On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:37:06AM -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>>> Conclusion:
>>> fedora-olpc, to be a sucess, needs a much slimmer UI than that
>>> of GNOME.
>>
>> "Success" needs to be defined. Seems to me the OLPC was envisioned
>> mainly for a single-application environment. Except for being slow at
>> processing, I think it succeeds admirably.
>
> I'm not talking about the sugar interface, which is what you're talking
> about.
>
> Non-sugar interface is something I'm also interested.
The reason for my enthusiasm: I think the OLPC offers the bringing of
technological assistance to economically disadvantaged locations.
I think that people who focus on "slimming" the OLPC are missing the
point. What they end up with is a slow, small Linux system.
Are you seriously considering the implications of your statement?
If slimming ends up on a slow small GNU/Linux system, then *not* slimming
ends up with a slower and bloated GNU/Linux system.
But if
what they want is a small Linux system, today's 'netbooks' offer more
capability (and as netbooks continue to be produced by the millions, I
expect tomorrow's models to cost less than the OLPC).
No, they don't. I don't know of a netbook which is as resistant or even
readable in sunlight as the XO can be.
For those who are interested in using the OLPC to bring conventional
applications to people who already have access to technology - why not
work with a netbook instead?
Not conventional, just usable (which it isn't).
For those who think the OLPC *is* suited to
the environments in which it is being deployed - let's work on developing
OLPC-scale applications to assist 'the things people do' wherever such
"computerization" could improve matters.
Then what's your problem, man? :)
Rui