Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OLPC 1.5 Hardware Upgrades Include Java, Full-Screen Video

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the wish-I-could-upgrade-an-old-one dept.

Education 67

griffjon writes "OLPCNews covers the sneak-preview of the updated One Laptop Per Child 1.5 hardware version. The good news is: full-screen YouTube videos, Java, and access to the gnome desktop. Read more about the updated hardware and chipsets in the fine article."

cancel ×

67 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Full screen youtube? (5, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#29371927)

Must not be using adobe's linux flash player then. Not even my 2ghz machine can do full screen without the jitters.

Re:Full screen youtube? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372023)

It says "full screen video playback", not specifically Flash, so I'm guessing it's some other kind of video that can take advantage of hardware decoding--- probably DVD.

Re:Full screen youtube? (2, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372093)

What is "it" ? The summary clearly says full screen YouTube videos. I thought - could be wrong - those were all flash based...

Re:Full screen youtube? (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372151)

Oops, I guess I did the reverse of normal Slashdot custom and read the linked article, but not the Slashdot summary. The linked article has a bullet point (#1) that says "Full screen video playback", but doesn't mention YouTube anywhere. I'm guessing the Slashdot summary is wrong, unless the submitter got information on YouTube playback from somewhere other than the linked article?

Re:Full screen youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29372583)

More weird... XO has always had full screen video support, but no youtube video because of patent issues. My little green machine plays back Theora just fine. I think someone got a bit over-excited with the feature list.

You must be new here (3, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373183)

You assume the submitter read the article?

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375017)

Flash video is not a codec. It's a container, much like .avi and .mov. If the decoder can read it and play it full-screen, there is no need for the rest of Flash, at least not for full-screen Youtube.

Re:Full screen youtube? (5, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372131)

To see the full screen video supported: open a command prompt, maximize it, then type "telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl".

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

Krizdo4 (938901) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375109)

I did that on my XO-1 at a IHOP once and it worked great. That is after waiting forever for the terminal app to actually start. So disappointingly sluggish trying to run in sugar.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 5 years ago | (#29376919)

Changing the size of the terminal doesn't change the size of the "video".

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375423)

It says "full screen video playback", not specifically Flash, so I'm guessing it's some other kind of video that can take advantage of hardware decoding--- probably DVD.

Last I checked the XO has no optical drive.

Re:Full screen youtube? (3, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372035)

Well, keep in mind, full screen on the OLPC isn't as big as on other machines. And if their new hardware has a GPU of some sort, some of the decoding and stretching can be offloaded.

Re:Full screen youtube? (4, Informative)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372133)

Well, keep in mind, full screen on the OLPC isn't as big as on other machines. And if their new hardware has a GPU of some sort, some of the decoding and stretching can be offloaded.

If you're referring to the screen resolution it's 1200x900 [wikipedia.org] which is well within notebook class.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

Herby Sagues (925683) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374537)

Actually no. That's only in Black and White and without backlight, which is unuseable for video. In color mode and with backlight, it is only 693×520. Not exactly high definition in my book. It was a really crappy design when released, and it still is today. And expensive, if you look at the full cost including deployment and not counting subsidies.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374627)

Actually no. That's only in Black and White and without backlight, which is unuseable for video. In color mode and with backlight, it is only 693×520. Not exactly high definition in my book. It was a really crappy design when released, and it still is today. And expensive, if you look at the full cost including deployment and not counting subsidies.

There seems to be a twist to it. Check out this section. [wikipedia.org] The pixel allignments aren't conventional.

A Philips Research study measured the XO-1 display's perceived color resolution as effectively 984(H)x738(V). A conventional liquid crystal display with the same number of green pixels (green carries most brightness or luminance information for human eyes) as the OLPC XO-1 would be 693x520.

Re:Full screen youtube? (0)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372159)

Actually, it's 1900x1200 pixels, that sure is bigger (memory-wise) than my Desktop's resolution. And yes, it has the XVideo extension since the first beta versions, so the stretching part is hardware accelerated. I doubt the decoding part would be implemented in hardware, so my guess (I didn't RTFA) it's just a better processor.

Re:Full screen youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29373505)

Uh, no. It's 1200x900.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374125)

Ooops, my bad! Thank you for the correction. Mods, please mod me "-1, Misinformative"

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

Krizdo4 (938901) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375133)

So does this mean I can run Starcraft in full screen stretched instead of windowed with wine?

