Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
by Peter Robinson
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think
> there are significant differences in system resource consumption.
I don't believe the decision has been made yet.
> I ask because the impression I had from informal tests was that a system
> booting into GNOME was consuming about 3x as much RAM on boot (read via
> ps_mem.py). My impression was that the benefit was not eaten up the
> moment the I started running GTK applications; it seemed that under XFCE
> I could open a fair number more Firefox tabs without running into lockup
> than under GNOME. I know these aren't great metrics so I'll run some
> more rigorous tests after we have two systems side-by-side for
> comparison.
>
> Even though XFCE is not a Fedora-supported desktop environment, it is
> readily supported in other distributions. We could easily borrow the
> polish that XUbuntu has applied to its distribution and get a system
> equally usable as GNOME.
I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install
option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE
spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ . It
is certainly not the main desktop they support but it is no less
supported than any other desktop. I think the XFCE SIG (Special
Interest Group would somewhat disagree
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Xfce
Peter
15 years, 4 months
Re: List of packages in XO SW and not in Fedora 10
by Peter Robinson
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
<marcopg(a)sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hippo-canvas-0.3.0-5.20081014svn.olpc4 dist-olpc4 tomeu
>
> This might have ABI incompatible changes. I suppose online-desktop in
> F10 is still using the old expose API. Tomeu, can you confirm if this
> is the case or if pushing a new hippo-canvas release in F10 is
> supposed to work fine?
Well it builds fine in the first instance but what other packages use
it so I can at least check if they build against it?
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1037129
>>> hulahop-0.4.7-1.olpc4 dist-olpc4 ausil
>
> This one is fine to push in F10 afaict.
I've merged to changes from the OLPC-4 branch into F-10 branch and it
compiles fine. I've submitted it as an update to Fedora 10. Once it
filters through I'll remove all the files from the OLPC-4 branch so it
doesn't get used and we stick with the F-10 one. Any objections?
Cheers,
Peter
15 years, 4 months
F10 XO cards are only at On-Disk
by Karlie Robinson
Since G1G1 has ended I've pulled the F10 SD cards from Amazon.com, but
they will still be available at
http://on-disk.com/product_info.php/products_id/595
I thought you'd like to see the comments left at Amazon - most are
general and won't be of interest to you, but there are a couple you'll
probably want to address even if it's not until F11. (note - links,
Order ID, Rater Email, and Rater Role have been deleted for privacy reasons)
~Karlie
*Date*
*Rating*
*Comments*
12/28/08 *5* Quick Shipment and item as described. Will purchase
again. Thanks
12/26/08 *5* Great delivered as promised
12/26/08 *1* Fedora 10 present. Works on OLPC with only a developer
key: not present. Works on OLPC at all? No. The kernel used produces an
immediate reboot in all cases tested.
12/25/08 *1* The software kept freezing my OLPC laptop, whenever I
tried something like downloading a plug-in for my browser. Going to the
forums for help, I found that there was a general consensus that the
software had problems, had perhaps been rushed out to market too
quickly, and was too big for the machine.
12/19/08 *5* no
12/9/08 *5* no problems.
12/9/08 *5* Excellent service, software works as expected.
12/5/08 *5* Thank you .I now have got 2 xo laptops for my 2 small
grandkids.There wonting to play (Webkinz)Mrs Burns
12/4/08 *5* great service, order received 5 days before scheduled
delivery
15 years, 4 months
Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
by Chris Ball
Hi,
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
> think there are significant differences in system resource
> consumption.
We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last
month. I suggested XFCE, and was persuaded that the disk image size
of DebXO+GNOME is not significantly different than DebXO+XFCE, and that
both run fine without swap, suggesting that we might be able to pull off
GNOME on Fedora. If we find it unbearable, I'm fine with using XFCE
instead, but my impression was that GNOME is preferred.
(For the record, I'm not against investigating adding some swap for 9.1
now that we have NAND partitioning available. We'd have to be more sure
of our estimate that it won't significantly shorten the lifespan of the
flash chip, though. What do people think?)
> Even though XFCE is not a Fedora-supported desktop environment, it
> is readily supported in other distributions. We could easily
> borrow the polish that XUbuntu has applied to its distribution and
> get a system equally usable as GNOME.
Scott previously made a build stream ("faster") that contains both Sugar
and XFCE and a way to switch between them, so this integration work has
already been done.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
15 years, 4 months
Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
by Chris Ball
Hi,
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE.
> I think there are significant differences in system resource
> consumption.
Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth
for a while, could you help us come to/make a decision about whether to
target GNOME or XFCE for the 9.1 desktop feature? Thanks.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
15 years, 4 months
Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
by Greg DeKoenigsberg
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Erik Garrison wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> > How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
>> > that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
>> > requirements.
>>
>> Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,
>> both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-evince, both
>> ship the same evince backend shared libraries). Also, it turns out
>> that evince-dvi is responsible for bringing in texlive, via kpathsea.
>>
>> Here's the command I'm using now:
>>
>> -bash-3.2# yum -y install NetworkManager-gnome alacarte at-spi bug-buddy
>> control-center eog file-roller gcalctool gdm gdm-user-switch-applet
>> gedit gnome-applets gnome-audio gnome-backgrounds gnome-media
>> gnome-panel gnome-power-manager gnome-screensaver gnome-session
>> gnome-system-monitor gnome-terminal gnome-user-docs gnome-utils
>> gok gthumb gucharmap gvfs-archive gvfs-fuse gvfs-gphoto2 gvfs-smb
>> libcanberra-gtk2 metacity mousetweaks nautilus orca
>> pulseaudio-esound-compat pulseaudio-module-gconf pulseaudio-module-x11
>> scim-bridge-gtk xdg-user-dirs-gtk yelp zenity
>>
>> Total size: 152 M
>>
>> After that completes, you can put "exec gnome-session" in ~/.xsession
>> and restart X to land in a very normal looking F10 GNOME desktop.
