Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Greg Smith-18
Hi Bryan,

I think you have some movement on some of these. I added some more
comments below.

 > * Why is 767 noticeably slower than 703?
GS - We believe that its "faster" than 703 but its hard to prove.
Activity launch time is one variable. Since we put up an image now, that
may seem slower but hopefully the time from click on activity icon to
enter data in activity is lower in 767. Let me know if that is your
metric or in general what makes it feel slower for you?

 > * 767 won't connect via WEP to an AP
GS - Should be possible. Which AP do you have? I think you have
documented your stuff so RTFM to your web site works.

Dan, Are you out there? If Bryan gets the AP info and config details,
can you buy one and try to reproduce/debug his issue?

I know you're not on the clock anymore but I hope I can still reach out
across "the pond" instead of across the desk to get your help...

 > * 767 seems to enforce rainbow more strictly than 703. This has given
 > me major headaches when trying to make our new flash-based activities
 > run properly on 767.
GS - I think you submitted the details. Did you get an answer? I believe
that Michael is out for Thanksgiving.

Can someone comment on this point?
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/2008-November/010070.html

Bryan, if you can't wait until next week, just keep poking the list
until you get an answer. If you can wait, poke again on Mondaty anyway :-)

 > * 767 can't connect to ejabberd on XS 0.4 because they use incompatible
 > versions of GNU TLS.

GS - Can you ask this on the server list too? How do you know they
"can't connect". Unless Martin et al recognize this right away you
probably need to explain exactly what you did and how it failed.

 > * Firefox 2 and 3 are only slightly sugarized.
GS - True. It is what it is and no plans to make big changes here AFAIK.

 > * It is still a pain to open access a pdf from browse and wait for the
 > Read activity to load it, a real pain.

GS - I think Sayamindu commented on this. If its not a satisfactory
answer let us know.

HTHs.

Thanks,

Greg S
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Paul Fox-2
greg wrote:
 > Hi Bryan,
 >
...
 >
 >  > * 767 seems to enforce rainbow more strictly than 703. This has given
 >  > me major headaches when trying to make our new flash-based activities
 >  > run properly on 767.
 > GS - I think you submitted the details. Did you get an answer? I believe
 > that Michael is out for Thanksgiving.
 >
 > Can someone comment on this point?
 > http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/2008-November/010070.html
...
 >  > * Firefox 2 and 3 are only slightly sugarized.
 > GS - True. It is what it is and no plans to make big changes here AFAIK.

greg -- i think you answered your own question.  the issues
raised in that linked email are a result of firefox not being
fully sugarized.  it might be possible to improve their behavior,
but this falls squarely under the big "make traditional X11 apps
work better under sugar" umbrella.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, [hidden email]
 give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.amazon.com/xo
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Daniel Drake-5
In reply to this post by Greg Smith-18
Greg Smith wrote:
>  > * 767 won't connect via WEP to an AP
> GS - Should be possible. Which AP do you have? I think you have
> documented your stuff so RTFM to your web site works.
>
> Dan, Are you out there? If Bryan gets the AP info and config details,
> can you buy one and try to reproduce/debug his issue?
>
> I know you're not on the clock anymore but I hope I can still reach out
> across "the pond" instead of across the desk to get your help...

If you purchase it for me or give me the money then I can do so, as long
as the AP gets into my hands quickly (within the next month).

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Martin Langhoff
In reply to this post by Greg Smith-18
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Greg Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
 > * 767 can't connect to ejabberd on XS 0.4 because they use incompatible
 > versions of GNU TLS.

Hmmmm. All the XO 8.2 testing has been done againstXS  0.4 so categorically we can assert: vanilla 767 interoperates with vanilla XS 0.4 just fine.

If you are seeing a problem, it's probably worthwhile to diagnose with the fine crowd at [hidden email] :-)

btw, it seems that this list is getting shut down - move discussion to [hidden email] and [hidden email] ?

cheers,


martin
--
[hidden email]
[hidden email] -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

rihoward1@gmail.com
I have had no trouble connecting both 767 and 656 to the XS .4 that anna is running.
We have tested all sorts of activities using collaboration via the .4 XS.  

On Nov 26, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Greg Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
 > * 767 can't connect to ejabberd on XS 0.4 because they use incompatible
 > versions of GNU TLS.

Hmmmm. All the XO 8.2 testing has been done againstXS  0.4 so categorically we can assert: vanilla 767 interoperates with vanilla XS 0.4 just fine.

If you are seeing a problem, it's probably worthwhile to diagnose with the fine crowd at [hidden email] :-)

btw, it seems that this list is getting shut down - move discussion to [hidden email] and [hidden email] ?

cheers,


martin
--
[hidden email]
[hidden email] -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list


_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Bryan Berry-4
In reply to this post by Martin Langhoff
Were you able to register properly w/ XS and were you able to connect to
ejabberd?

