Applications selection discussion....

[Jim Gettys]

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 01:24 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> 
> >> Nor will any existing spin fit in 1GB of internal flash.
> >
> > We fit on 700 meg CDs, so it's definitely doable.  There's nothing that
> > would fundamentally prevent the way we do things for the cds to also
> > function off of jffs2.  Two different compressions is kind of silly,
> > though.

It is also a performance killer; you're taking a slow processor and
having it decompress twice.  We need to get to the bottom of why the
current spins are so slow off USB/SD as quickly as possible, while
Daniel's native install on SD is very usable.

Unfortunately, jffs2 does not have a way to say "don't compress a file",
though dwmw2 has talked about this from time to time.

Not having wear leveling on bare NAND is a non-starter, if there is any
substantial write use.  We may need to page to make a viable system, and
will need to page to a file.

> >
> > Also, I did state "off of a USB stick or SD card".  I actually think
> > that in a lot of ways, that's better because it means that we can not
> > worry about using any of the built-in flash leaving all of it for use
> > with Sugar and then wanting to run a joyride build, etc.
> 
> In my latest discussions with Kim, it seems unlikely that we will be able 
> to get something to the hardware manufacturers in time for an "onboard" 
> solution anyway.  

But olpc-update allows a late-binding: you can install bits later with
no hardware cost.  I'm pretty sure a small enough spin is not very hard
to do.

> The latest discussions I had with her centered around 
> putting together an aftermarket solution that "just works", and making it 
> possible for G1G1 folks to purchase that solution when they get the 
> laptop.
> 
> Which implies that we should be focusing on USB/SD for now -- but Jim, you 
> may want to validate that thinking inside the walls at 1cc.
> 

I will, though this is not my current understanding from previous
conversations; it would make our lives somewhat easier and time is
short; we've lost some weeks due to Fedora's mis-adventures, as we're
still getting up to speed and have needed more of Jeremy's time than
we've been able to get.

Having something that can run viably without USB or SD gives Linux a
cost advantage over windows.

I'm also very concerned about applications selection that is so
heavyweight that its performance will be poor: e.g. 
The stock Fedora desktop includes apps that will get us into pretty
immediate trouble in RAM use, I think (e.g. evolution).  I don't think
an xfce desktop is what the general market will bear, sufficient though
it is for hackers.
                      - Jim

-- 
Jim Gettys <jg at laptop.org>
One Laptop Per Child