<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Caroline Meeks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solutiongrove@gmail.com">solutiongrove@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Can you say more about how and why the boot helper is going to be buried? <div><br></div><div>I've got a ton of older hardware that works just fine once its booted, some of it zips, but doesn't have the capability to boot from USB.<br>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>When was the hardware released? What's the details of the hardware? Just about anything released in the last 10 years should be bootable using USB although it might need a Bios upgrade. The lowest level of hardware CPU support in Fedora is i686 and the vast majority of that hardware supports booting usb. Upstream supports a much wider variety of hardware with a whole lot less of the issues we see. <br>
<br>So in short its not going to disappear but as it seems to cause so many support issues on the sugar lists I would like to see a concerted effort to find out why its needed, fix those problems and to generally de-emphasize the boot helper CD as the fix to every boot problem.<br>
<br>For example I've seen you have issues booting Apple devices with the SoaS. Every single Intel based Mac uses EFI to boot and hence should work out of the box with SoaS and shouldn't require the helper CD. If it doesn't work we need to work out why and fix the bug, not plaster it over with an ugly hack. <br>
<br>In general it makes people's experience of using Sugar on a Stick less pleasant and hence less likely to keep on using it. Its a constant confusion and problem on the lists as well.<br><br>Peter<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Caroline<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Peter Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com" target="_blank">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="h5">Hi All,<br><br>I'm sure Sebastian has already emailed about this subject but with SoaS 3 been approved as a Fedora 13 feature and myself being a co-maintainer with Sebastian I thought I'd put my point forward as to what I would like to see happening and what I'll be working towards in the next release. So the major things I can see for SoaS3 are as follows:<br>
1) all upstream in Fedora<br>2) rpm packaged activities<br>3) Sugar 0.88<br>4) boot helper is dead and buried<br><br>So 1 and 3 aren't overly controversial. 1 is a requirement of being able to use all the lovely upstream Fedora infrastructure and will generally make life easier for the SoaS maintainers. 3 is a given :-D 2 has various opinions but that's not part of this discussion.<br>
<br>The last point I think will get a mixed response from what I've seen on various sugar/olpc lists of late but the more I read about it the more I believe its bugs that cause the majority of the problems rather than hardware issues. For example all modern Mac's should boot SoaS fine (there are a few issues [1]). Fedora on which SoaS is based doesn't have a lot of the problems we see and they have a lot of different hardware and use cases than the relatively focused SoaS so we should be able to fix most of the issues <br>
<br>So I'd like to see some testing before the final release comes out for both boot issues and others. For this I'm proposing we do something similar to the Fedora Test Days. The way this will vary slightly is by doing "SoaS test weeks" where we pick a number of test points to focus upon but do it both on the mailing list and IRC to allow as many people as possible to get involved and to ensure we have the best possibly release by doing as much testing before the release rather than having discussions 6 weeks after the release with threads like "Blah doesn't work".<br>
<br>So I'd like to hear from others what they'd like to see in SoaS 3, what they can work on and suggestions for test weeks. You already know the topic of the first week is going to be. I'd like to see SoaS moving to more proactional releases where we do more testing before hand rather than people running it up after its been releases so that we get a decent release from the go get as. It makes the user experience better for the beginning for all involved.<br>
<br>Discuss!<br><br>Have a good weekend!<br>Regards,<br>Peter<br><br>[1] Mac boot bugs<br><a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528232" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528232</a><br>
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533824" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533824</a><br>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
SoaS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SoaS@lists.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">SoaS@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Caroline Meeks<br>Solution Grove<br>Caroline@SolutionGrove.com<br><br>617-500-3488 - Office<br>505-213-3268 - Fax<br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>