why are removable storage devices just an adjunct ?
tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Wed Oct 1 03:37:09 EDT 2008
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus at bga.com> wrote:
> Applications which I intend to use in the near future I keep
> "resident" (Sugar Activities in /home/olpc/Activities, Linux
> applications on my "permanent" SD card). Those I access rarely I
> keep on a removable storage device.
> Just now was using Journal to access Activity bundles kept on a
> removable storage device. All I wanted to do was to run them once
> -- but Journal *installed* (in /home/olpc/Activities) each one that
> I clicked on. I had not expected that.
> The XO-1 does not have a lot of nand "storage". What interests me
> is how best to "off-load" data *and programs* from nand. I had been
> told that it was possible to run Activities from a removable storage
> device -- but I now see that in the actual implementation it *still*
> requires nand to run an "off-loaded" Activity -- in other words, the
> removable storage device is just an "adjunct", not a "repository".
> There really ought to be a better way to "deposit" Activities which
> are not being accessed each week. Sooner rather than later, there
> simply will not be room in /home/olpc/Activities.
You raise interesting points. The reason why there isn't better
support for removable devices is that the current resources didn't
allowed for more work to go in there.
I think Scott has plans to make possible run activities without
unpacking them anywhere, so I expect that would serve for your plans
of offloading activities to removable storage.
More information about the Devel