C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux platforms
>> and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discussions with Microsoft
>> for several months, to explore a dual boot version of the XO. Some of you
>> have seen what Microsoft developed on their own for the XO. It works well
>> and now needs Sugar on top of it (so to speak).
>
> You have been saying variations of this for a while now, but:
> * OLPC has not hired any Windows developers
> * OLPC has not adjusted its timeline to allow for time necessary for
> such a port.
>
> What are we to make of this? Are you serious about Sugar on Windows
> or not? If you are, then you need to immediately hire *at least* 10
> windows developers to actually perform the port, and inform the
> deployment countries that we are placing a hold on new development for
> at least 6 months while the port is prepared. And the result, of
> course, will be a new version of Sugar which is guaranteed to run *no
> better* than the one on Linux. From an IT management perspective,
> this is madness.
>
> If you are not serious about Sugar on Windows within the next year,
> please continue to avoid 'now' and use 'might' and 'someday' when you
> talk about it, and we'll continue to try to make Sugar-on-Linux
> achieve its potential. I approve of keeping OLPC's options open, in
> case your current development team (myself included) cannot deliver on
> Sugar's potential, but setting vague (and demoralizing) goals for
> future development -- without actually devoting the resources to
> achieve those goals -- is madness. You have only succeeded in
> alienating the developers you need to make Sugar-on-Linux work,
> without actually achieving any progress on Sugar-on-Windows.
> --scott
>
The sugar team has accomplished an amazing amount in the time they've
spent so far. However, there are so many features, like security, that
were not implemented or implemented as well as they should have been.
Several people said a lack of manpower was to blame.
If more resources are available for porting to windows, why weren't more
developers hired for the initial work on sugar? Is there new funding
that is making this port possible?
What I'm having a hard time with is how this new, much greater
commitment can be honored when the initial undertaking was understaffed.
Sugar was _already_ an integral part of the XO and it now seems like
it was not given the attention it deserved.
-Peter
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