Re:Full screen youtube? (2, Interesting)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372081)

Must not be using adobe's linux flash player then. Not even my 2ghz machine can do full screen without the jitters.

Adobe clearly has no interest in the Linux community. Hopefully YouTube will start using the HTML5 tags.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372691)

I seriously wish they would implement this already, even if it is only a configuration thing you can enable like you can to always use HQ when available.

Re:Full screen youtube? (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373093)

Well, it's not on all pages, nor is it fully featured, but they do have a tech demo [youtube.com] .

Main missing features are fullscreen video and Theora.

I'm not sure there's currently any sort of spec for making an HTML5 video go fullscreen. I can see it being restricted somehow -- to a native control, or maybe in the same way pop-ups are, because otherwise, any script could throw up a fullscreen porn ad -- but it seems like a kind of glaring omission to have no support for it other than calling "save as" on the video (which isn't always easy).

Chances are, they'll never add Theora, which means if they switch over, Firefox may never support it -- or at least, I get the impression that there are a few idealistically blinded people who want to remove all hint of a possibility of a way to play HTML5 h.264 in Firefox, not even as a third-party plugin.

Interesting little fact, though: The video tag does support data urls. That means a clip can be embedded into the HTML page itself, base64-encoded. I have absolutely no idea why this is useful, but I thought it was cool.

Re:Full screen youtube? (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374323)

Interesting little fact, though: The video tag does support data urls. That means a clip can be embedded into the HTML page itself, base64-encoded. I have absolutely no idea why this is useful, but I thought it was cool.

That, good sir, is the sound of 10s of thousands of hours of video distraction streaming right past office firewalls all over the world...

Re:Full screen youtube? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29373827)

Linux sucks a huge dick with hair on the shaft when it comes to delivering smooth video, but blame Adobe. That's cool.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29373993)

Linux sucks a huge dick with hair on the shaft when it comes to delivering smooth video, but blame Adobe. That's cool.

Wow, some people should simply not touch computers. My mother managed to get smooth video on mediocre equipment + Ubuntu, no joke. You just admitted to being more incompetent than a 60-year-old woman with very little computer knowledge. But don't worry, perhaps you'll learn to tie your shoelaces one day as well. :)

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#29379143)

They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest.
The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29379759)

They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest. The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).

Yes they did, but the 64 bit version was just as worthless as the 32 bit. The Linux community cried for ages before they went from v.7 to v.9 and when 64 bit started to pick up, which happened much -- much faster than on Windows due to the benefit of OSS, there were a few things which kept people back from migrating, and one of these things was flash. People were content because they realised what stance Adobe had. If they chose to do nothing then sooner or later either Flash had to go or 64 bit had to go. So no, they don't have any interest in the Linux community and they've shown this over and over, but they still have a certain "fear" or "respect" or whatever you want to call it. If you piss off a bunch of developers for a longer period they will eventually start making their own solution. Plus Silverlight was rolling out during this time.

And this was not about patents or royalties. If YouTube idiotically choose to go H.264 then it will be their loss, YouTube will always be a free service, which is kind of the whole point. I wonder though if you are using Linux, I doubt it since you seem to not know how horrible Flash is on it.

Re:Full screen youtube? (0)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372627)

Do not forget OLPC screen resolution is very much like 800 x something, therefore they probably mean 1080p video source, but in reality displaying a small scaled-down image only.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372649)

Whilest the article (as opposed to the summary) doesn't specifically say "full screen Flash video," I will additionally say that full screen Flash video works just fine on my 1680x1050 20" widescreen flat panel on Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit 2.0Ghz dual core AMD when streamed from YouTube. But YMMV.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29381947)

It stutters on mine even from cache, I have 2GB memory (2x1GB) and an nVidia 8600GT running current binary drivers, using Jaunty. Tried with Swiftweasel and with good old Firefox, haven't had Firefox beat swiftweasel in any department yet though.

Re:Full screen youtube? (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374845)

well then hopefully it can't use Java to run fullscreen Runescape too. The last thing Runescape needs is more 12 year olds lol. Alas, I fear that Runescape in standard def mode is easy enough for those machines to run it :( ahhhhh! *runs away in fear*

Re:Full screen youtube? (2, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375301)

I have used Core 2 Duo machines running MS Windows which show jitters with Flash, I come to assume that that is simply a feature of Flash.

