Sugar and GTK updates
kgordon420 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 16:35:50 EDT 2011
I did not know some of this either, and I appreciate the detailed feedback
as to what is envisioned. I also agree it's all really good news.
I did not know that the XO-1 builds would be shipping without Gnome. In our
own little deployments, that might be an issue, as many of the users like
that UI and now do a lot 'over there'; but, maybe that's not a global
concern. And there very well may be a better and less resource intensive
desktop that provides the same functionality
And yes, ML, I appreciate that $6 * 500K is a large number; but it's smaller
than $230 * 500K to replace a machine that is 5 years old in order to take
advantage of some really neat new features that could have widespread
benefi, but are otherwise not possible If the goal is to enable some of
these without even a small hardware upgrade, even better:-)
While I understand that a move to GTK3 would eventually mean less bloat, i
did not realize, from what I now infer here, that also keeping the GTK2
functionality concurrent on the machine would still have savings. Again,
Unfortunately, or actually very fortunately for the talented development
community at large, I will not be hacking in the source. I will continue to
test whatever you want me to though.
So, I hereby end my 'pointless rant'. I was actually just asking what the
plans were and whether one needed to plan for a stopgap measure to ensure
XO-1 compatibility going forward, but mea culpa for not being aware of the
ramifications, or having missed some of the referenced material.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
alanjas at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank's for the information... I did not know...
> > From: cjb at laptop.org
> > To: alanjas at hotmail.com
> > CC: devel at lists.laptop.org
> > Subject: Re: Sugar and GTK updates
> > Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:33:16 -0400
> > Hi,
> > On Tue, Aug 16 2011, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote:
> > > I always wondered why not put an SD of 2 instead of 1, suppose that
> > > production costs differ in nothing (or very little)....
> > The XO-1 isn't manufactured anymore. When it was manufactured, it used
> > bare NAND rather than an SD card, and the cost of 2G of bare NAND was
> > significantly more expensive than 1G of bare NAND.
> > - Chris.
> > --
> > Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org> <http://printf.net/>
> > One Laptop Per Child
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel