a > build script. > > (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue > is good attention.) Fedora has a set of tools now called Appliance-Tools [1] for creating this sort of thing. You can use it to specify a minimal build and then pull in the extra stuff you want, specify repositories etc. I used it to build a joyride VM I could use for slicing and dicing package deps and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it helped. I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a fine line. I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of weeks so will have limited connectivity. I have no issue with the flames, but would much prefer to help you out than flame back :-D Peter [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApplianceTools https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApplianceTools From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 00:21:32 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:21:32 +0100 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) In-Reply-To: <20081216235147.GP30108@eggs> References: <4946CF58.8020302@laptop.org> <20081216172745.GH30108@eggs> <5256d0b0812161532r80e3addl11548265c6bacf78@mail.gmail.com> <20081216235147.GP30108@eggs> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812161621u4acb70cch92250f2606d4bde2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Erik, >> Fedora has a set of tools now called Appliance-Tools [1] for creating >> this sort of thing. You can use it to specify a minimal build and then >> pull in the extra stuff you want, specify repositories etc. I used it >> to build a joyride VM I could use for slicing and dicing package deps >> and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes >> to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file >> somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it >> produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out >> why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it >> helped. > > I heard about these (appliance tools) from Reuben. Any documentation > you can post would be highly useful. There are a lot of ways to achieve > a similar result, and a lot of people appear to have duplicated effort > as a result. I think this is good, as it gives us some degree of > selection moving forward. Eventually we need to coalesce effort around > one system if we are going to update OLPC's build infrastructure > successfully. The kick start file can be found on my fedora space [1] and the commands I used were essentially appliance-creator --name OLPC-4 --config olpc-4.ks and if you use virtmanage the following command to import it. virt-image OLPC-4/OLPC-4.xml All these sort of tools are what's used to create fedora. Things like mock and koji from the build system side of things and livecd-tools and appliance-tools and the like to build the livecds etc. So from a development point of view they're probably the direction to be headed. jkatz who is around on fedora-devel (and devel at laptop too I think) would be the one to shed more light in this direction. > FWIW: The boot issue might be related to nash's mount command not > working for jffs2. The quick and dirty way to get around it was to drop > busybox into an initramfs and change the root partition mount line in > the init script to use busybox's mount command instead of nash's. Found > nash extremely unweildy and am curious why it is used in the initramfs. > The initrd I produced is: > http://dev.laptop.org/~erik/rpmxo/initrd.img-2.6.25-20080925.1.olpc.f10b654367d7065.busybox > (It is built against the stock 8.2-767 kernel using stock Fedora > initramfs-tools, I just unpacked it and dropped busybox and its library > deps in and made the afformentioned hack to init.) I specified a ext3 fs so it would be easier to deal with on my laptop so it might not be so easy :( but I think it might be the device I used or something. >> I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with >> packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to >> work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the >> distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a >> fine line. > > Yes. This seems to be endemic, but it appears to be generally a problem > for systems which don't get stretched in this direction (I have seen the > same kind of bloat while testing Ubuntu builds). Its one that quite a few in Fedora are well aware of and people are slowly moving towards. There are a number of SIGs (special interest groups) that are looking to reduce them from different directions. I also hope the push from GNOME to get rid of libgnome/bonobo/gnomevfs etc should settle down and reduce a lot of them before long too. eg most gnome 2.24 now don't depend on gnomevfs but some of the bigger apps like firefox always trail. >> I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next >> couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of >> weeks so will have limited connectivity. > > Great! Any way you'd like to help. Paring down dependencies is > crucial. 