Gnome ? No wonder they're disadvantaged kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29372129)

Its the whole concept of planned obsolescence which is a big marketing tactic. (So much for conserving and using earth resources responsibly. These companies are far more (self-)interested in profit).

Great, rot the kids' brains (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29372247)

I'm sorry, but giving kids in developing countries access to YouTube is worse than giving them nothing.

What a complete waste of time and money.

Re:Great, rot the kids' brains (2, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373643)

If you browse YouTube, you will find out that a non-trivial percentage of the videos are uploaded by school kids all over the world (yes, including developing countries)

Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372253)

It's a bit of a shame there will be two vastly different performance levels now, with large number of 1st gen machines excluded from running some of the stuff...especially since they could conceivably do it, given different, leaner software choices at the beginning (say, basing UI on Gnustep/Etoile libraries, Webkit instead of Gecko, packing XFCE in dualboot fashion like Gnome currently is only for 1.5-gen machines)

Re:Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373213)

What's more a shame to me is just how much this seems to confirm the direction the OLPC has set, ever since they decided they had to support Windows, and then decided they were dropping Sugar.

Basically, they're moving it less in the direction of being a ridiculously cheap education appliance, and more in the direction of being just a sort of cheap netbook PC.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the netbook market is pretty saturated, and they had a number of things that used to set them apart. By moving in this direction, instead of, say, cheaper, more rugged, more reliable, and improving Sugar, it looks like they're going to be competing head-on with the major OEMs very soon, if they aren't already.

I mean... I don't know, maybe I'm jaded, but I haven't seen an encouraging OLPC story in awhile now. There just doesn't seem to be anything interesting left.

Re:Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29373889)

Your points are well taken, but a couple of counter-points are in order.

First, Sugar didn't run as well on the limited 1.0 hardware as it might have. Performance negatively impacted basic usability more than it should have. The RAM was particularly limiting performance in my experience. So these changes will make Sugar a better platform without even touching the code.

Second, the Sugar code (not to mention the underlying OS) *is* being improved constantly. The OLPC organization may not be funding that, but it is happening. So it's not either fix Sugar OR improve the hardware, it's both/and.

Third, as some ex-OLPC'ers have said on Slashdot in the past, the 1.0 hardware had some bugs that kept it from living up to its potential. In particular, the battery-saving micro-sleep thing has never worked well, and that was supposed to be a big innovation. (That was a chipset or microcontroller bug IIRC.) Apparently the video has had problems also. (A problem w/ Geode itself I gather.)

So this hardware refresh sacrifices a potential lower cost
(how much, I wonder? *) for some real usability improvements
for Sugar.

* (The cost savings of keeping things the same may not be as much as you might think. Obsolete DDR for my old PC costs way more than DDR2, e.g.. The Geode is EOL, so no "free" MHz improvements via Moore's Law. Etc. Staying with the mass-produced herd as it improves can be cheaper than sticking with buggy-whips and steam engines.)

Re:Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29378687)

Second, the Sugar code (not to mention the underlying OS) *is* being improved constantly. The OLPC organization may not be funding that, but it is happening. So it's not either fix Sugar OR improve the hardware, it's both/and.

However, it is still a question of priorities. And the OLPC organization has made it clear that not only is sugar not a priority, but that Negroponte thinks it's a mistake, and wants to see a plain old Windows OS on those laptops anyway.

the 1.0 hardware had some bugs that kept it from living up to its potential. In particular, the battery-saving micro-sleep thing has never worked well,

Does the hardware refresh address this? In particular, how does the battery life compare to the original?

Staying with the mass-produced herd as it improves can be cheaper than sticking with buggy-whips and steam engines.

Oh, I agree. I can see Apple's reasons for choosing Intel, for example. It's Worse Is Better [jwz.org] at work.

But just as with Lisp and C:

The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing.

A wrong lesson is to take the parable literally and to conclude that C is the right vehicle for AI software. The 50% solution has to be basically right, and in this case it isn't.

So, the question is, is this new hardware basically right?

