Re: Fedora 10 on XO
by Greg Smith
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
>
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
by Greg Smith
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
>
15 years, 5 months
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FudCon January 2009
by Walter Bender
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 <tomeu(a)sugarlabs.org> 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 <dfarning(a)sugarlabs.org> 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(a)lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel(a)lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fedora-olpc-list Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6
by Walter Bender
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, <fedora-olpc-list-request(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Send Fedora-olpc-list mailing list submissions to
> fedora-olpc-list(a)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(a)redhat.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fedora-olpc-list-owner(a)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 <gregsmitholpc(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: Martin Dengler <martin(a)martindengler.com>
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, Erik Garrison <erik(a)laptop.org>,
> fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <49387463.7040100(a)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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: greg(a)laptop.org
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <m3ljuvxxgb.fsf(a)pullcord.laptop.org>
> 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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:11:30 -0600
> From: Mark Bauer <mark(a)zjunk.net>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <76B3195B-B39E-4FB5-B204-92812770A1AB(a)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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
>> Fedora-olpc-list(a)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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: pgf(a)laptop.org
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <m3hc5jxqsp.fsf(a)pullcord.laptop.org>
> 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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:28:40 -0500
> From: Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: david(a)lang.hm
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, pgf(a)laptop.org,
> fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <m3bpvrxpuf.fsf(a)pullcord.laptop.org>
> 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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:36:28 +0100
> From: Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian(a)when.com>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, pgf(a)laptop.org,
> fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <4938BDDC.1010106(a)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" <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: "Chris Ball" <cjb(a)laptop.org>
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, pgf(a)laptop.org,
> fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID:
> <5256d0b0812050217t366633bcie874786755e2e6e1(a)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" <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: sdz(a)fedoraproject.org
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID:
> <5256d0b0812050222u59ab50f4tc8b051bdc3da33d8(a)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 <ed(a)laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> To: Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>, Paul Fox <pgf(a)laptop.org>
> Cc: devel(a)lists.laptop.org, fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID: <C55E871E.1EA18%ed(a)laptop.org>
> 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" <cjb(a)laptop.org> 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(a)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
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
by Chris Ball
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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
by Chris Ball
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 <cjb(a)laptop.org>
15 years, 5 months
Fedora 10 on XO
by Greg Smith
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
15 years, 5 months