'Minimal' package lists would be also very helpful. I am > hacking mine together and I'm worried I might miss critical things that > would be obvious to a more experienced Fedora developer. Critical packages? They should be auto pulled in by yum. Or do you mean by paring down dependencies in actual packages. If the later let me know what the packages are so I can review changes and see if we can't just get them upstream (in a lot of cases we can split some of the deps out to sub packages in other cases they might be superfluous). Or maybe I've missed the point too :) > One package-level curiosity I've had is how to auto-remove packages > which were automatically installed to satisfy the dependencies of a > manually installed package after said packge is removed. Well in the case of appliance tools that create images on the fly it just won't pull them in. For already installed systems I'm not sure there is for auto remove but there are some tools that identify unused deps. I have a note of some of them somewhere, I'll try and dig details out. Cheers, Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/olpc/ From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 14:37:55 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:37:55 -0500 Subject: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO Message-ID: <49490EC3.2090104@laptop.org> Hi Peter, Thanks a lot for your help! FTI all, I am trying to capture the useful pieces of info from this thread on the feature page: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO Feel free to update that or use it for your reference. Thanks, Greg S **************** Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:21:32 +0100 From: "Peter Robinson" Subject: Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO) To: "Erik Garrison" Cc: OLPC Development , greg at laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com Message-ID: <5256d0b0812161621u4acb70cch92250f2606d4bde2 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Erik, >> Fedora has a set of tools now called Appliance-Tools [1] for creating >> this sort of thing. You can use it to specify a minimal build and then >> pull in the extra stuff you want, specify repositories etc. I used it >> to build a joyride VM I could use for slicing and dicing package deps >> and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes >> to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file >> somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it >> produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out >> why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it >> helped. > > I heard about these (appliance tools) from Reuben. Any documentation > you can post would be highly useful. There are a lot of ways to achieve > a similar result, and a lot of people appear to have duplicated effort > as a result. I think this is good, as it gives us some degree of > selection moving forward. Eventually we need to coalesce effort around > one system if we are going to update OLPC's build infrastructure > successfully. The kick start file can be found on my fedora space [1] and the commands I used were essentially appliance-creator --name OLPC-4 --config olpc-4.ks and if you use virtmanage the following command to import it. virt-image OLPC-4/OLPC-4.xml All these sort of tools are what's used to create fedora. Things like mock and koji from the build system side of things and livecd-tools and appliance-tools and the like to build the livecds etc. So from a development point of view they're probably the direction to be headed. jkatz who is around on fedora-devel (and devel at laptop too I think) would be the one to shed more light in this direction. > FWIW: The boot issue might be related to nash's mount command not > working for jffs2. The quick and dirty way to get around it was to drop > busybox into an initramfs and change the root partition mount line in > the init script to use busybox's mount command instead of nash's. Found > nash extremely unweildy and am curious why it is used in the initramfs. > The initrd I produced is: > http://dev.laptop.org/~erik/rpmxo/initrd.img-2.6.25-20080925.1.olpc.f10b654367d7065.busybox > (It is built against the stock 8.2-767 kernel using stock Fedora > initramfs-tools, I just unpacked it and dropped busybox and its library > deps in and made the afformentioned hack to init.) I specified a ext3 fs so it would be easier to deal with on my laptop so it might not be so easy :( but I think it might be the device I used or something. >> I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with >> packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to >> work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the >> distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a >> fine line. > > Yes. This seems to be endemic, but it appears to be generally a problem > for systems which don't get stretched in this direction (I have seen the > same kind of bloat while testing Ubuntu builds). Its one that quite a few in Fedora are well aware of and people are slowly moving towards. There are a number of SIGs (special interest groups) that are looking to reduce them from different directions. I also hope the push from GNOME to get rid of libgnome/bonobo/gnomevfs etc should settle down and reduce a lot of them before long too. eg most gnome 2.24 now don't depend on gnomevfs but some of the bigger apps like firefox always trail. >> I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next >> couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of >> weeks so will have limited connectivity. > > Great! Any way you'd like to help. Paring down dependencies is > crucial. 'Minimal' package lists would be also very helpful. I am > hacking mine together and I'm worried I might miss critical things that > would be obvious to a more experienced Fedora developer. Critical packages? They should be auto pulled in by yum. Or do you mean by paring down dependencies in actual packages. If the later let me know what the packages are so I can review changes and see if we can't just get them upstream (in a lot of cases we can split some of the deps out to sub packages in other cases they might be superfluous). Or maybe I've missed the point too :) > One package-level curiosity I've had is how to auto-remove packages > which were automatically installed to satisfy the dependencies of a > manually installed package after said packge is removed. Well in the case of appliance tools that create images on the fly it just won't pull them in. For already installed systems I'm not sure there is for auto remove but there are some tools that identify unused deps. I have a note of some of them somewhere, I'll try and dig details out. Cheers, Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/olpc/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fedora-olpc-list mailing list Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list End of Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 14 *********************************************** From sebastian at when.com Wed Dec 17 21:42:22 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:42:22 +0100 Subject: Announcing: New Fedora Sugar Spin Release Message-ID: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> Hi everybody, here is a new release of our Fedora Sugar Spin! It has been some time since the last release has taken place, so there are some updates to report. * The spin is now F10 based and includes the recent updates * Language support has been dropped for now to save space From now on, sugar-presence-service is also included, which means that you can test the connection features by adding a server to your settings. The procedure is being explained in a blog post here [1]. * A number of new activities has also appeared, such as... - sugar-analyze - sugar-jukebox - sugar-memorize - sugar-turtleart You want to have a look at the latest spin? Here you go! http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/olpc/0.82-2/i686/sugar-spin.iso Finally, the SHA1SUM is available here [2]. --Sebastian [1] http://gregdek.livejournal.com/41616.html [2] http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/olpc/0.82-2/i686/SHA1SUM From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 13:41:06 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:41:06 -0500 Subject: Announcing: New Fedora Sugar Spin Release In-Reply-To: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> References: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> Message-ID: <494A52F2.6090802@redhat.com> Sebastian Dziallas wrote: > Hi everybody, > > here is a new release of our Fedora Sugar Spin! It has been some time > since the last release has taken place, so there are some updates to > report. Is the latest kickstart in the kickstarts repo? -- bk From sebastian at when.com Thu Dec 18 14:10:24 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:10:24 +0100 Subject: [Sugar-devel] Announcing: New Fedora Sugar Spin Release In-Reply-To: <494A52F2.6090802@redhat.com> References: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> <494A52F2.6090802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <494A59D0.6080200@when.com> Bryan Kearney wrote: > Sebastian Dziallas wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> here is a new release of our Fedora Sugar Spin! It has been some time >> since the last release has taken place, so there are some updates to >> report. > > Is the latest kickstart in the kickstarts repo? > > -- bk Yep, it is. :) --Sebastian From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 15:00:26 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:00:26 -0500 Subject: Announcing: New Fedora Sugar Spin Release In-Reply-To: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> References: <4949723E.2060408@when.com> Message-ID: <494A658A.4050404@redhat.com> Sebastian Dziallas wrote: > Hi everybody, > > here is a new release of our Fedora Sugar Spin! It has been some time > since the last release has taken place, so there are some updates to > report. > > * The spin is now F10 based and includes the recent updates > * Language support has been dropped for now to save space If you are fan of kvm and would like to build and run a sugar image (on F9 or F10) based on Sebastian's work, check out: http://www.thincrust.net/ace-examples.html The "Sugar appliance" example is his stuff tailored with the livecd sutff yanked out so that it will run better as a standalone image. -- bk From gdk at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 16:04:22 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:04:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reminder: meeting today, 1pm Message-ID: Agenda: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Tasks See you all on irc.freenode.net, #fedora-olpc, at 