Re:Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29381217)

However, it is still a question of priorities. And the OLPC organization has made it clear that not only is sugar not a priority, but that Negroponte thinks it's a mistake, and wants to see a plain old Windows OS on those laptops anyway.

They failed to make sales, and ended up with limited resources. The sad fact was that the 1.0 I got from the first G1G1 was nearly unusable, partly due to the software not being honed to the limited hardware, partly due to features not being complete. At that time you couldn't even suspend the laptop reliably (much less micro-sleep). Mesh didn't work. Handwriting wasn't implemented. Everything was painfully slow. The journal thing was hard to use and still has problems. In terms of delivering a usable product, they did not succeed.

I happen to think they could have engaged the FOSS community much more effectively, and they seemed to have ineffective relations with Fedora back then. Kristic has recently blamed the hardware for some problems. But clearly the project already suffered from limited resources and its project management wasn't quite up to the task.

I think Negroponte was forced to own up to the fact that they failed to deliver. Not for lack of great ideas, not for lack of innovative hardware. It came down to managing the software development, always a hard problem.

Also, in Negroponte's statement backing away from Sugar, he didn't distinguish between the OS, Desktop environment, and applications, all of which are referred to as "Sugar". If WinXP let them get a solidly working laptop out the door with Sugar apps running on top, that would have been a success for "an education project", despite the pain to us FOSS aficionados.

Could things have turned out better than XP using linux? Absolutely. But did they actually? Anyone would have to say no.

All that said, OLPC is still delivering laptops today [blogspot.com] , and AFAIK, the vast vast majority of them are not running Windows.

the 1.0 hardware had some bugs that kept it from living up to its potential. In particular, the battery-saving micro-sleep thing has never worked well,

Does the hardware refresh address this? In particular, how does the battery life compare to the original?

I do recall seeing a developer comment that switching to the VIA cpu and replacing the microcontroller was going enable them to address this. Whether they've gotten to it yet I don't know. But that was a major disappointment with 1.0 hardware.

Re:Fragmentation, different perf. targets... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374871)

Basically, they're moving it less in the direction of being a ridiculously cheap education appliance, and more in the direction of being just a sort of cheap netbook PC.

To get to the "ridiculously cheap" appliance you need to sell more than 1.4 millon units. One Laptop Per Child [wikipedia.org]

OLPC began as take it or leave it bundle of hardware, software and a constructivist philosophy of education straight from the western media lab. The education minister was expected to sign the purchase order, not to question the underlying assumptions of the project - or impose conditions of his own, such as support for Windows.

Java in hardware?! (2, Funny)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372413)

That's gotta be a first... Well, knowing Java enthusiasts, probably not.. But building hardware to fit Java is like building the horse to fit the cart.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372545)

Plenty of cell phone handsets were designed around running java hardware, and part of the BluRay hardware spec was making sure players had the processors and memory to run java.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372619)

Plenty of cell phone handsets were designed around running java hardware, and part of the BluRay hardware spec was making sure players had the processors and memory to run java.

Yes, I get this, and I was being sarcastic.. Though I guess it doesn't show through with no tone of voice attached. But actually implementing Java in hardware would involve designing a microchip that could run Java bytecode. Hence the "building the horse to fit the cart" comment in GP.

Re:Java in hardware?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29373509)

Do you get it? JVM -- Java Virtual Machine. There were CPUs that supported the JVM instruction set last century. So, no, it's not a first.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373997)

Directly? As in, implemented Java code as machine code? Not run in a virtual machine or JIT compiler or cross compiled to a normal CPU architecture? Please cite.

Re:Java in hardware?! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29374067)

Say hello to Jazelle. [wikipedia.org] Though from wikipedia it seems to do some translation between the bytecode where necessary.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374525)

If I could, I'd mod you +5 informative. It's still not a complete java implementation, but definitely more hardware acceleration than I expected.

Re:Java in hardware?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29383725)

From the Wikipedia article: "The published specifications are very incomplete, being only sufficient for writing operating system code that can support a JVM that uses Jazelle[citation needed]. The declared intent is that only the JVM software needs to (or is allowed to) depend on the hardware interface details. This tight binding facilitates that the hardware and JVM can evolve together without affecting other software. In effect, this gives ARM Holdings considerable control over which JVMs are able to exploit Jazelle[citation needed]. It also prevents open source JVMs from using Jazelle."

Darn... I knew it was too good to be true.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372761)

AFAIK VIA does not produce any Java accelerators for their processors (and I keep a close watch on them). So in general I think they just get much better speed, which in turn will make running Java desktop applications much more bearable. The overhead of Java is not so noticeable on current desktop processors, but one something like the XO 1.0 it's a different story.

Re:Java in hardware?! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29381965)

It's not a first, but you're right about the cart and horse thing. SPARC hardware in particular has been altered to be faster running Java.

In Other News... (1)

VirginMary (123020) | more than 5 years ago | (#29372539)

...computer hardware gets faster. Yawn!

Re:In Other News... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29372581)

Especially as it accelerates under gravity after being thrown off a cliff.

Cuntwaffle.

If this is a website for geeks, nerds, et al... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29373477)

Then why doesn't someone shoot the submitter who said "full-screen YouTube videos" instead of "full-screen Flash"?

I mean, firstly, most people in developing countries need YouTube like your average insane asylum needs flower wallpaper - it just doesn't fucking matter, and it's stupid to boot. Secondly, we're geeks. We're supposed to be accurate. Of course, I would say that someone need full-screen Flash about as much as I need another night in the drunk tank. It might be interesting for a little while, but it gets boring real fucking quick.

That's ten points off your geek card, buddy.

Re:If this is a website for geeks, nerds, et al... (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 5 years ago | (#29377065)

This video shows some XO's maintenace tips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns4RgDBPR80 [youtube.com]

If you search "Plan Ceibal", and skip the lots of promotional videos, you will see some examples of youtube being of use.
"Youtube videos" are more important than "flash" video, whatever that means, h.263, h.264 or some other codec. If they are able to use youtube with the new tag, it's just as useful. The thing is being able to play full screen internet video, a function the device has, not a technological spec of the hardware/software.

Re:If this is a website for geeks, nerds, et al... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29425699)

As I avoid try - not completely successfully, but better than most people, I believe - Youtube like the plague of idiocy that, by and large, it is, I'm not aware of them using anything other than Flash. And given my recent research into how to build home-made tattoo guns (not the cheap "get an electric toothbrush and..." crap, but actual hand-crafted professional-grade tattoo guns, as my recently departed roommate is a tattoo artist) as well as videos linked to from certain (non-technical, more sociopolitical) websites, I am fairly certain that Youtube does not use anything other than Flash.

I meant my comment more as a biting bit of commentary on the predominantly lame content on Youtube. While I am sure that there is some useful content, I haven't had to use it as a resource in 10 years of IT work and various related home projects, and hope that I don't have to, ever.

And the non-sarcastic point of my comment was that Youtube is a website. It would have been far more accurate to say that the hardware and software now supported full-screen video due to the support for the new codec.

I still think that giving young, poor kids better access to Youtube is a lot less useful than loading actual learning materials (such as offering downloads for whatever course the kid is interested in, complete with full texts and a learning plan). Let them play games or what-have-you with the upgraded system, but design the UI so that it's primary function is learning. The ones who can and desire to do so will prosper, whereas the ones who just want to will become civil engineers. The ones who don't want to do anything to better their person...well, they can trade it for crack and set off down that path.

Question : you said "a function the device has, not a technological spec of the hardware/software". How can a computer offer a function if it is not present in the capabilities of the hardware or software? Even if Youtube takes advantage of the tag, the browser still needs to interpret it and the video card still needs to render it. That's how computers work, no?

Take most of what I said with a grain of salt, as I neither keep up with Youtube nor this charity project (I don't, in general, believe in charity; right now I'm having to do manual labor because the IT industry in my home town is so fucked that there's a glut of people who will work for next to nothing, and in turn, a lot scuzzy contracting firms that would rather hire a cheaper candidate that can't perform as well but enables them to make more money...I've been a victim of this myself, being told that company X wanted to hire me as contractor under company Y, and company Y in turn telling X, as I later found out, that I was no longer available, while not responding t my repeated inquiries...so pardon me if I don't much give a shit whether some kind of EastButfukistan has the tools to have my job outsourced to him one day - and I think - while this project is a great idea in theory, most of these laptops will end up in the hands of those they're not intended for).