>> (I haven't tried to do much with it yet. Sound works, at least.)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> - Chris.
>
> Sweet.
>
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think
> there are significant differences in system resource consumption.
A fine question indeed.
> I ask because the impression I had from informal tests was that a system
> booting into GNOME was consuming about 3x as much RAM on boot (read via
> ps_mem.py). My impression was that the benefit was not eaten up the
> moment the I started running GTK applications; it seemed that under XFCE
> I could open a fair number more Firefox tabs without running into lockup
> than under GNOME. I know these aren't great metrics so I'll run some
> more rigorous tests after we have two systems side-by-side for
> comparison.
>
> Even though XFCE is not a Fedora-supported desktop environment...
Note that this does *not* mean that Xfce is not available in Fedora.
There are Xfce spins built for Fedora that you can download and run right
now, and I'm sure they're comparable, and Sebastian Dziallas is working on
making a more "official" spin right now. It's all a question of what
"official" means, and that changes in direct proportion to number of
users.
> ...it is readily supported in other distributions. We could easily
> borrow the polish that XUbuntu has applied to its distribution and get a
> system equally usable as GNOME.
--g
--
Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer!
[[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]
15 years, 4 months
Re: Attending FUDCon? Please read.
by Greg Smith
Hi Greg D,
I added a hackfest to the Friday list covering Fedora/OLPC roadmap synch
and plan for making all XO code upstream.
I'm not sure how we gather but I'll plan to camp out there all day Friday.
Believe it or not, I haven't been inside an MIT building since I played
D&D in the tunnels in the 70s!
I look forward to seeing The Institute as a real guest for the first
time :-)
Thanks,
Greg S
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:24:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk(a)redhat.com>
> Subject: Attending FUDCon? Please read.
> To: Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> Message-ID:
> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901051459000.31495(a)localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> OK, folks. We've got only a few days left until FUDCon, and we should
> have a pretty strong OLPC presence there. Let's make sure we're using it
> properly.
>
> Seems to me we need to have discussions/hackfests on:
>
> * xo packaging versus rpm. What should we be doing here? Should we be
> packaging every xo as an rpm, or not? Should we be building "xo bundles"
> as RPMs? It would be a good idea to agree on how to spend our scarce
> resources here.
>
> * olpc/fedora roadmap discussions. Greg Smith, I know you're planning on
> meeting with John Poelstra, but it might be helpful to run this as a
> hackfest/planning session on Friday.
>
> * f10/olpc4 sprint. Everyone get together and pore over the packages in
> olpc4, figure out why they're forked, and put together the plan for
> unforking each and every one of them.
>
> Any others? My point here is that we should get them on THIS page, asap:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon/FUDConF11#Hackfest_sessions
>
> I will volunteer to lead the xo/rpm discussion, and have added it to the
> wiki. I'd love to see some other sessions on the wiki soon, hint hint.
> :)
>
> --g
>
> --
> Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer!
> [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]
>
>
15 years, 4 months
Re: Attending FUDCon? Please read.
by Mikus Grinbergs
> Seems to me we need to have discussions/hackfests on:
> * xo packaging versus rpm.
My comments to that topic:
- .rpm packages get installed by root; .xo packages by user
- .xo packages might be deployed via "customization stick" method
mikus
15 years, 4 months
Attending FUDCon? Please read.
by Greg DeKoenigsberg
OK, folks. We've got only a few days left until FUDCon, and we should
have a pretty strong OLPC presence there. Let's make sure we're using it
properly.
Seems to me we need to have discussions/hackfests on:
* xo packaging versus rpm. What should we be doing here? Should we be
packaging every xo as an rpm, or not? Should we be building "xo bundles"
as RPMs? It would be a good idea to agree on how to spend our scarce
resources here.
* olpc/fedora roadmap discussions. Greg Smith, I know you're planning on
meeting with John Poelstra, but it might be helpful to run this as a
hackfest/planning session on Friday.
* f10/olpc4 sprint. Everyone get together and pore over the packages in
olpc4, figure out why they're forked, and put together the plan for
unforking each and every one of them.
Any others? My point here is that we should get them on THIS page, asap:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon/FUDConF11#Hackfest_sessions
I will volunteer to lead the xo/rpm discussion, and have added it to the
wiki. I'd love to see some other sessions on the wiki soon, hint hint.
:)
--g
--
Got an OLPC that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer!
[[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]
15 years, 4 months
Re: Please help test our pre-release build of 8.2.1
by Michael Stone
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 11:04:01PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>On 02.01.2009, at 17:09, Brian Pepple wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A pre-release build of 8.2.1 is now available for testing. It has
>> passed
>> an initial smoke test and now needs broader testing.
>>
>> The build download and problem reporting instructions are here:
>> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Friends_in_testing#Current_status
>>
>> The very early draft release notes are here:
>> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_Notes/8.2.1
>>
>> Please send a note to the list if you try this build even if you don't
>> find anything interesting. We want to measure our test capacity.
>
>
>You should mention that you want people to test the latest "staging"
>build, not the latest "8.2.1" build (which is exactly the same as
>8.2.0 at this point):
>
>http://dev.laptop.org/~bert/8.2.1-staging.html
>
>This is a significant change from previous release procedures (e.g., I
>was not even aware that "staging" builds were meant for testing).
Bert,
Here's the idea:
(f10/olpc4) (f9/olpc3)
| |
v v
joyride staging
| |
v v
(9.1.0) 8.2.1
\ \ available now.
\ will be created eventually
(This is the first time we've had two active integration streams.)
Does this help clarify things?
Michael
15 years, 4 months