1pm eastern US time. --g -- Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] From martin.langhoff at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 19:15:43 2008 From: martin.langhoff at gmail.com (Martin Langhoff) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:15:43 -0200 Subject: Booting F9 on XO? Message-ID: <46a038f90812181115h7204f2efx6ce541d1c1f70134@mail.gmail.com> Now that we have F10 booting on the XO, and we understand the challenges around that, is it possible to boot a barebones F9, "backporting" whatever cleverness was applied to F10? Is anyone interested in trying? It would open an opportunity to lots of small schools that need a rugged server. The XS is likely to stay on F9 for a couple of minor releases -- until I find a good opportunity for a rebase, being a small team is hard :-/ -- so if F9 can be twisted into booting off and SD card, we get a valuable alternative in the form of XO + SD card + USB drive (for storage). cheers, martin -- martin.langhoff at gmail.com martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff From reuben at laptop.org Thu Dec 18 19:47:01 2008 From: reuben at laptop.org (Reuben K. Caron) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:47:01 -0500 Subject: Booting F9 on XO? In-Reply-To: <46a038f90812181115h7204f2efx6ce541d1c1f70134@mail.gmail.com> References: <46a038f90812181115h7204f2efx6ce541d1c1f70134@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494AA8B5.1060008@laptop.org> On SD Card: http://www.reactivated.net/weblog/archives/2008/08/regular-linux-desktops-on-the-xo/ http://www.reactivated.net/weblog/archives/2008/08/followup-notes-on-xo-alternate-desktops/ Martin Langhoff wrote: > Now that we have F10 booting on the XO, and we understand the > challenges around that, is it possible to boot a barebones F9, > "backporting" whatever cleverness was applied to F10? > > Is anyone interested in trying? It would open an opportunity > to lots of small schools that need a rugged server. > > The XS is likely to stay on F9 for a couple of minor releases -- until > I find a good opportunity for a rebase, being a small team is hard :-/ > -- so if F9 can be twisted into booting off and SD card, we get a > valuable alternative in the form of XO + SD card + USB drive (for > storage). > > cheers, > > > martin > From martin.langhoff at gmail.com Fri Dec 19 13:32:18 2008 From: martin.langhoff at gmail.com (Martin Langhoff) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:32:18 -0200 Subject: [Server-devel] stability of XS 0.5 In-Reply-To: <196348a20812181424j537c322fu2f3d92c3dff0faeb@mail.gmail.com> References: <5fb387c70812172248q11b3355et90ae35d8ac10ae64@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90812180342y39fc0ce6y2bdc7dc2615f7c3@mail.gmail.com> <5fb387c70812180912o557b3c4bya86a82b9d66c438c@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90812180946h3b4cc48ds5d6259c99b9b74d5@mail.gmail.com> <196348a20812180958l762e5e9asea970c456db97811@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90812181007p3a15c7fbi9cbccc7348fe5277@mail.gmail.com> <196348a20812181424j537c322fu2f3d92c3dff0faeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46a038f90812190532j3f94db6cw1ab68a1870877d94@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Anna wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Martin Langhoff > wrote: > I followed the instructions here for Fedora 9, but using the XS 0.5 install > CD instead. > http://www.reactivated.net/weblog/archives/2008/08/regular-linux-desktops-on-the-xo/ > > Also, in the kernel config file in /XO-alt-distro/kernel/2.6.25.15-XOaltF9-1 That's the main thing that worries me - the kernel. I'd like to use a standard F9 kernel -- when I talk about "backporting cleverness", it's about applying some fixes that IIRC Jeremy Katz applied to the initrd that F10 carries. We need a standard Fedora kernel because - we don't need all the latest cleverness in power saving - we need as many drivers for network and usb kit as possible - we don't have easy access to kernel folk - Deepak is kept busy with laptop concerns > I enabled the bonding module before I ran the sd_fixup script. At the end, > it failed to do the chroot thing, so I looked at the chroot.sh script in > /XO-alt-distro/distro/fedora-9 and then manually did: > > sed -i "/VolGroup00/d" /media/disk/etc/fstab > cp olpc.fth /media/disk/boot Alternatively, you can use a more conventional disk partitioning scheme :-) > I don't have a USB to ethernet adaptor, so I downloaded and put the rpm in > /root before I disconnected the 8 GB SD card. I booted up on an XO and did > the usual XS stuff, including installing the rpm, and got what looked like a > working XS, with the exception of failure to load the extra iptables > modules. I booted up a regular XO, got an IP on msh0, and then successfully > registered to the XSXO. Moodle looked like it was working on the XSXO, but > when I go to http://schoolserver/moodle, all I get on the regular XO is a > bunch of error messages related to scorm. Overall, promising results :-) The iptables modules perhaps aren't included. That Moodle's failed is odd! /var/log/moodle/ will have an installation log that probably tells us what went wrong, can you post it. > I haven't tried ejabberd yet, though I suspect the little XSXO