Glen Gray | 1 Jun 2006 10:19

Clarification please

Basically, I've been wondering why the OS seems to be based on a top 
down approach (starting with Fedora Core 5 and stripping out a rough 
guesstimate of whats not required) rather than a bottom up approach 
(starting with nothing and using what parts of FC5 are required to 
create a small, tailored OS).

 From what I recall, RedHat already has the tools to make this possible. 
Embedded Developers Kit. I know the project isn't being pushed by RedHat 
at the moment, but at the time it was, I was working for a company 
called Antefacto. We were given a demo of the product. From what I 
recall it gave a tk based UI into either the .spec files and/or the 
files that rpm felt it needed to include in the binary rpm. The UI 
allowed you to tailor what files where eventually installed.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/edk/EDK-1.0-Manual/getting-started-guide/index_gs.html

Using this approach would have allowed for a resulting system that had 
rpm intact for use as the package manager and a more tightly tailored OS.

Kind regards,

--

-- 
Glen Gray <glen <at> lincor.com>              Digital Depot, Thomas Street
Senior Software Engineer                            Dublin 8, Ireland
Lincor Solutions Ltd.                          Ph: +353 (0) 1 4893682

Darryl Palmer | 1 Jun 2006 16:03
Picon

Re: Clarification please

Hello Glen,

On 6/1/06, Glen Gray <glen <at> lincor.com> wrote:
From what I recall, RedHat already has the tools to make this possible.
Embedded Developers Kit. I know the project isn't being pushed by RedHat
at the moment, but at the time it was, I was working for a company
called Antefacto.
 
It appears to be a discontinued product, see http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/edk/
 
I too questioned why it was chosen to use a normal Fedora distro and try to blacklist all the files to be deleted, but now the tools to build it along with the size of the image are just about on track.
 
Darryl

 
<div>
<p>Hello Glen,<br><br></p>
<div>
<span class="gmail_quote">On 6/1/06, Glen Gray &lt;<a href="mailto:glen <at> lincor.com">glen <at> lincor.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">From what I recall, RedHat already has the tools to make this possible.<br>Embedded Developers Kit. I know the project isn't being pushed by RedHat
<br>at the moment, but at the time it was, I was working for a company<br>called Antefacto.</blockquote>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It appears to be a discontinued product, see <a href="http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/edk/">http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/edk/</a>
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I too questioned why it was chosen to use a normal Fedora distro and try to blacklist all the files to be deleted, but&nbsp;now the tools to build it along with the size of the image are just about on track.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Darryl</div>
<br>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
Glen Gray | 1 Jun 2006 16:16

Re: Clarification please

Hey Darryl,

Darryl Palmer wrote:
> It appears to be a discontinued product, see 
> http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/edk/
Yes, it has been discontinued. RedHat seemed to stop going after the 
embedded space when RH8 came along. That URL may not even be the product 
I was referring to though, as the docs didn't seem to mention any of the 
rpm building stuff I remember from the presentation RedHat gave us. We 
didn't use it simply because at that stage, I'd already done something 
similar myself (though manually, not via a fancy tool).

Either way, RedHat would still have the code. My guess is that the tools 
have just completely been forgotten about and no body knew 
about/thoughtof using it. The source code was available to those who 
purchased the product IIRC.

>  I too questioned why it was chosen to use a normal Fedora distro and 
> try to blacklist all the files to be deleted, but now the tools to 
> build it along with the size of the image are just about on track.
Yeah, but at quite a cost. We've lost RPM as a result of this approach, 
plus it's never going to be as fine grained as a bottom up approach. And 
it's still taking up 280Mb of disk space, which is greatly reduced, but 
still seems like quite a lot for such a minimal product.

It may be that we'll only ever get a few meg off here and there, and 
it's done now. I was just curious as to how this approach was agreed upon.

Kind regards,

--

-- 
Glen Gray <glen <at> lincor.com>              Digital Depot, Thomas Street
Senior Software Engineer                            Dublin 8, Ireland
Lincor Solutions Ltd.                          Ph: +353 (0) 1 4893682

Dan Williams | 1 Jun 2006 19:34
Picon
Favicon

Re: Clarification please

On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 09:19 +0100, Glen Gray wrote:
> Basically, I've been wondering why the OS seems to be based on a top 
> down approach (starting with Fedora Core 5 and stripping out a rough 
> guesstimate of whats not required) rather than a bottom up approach 
> (starting with nothing and using what parts of FC5 are required to 
> create a small, tailored OS).

It's not really top-down.  We start with a set of packages that we know
we are going to need (kernel, glibc, python, gtk, etc) and then use yum
to install those (and their dependencies) into a chroot.  Then, further
fine-grained stripping is done (glibc locale info, etc).  We know
[almost] exactly what the base set of packages is.  Plus, people keep
asking for more all the time.