Re:If this is a website for geeks, nerds, et al... (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 5 years ago | (#29426155)

I don't believe in charity either. Plan Ceibal is a social program funded by our government, not charity.
There are lots of volunteer work that help a lot, but the main effort is government-funded.

What I mean about features vs specs is that Youtube is a real measure of the hardware capacity.
Every portable media player can play some kind of video, in some widespread codec.
Being able to play full screen Youtube videos is more important than being able to play H.264 MKV files at 12 FPS FULL HD, because most people don't understand that, and they don't know whether it's a good thing, or if it's useless.
Nowadays, there is a lot of content published in Youtube. If you want to use video, you need to support Youtube, or create and pay your own infrastructure. It's a big deal. Hardware specs are a lot less important than Youtube capabilities, when it comes to video in internet-capable devices.

Re:If this is a website for geeks, nerds, et al... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29464975)

Apologies for the late reply, had a lot going on. Okay, I get your point. I was just seeing things from a radically different angle. You see, I don't watch television. Never really have. Yes, I watch movies for entertainment, but any serious information I want, I go find the appropriate book, make a pot of espresso, sit down, and start reading.

So to me, Youtube is not a big deal. I'd rather read an article on hpcwire.org, clustermonkey.org, or on /. (to give you examples) than watch Youtube. It reminds me too much of TV, minus the commercials. And it seems they never have the exact information I want. Whereas if I hop in my truck and head over to a bookstore, near instant access and better accuracy (as well as other information therein that I might need or want later). Or just get on Amazon and order it, but there's a bit of a lag there.

I'm just more oriented towards the printed word (preferably right in my hand) than I am towards videos. And I've found it's much easier to zero in on the exact data you need in a book than in a video. Really the only time I watch video on one of my systems is if I'm watching a movie or porn (and porn it really doesn't matter if you skip ahead and miss five seconds of Ms. Cum-Slurper getting a rod in her mouth, as you derive no real-world knowledge from it...I can call on imagination and experience for that). Movies I treat like my DVD player...I sit my ass down, get drunk, and chain-smoke through the whole movie.

Where and when can I get one? (1)

blinking_at (126502) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374311)

Perhaps another G1G1? I've always wondered, since the design was completely open source, why some clever person didn't just order a few thousand direct from the manufacturer, and sell them?

Re:Where and when can I get one? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374973)

I've always wondered, since the design was completely open source, why some clever person didn't just order a few thousand direct from the manufacturer, and sell them?

They wouldn't let anyone in the first world order them (except through G1G1). Asking people to buy one for the price of two is a bit much for most. They probably would had greater volume had it been G0.25G1.

Re:Where and when can I get one? (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 5 years ago | (#29377109)

They didn't ask people to buy, they offered them for a price. Here, in the "third" world, we are used to paying double for stuff that is cheap in the "first" world. It's called logistics. It's cheaper to sell 100000 for 200 bucks than 1 for 400.
If you buy them by the tens/hundreds of thousands, and not for resale, you get a special price.
If you just want one, the unit cost is much higher, it implies expensive logistics, warranties and stuff.
I don't think they got any money from that G1G1 program, probably they just had it for marketing purposes.

Screw 1.5, XO-2 looks much more interesting! (0, Offtopic)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29374677)

I just found this! [laptop.org] Even though I know the machine isn't targeted at me the XO-1 design seems horrible, even when ignoring the estetics. But this one seems very interesting! If it turns out this way it is absolutely something I'll consider purchasing! The idea was buy one sponsor one, but who felt they wanted an XO-1? I'll gladly sponsor an XO-2, given that this will be the result, more or less.

Java, video, GNOME (1)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 5 years ago | (#29375591)

Why are these hardware updates again?

dig in! (1)

auctions (1634895) | more than 5 years ago | (#29376335)

I'm sure we could use more help, so dig in..thanks for the post

Fork 'Em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29376999)

Fork 'Em. If they even have anything worth bothering with. Who even cares about One Laptop Per Corporation anymore?

Feeling ripped off by first version, no interest (1)

Douglas Goodall (992917) | more than 5 years ago | (#29424109)

I just cannot get excited after participating in the g1g1 program the first time around. I was significantly unimpressed by virtually every design decision in the first machine. Given enough time, netbooks will come down and eliminate the OLPC IMHO.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?