might be a > little underpowered to handle that with too many users. It should cope with 20~30 users. Simultaneous use with Moodle might need further tuning, but it can be made to work. > At any rate, this needs testing definitely. But that's a great start :-) > associated with an XS, this might be a solution. Boa does work on a regular > XO, but I don't know if that would work within a simple mesh environment. We're still a bit tied to apache, can boa work with mod_python's low level hooks? > I bet this would even work on an XO with a broken screen if it was otherwise > going to go unused, as you could either ssh in to do stuff or simply swap > the SD card temporarily. Using ssh might be a better idea anyway, as the > console display is very, very small. Yeah. OTOH, I woudn't want to promote cannibalising the XS ;-) we'll see where this leads... cheers, m -- martin.langhoff at gmail.com martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Dec 21 02:17:55 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:17:55 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [nylug-talk] Thoughts on the XO In-Reply-To: <18d205ed0812192058q11e9c289tca063a4d13ad5c2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <18d205ed0812192058q11e9c289tca063a4d13ad5c2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, a successful LUG event with the XO! :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregg Levine Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:58 PM Subject: [nylug-talk] Thoughts on the XO To: NYLUG Talk Hello! Obviously Matt would want us to believe that we, (or I) would happen to be impressed by his presentation at the meeting and the holiday party for the 17. Well I was. However I found the XO laptop that was presented to us by Jon to be an excellent unit, and certainly worthy of the praise that people are offering it. And I've just completed examining the Amazon page for the unit, I must say I am impressed by their efforts, the photos of the units being used by the young people were well taken. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature was once found posting rude messages in English in the Moscow subway." _____________________________________________________________________________ Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org The nylug-talk mailing list is at nylug-talk at nylug.org The list archive is at http://nylug.org/pipermail/nylug-talk To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-talk -- Jon Stanley Fedora Bug Wrangler jstanley at fedoraproject.org From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 17:57:23 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:57:23 -0500 Subject: List of packages in XO SW and not in Fedora 10 Message-ID: <495A6103.8080605@laptop.org> Hi Greg D or Dennis, Can you post a list of packages which are in XO Software but not "upstream" yet? I wrote down "koji latest-pkg dist-olpc4 --all" from our last IRC meeting and documented it here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Rebase_on_Fedora_10 but I don't know where or how to execute that. If you can run it and get a list and post it to that wiki page that would be great. Or you could link to the documentation which shows how anyone can generate that list. I want to have this in hand before I talk to John P at Fudcon January 8 so any help appreciated. Thanks, Greg S From gregsmitholpc at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 18:10:50 2008 From: gregsmitholpc at gmail.com (Greg Smith) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:10:50 -0500 Subject: Fedora Desktop on XO Message-ID: <495A642A.1060403@laptop.org> Hi Peter et al, I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he tried to install Gnome. The issue and thread are documented in the specifications section here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO What do we do next when we get a list of "dependency errors"? Paul, I believe that you got XFCE running. Can you add the description of what you did to make that happen to this page? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO I may have a little time tomorrow to try it out if its not too complicated. Thanks, Greg S From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 04:09:46 2008 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:09:46 +0900 Subject: List of packages in XO SW and not in Fedora 10 In-Reply-To: <495A6103.8080605@laptop.org> References: <495A6103.8080605@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b0812302009v476383dnb5c4f332fc228b9c@mail.gmail.com> Hi Greg, > Can you post a list of packages which are in XO Software but not "upstream" > yet? > > I wrote down "koji latest-pkg dist-olpc4 --all" from our last IRC meeting > and documented it here: > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Rebase_on_Fedora_10 On a Fedora based machine you need to do a 'yum install koji' and from there you can run the command above from the command line. > but I don't know where or how to execute that. > > If you can run it and get a list and post it to that wiki page that would be > great. Or you could link to the documentation which shows how anyone can > generate that list. > > I want to have this in hand before I talk to John P at Fudcon January 8 so > any help appreciated. Peter