The best way to check is to run $ olpc-netstatus from the terminal

You should see "gabble" listed and not "salut"

If you only see salut you are not connected to ejabberd

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 18:33 -0800, Robert Howard wrote:

> I have had no trouble connecting both 767 and 656 to the XS .4 that
> anna is running.
> We have tested all sorts of activities using collaboration via the .4
> XS.  
>
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Greg Smith
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >          > * 767 can't connect to ejabberd on XS 0.4 because they
> >         use incompatible
> >          > versions of GNU TLS.
> >
> > Hmmmm. All the XO 8.2 testing has been done againstXS  0.4 so
> > categorically we can assert: vanilla 767 interoperates with vanilla
> > XS 0.4 just fine.
> >
> > If you are seeing a problem, it's probably worthwhile to diagnose
> > with the fine crowd at [hidden email] :-)
> >
> > btw, it seems that this list is getting shut down - move discussion
> > to [hidden email] and [hidden email] ?
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> > martin
> > --
> > [hidden email]
> > [hidden email] -- School Server Architect
> > - ask interesting questions
> > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
> > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>

--
Bryan W. Berry
Technology Director
OLE Nepal, http://www.olenepal.org

_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

rihoward1@gmail.com
Bryan,

As you requested I ran $  olpc-netstatus and get gabble returned as  
one of the values.


/Robert H.


On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Bryan Berry wrote:

> Were you able to register properly w/ XS and were you able to  
> connect to
> ejabberd?
>
> The best way to check is to run $ olpc-netstatus from the terminal
>
> You should see "gabble" listed and not "salut"
>
> If you only see salut you are not connected to ejabberd
>
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 18:33 -0800, Robert Howard wrote:
>> I have had no trouble connecting both 767 and 656 to the XS .4 that
>> anna is running.
>> We have tested all sorts of activities using collaboration via the .4
>> XS.
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Greg Smith
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> * 767 can't connect to ejabberd on XS 0.4 because they
>>>         use incompatible
>>>> versions of GNU TLS.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. All the XO 8.2 testing has been done againstXS  0.4 so
>>> categorically we can assert: vanilla 767 interoperates with vanilla
>>> XS 0.4 just fine.
>>>
>>> If you are seeing a problem, it's probably worthwhile to diagnose
>>> with the fine crowd at [hidden email] :-)
>>>
>>> btw, it seems that this list is getting shut down - move discussion
>>> to [hidden email] and [hidden email] ?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> martin
>>> --
>>> [hidden email]
>>> [hidden email] -- School Server Architect
>>> - ask interesting questions
>>> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>>> - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sugar mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>>
>
> --
> Bryan W. Berry
> Technology Director
> OLE Nepal, http://www.olenepal.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar

_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Ties Stuij
In reply to this post by rihoward1@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:20 AM, [hidden email]
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have had no trouble connecting both 767 and 656 to the XS .4 that anna is
> running.
> We have tested all sorts of activities using collaboration via the .4 XS.
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Actually connecting to the XS with gabble works fine for us here at
OLE. Sorry about my faillure to communicate on this point back to
Bryan and wasting your time.

I was put on the problem of gabble not working about a week ago, and
initially sure enough gabble didn't work. So I turned logging on, and
the files told me connecting was a success, but the next line of
logging said GNUTLS discovered that to some packet wasn't of the right
length, and the whole connecting process was unwound. This happened
every time a connection was attempted. The behaviour was reproducible
on every XO we tested. Then we got a scheduled power outage. After
rebooting the server we fiddled a bit with the gabble config files,
and presto, we had gabble working. Problem solved. But after I tried
to reproduce the error yet again on other XO's with the initial
configuration, it turned out I couldn't.

So apparently we had problems for months here at OLE to get gabble
working, but I can't say anything con- or destructive about that,
because I wasn't involved at the time. When we build a 0.4 XS from
scratch, we can connect to Gabble no problem atm. It didn't seem to be
worth it to file a bug for a problem that I can't reproduce, and for
which I lost the gabble log files, since they are overwritten every
time sugar restarts.

Funny that after months of apparent non-working gabble, a working
gabble can be quite frustrating too.

/Ties
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

bernie-laptop.org
In reply to this post by Paul Fox-2
[hidden email] wrote:
>  >  > * Firefox 2 and 3 are only slightly sugarized.
>  > GS - True. It is what it is and no plans to make big changes here AFAIK.
>
> greg -- i think you answered your own question.  the issues
> raised in that linked email are a result of firefox not being
> fully sugarized.  it might be possible to improve their behavior,
> but this falls squarely under the big "make traditional X11 apps
> work better under sugar" umbrella.

We already have a Sugarized version of Firefox: Browse.  But people
complained the interface didn't look and behave like Firefox.
So now we provide a Firefox activity, but people complain it's not
sugarized enough!!!

We can't win this game ;-)

--
   // Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
 \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://www.sugarlabs.org/
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: notes on 8.2.0, specifically 767 (was 8.2.1)

Tomeu Vizoso-2
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Bernie Innocenti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
>>  >  > * Firefox 2 and 3 are only slightly sugarized.
>>  > GS - True. It is what it is and no plans to make big changes here AFAIK.
>>
>> greg -- i think you answered your own question.  the issues
>> raised in that linked email are a result of firefox not being
>> fully sugarized.  it might be possible to improve their behavior,
>> but this falls squarely under the big "make traditional X11 apps
>> work better under sugar" umbrella.
>
> We already have a Sugarized version of Firefox: Browse.  But people
> complained the interface didn't look and behave like Firefox.
> So now we provide a Firefox activity, but people complain it's not
> sugarized enough!!!
>
> We can't win this game ;-)

But you can bet it's fun to watch ;)

Tomeu
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Loading...