You have to strike a balance between a completely forked OLPC distro,
and using an existing project's resources, like Fedora.  Seriously,
putting Fedora together is a full-time job for quite a few people, and
there's no reason to think that putting a forked OLPC distro together
wouldn't be a full time job for a few people too.

These machines aren't normal laptops, and they also aren't
PocketPC-class devices either.  They are somewhere in between.  You make
a tradeoff between the amount of effort you make in slimming down the
distro, and how much you benefit from upstream resources (ie Fedora).
If we fork it and go ground-up, we completely loose all the security,
development, and distro work that Fedora is doing.  If we go top-down,
we completely at efficiency.  You have to trade bits of one off against
bits of another.

You have to start somewhere.

> Using this approach would have allowed for a resulting system that had 
> rpm intact for use as the package manager and a more tightly tailored OS.

It's unclear whether there's a need for a package manager or not.
Updating will likely not be "rpm -Uhv xxx", but rsyncing files from
flash drives or the school server or whatever.  We all know the
downsides of dpkg/rpm/ipkg/yum/apt/etc, and I'm not sure anyone really
wants to inflict those shortcomings on children.  You have to ask, what
problems does having a package manager solve, and do children care about
those problems that _you_ think are problems?

The only real requirement here is to allow children to easily use
software they get from somewhere.  Note that I said "use", not
"install."  IMHO, you shouldn't have to think about "install", you just
get the software from a friend and use it.  And I also said "get from
somewhere," not "pull from a yum repo."  Because most kids aren't going
to be running synaptic, or pup, or whatever.  The software distribution
model here needs to be _vastly_ different than what we in the Linux
world are used to.

Dan

David Woodhouse | 2 Jun 2006 00:55
Favicon

Re: duplicate file wastage

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 15:19 +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> (does JFFS2 allocate much space per directory?) 

Very little. http://david.woodhou.se/jffs2.pdf

--

-- 
dwmw2

Glen Gray | 2 Jun 2006 09:23

Re: Clarification please

Hey Dan

Thanks for the reply. It was concise and to the point. In fact, exactly 
the kind of answer I was looking for.

All your points make sense and as the title of the email says, I was 
just looking for clarification on the path taken, which you have given.

Cheers,

--

-- 
Glen Gray <glen <at> lincor.com>              Digital Depot, Thomas Street
Senior Software Engineer                            Dublin 8, Ireland
Lincor Solutions Ltd.                          Ph: +353 (0) 1 4893682

Marcin Wojdyr | 2 Jun 2006 22:17
Picon

sugar

Hello,

I've installed Sugar (from Mercurial tip) on Ubuntu Linux.
I don't know if there are any Ubuntu users here, but I wrote
a description how to install it in wiki: 
http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/Installing_sugar--devel_on_Ubuntu_Linux

There were also some problems, so perhaps Sugar developers can 
have a look on that page. 
Is this sugar going to be the only chat application and the only
web browser in OLPC systems? I haven't found any docs about it, only 
http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/SugarDemo2. 

BTW is there a difference in discussed topics on olpc-software and 
devel <at> laptop.org mailing lists?

Cheers,
Marcin

--

-- 
Marcin Wojdyr  |  http://www.unipress.waw.pl/~wojdyr/

Ivan Krstic | 3 Jun 2006 00:47
Picon

Re: sugar

Marcin Wojdyr wrote:
> Is this sugar going to be the only chat application and the only
> web browser in OLPC systems? 

Probably the only chat app in the short term, but there should be a
standalone Firefox available. The web browser is just embedded Gecko;
Sugar certainly isn't its own browser.

> BTW is there a difference in discussed topics on olpc-software and 
> devel <at> laptop.org mailing lists?

No. I hope to merge the lists soon to devel <at> l.o.

--

-- 
Ivan Krstic <krstic <at> fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D

David Zeuthen | 3 Jun 2006 01:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: sugar

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 00:47 +0200, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Marcin Wojdyr wrote:
> > Is this sugar going to be the only chat application and the only
> > web browser in OLPC systems? 
> 
> Probably the only chat app in the short term, but there should be a
> standalone Firefox available. The web browser is just embedded Gecko;
> Sugar certainly isn't its own browser.

Sugar uses xulrunner.

    David

Dan Williams | 3 Jun 2006 06:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: sugar

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 00:47 +0200, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Marcin Wojdyr wrote:
> > Is this sugar going to be the only chat application and the only
> > web browser in OLPC systems? 
> 
> Probably the only chat app in the short term, but there should be a
> standalone Firefox available. The web browser is just embedded Gecko;
> Sugar certainly isn't its own browser.

That's certainly debatable... FF has a lot of junk that we may/may not
need.  This isn't to say the the Sugar bits will be the only way to look
at web pages, but you have to ask what all the stuff in FF is needed
for.

Dan


Gmane