From: Michal Suchanek Date: 2007-12-08T22:08:02+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby on OLPC?? On 08/12/2007, Robert Dober wrote: > On Dec 8, 2007 8:33 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > > Robert Dober wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 2007 9:10 AM, Ryan Davis wrote: > > >> On Nov 26, 2007, at 18:29 , M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > > >> > > >>> *Anything* to avoid Squeak! > > >> well, I was going to chime in with support / info, but not after that... > > > exactly, big thumbs down Ed, > > > but seriously now, what's wrong with Squeak (unless that it is not Forth;). > Maybe it was an error to develop all together, the OLPC should be a > hardware platform, then various different Linux/*BSD based platforms > could be implemented ... > It is generally developed that way - you have a piece of hardware, and you can put different stuff on it. However, they needed a complete solution so they also modified a Linux distribution to work well on their hardware. Since the piece of hardware is very limited in resources they cut down the pieces that are installed by default, and there is not much space left for additional stuff. You can install a different distribution but you will probably get even inferior solution - it reminds me of the option to install a different firmware into certain wireless routers. Unless you put a lot of time into tuning the firmware you get much less functionality in the limited environment. But you may get a function that was not present in the original firmware at all. Generally I wish there was something similar but with a decent disk size. Or something more like normal laptop/palmtop with the screen they used for OLPC. If you really wanted something on OLPC and it did not fit on the disk you could probably put it on an usb keychain. I guess it's what they were also thinking when making the disk so small. Thanks Michal