On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Carlos Nazareno <object...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is now an open-source SDK (Flex SDK (there's 2 versions, the
You don't say open source in the OSI sense right? > Martin's previous arguments about the quality of educational content > is not a problem with a platform like flash, it is a problem about the > the content that is being deployed. It _is_ a problem. A *cultural* problem with developers. The quality is shockingly bad, even of my own software done with those tools. I've never seen a localizable Flash or Shockwave project (except for a few where _I_ did led the technical work). Never seen any project caring really about accesibility. > 2) You have hundreds of Flash multimedia/game developers that > outnumber Python game/multimedia developers. Why add an extra layer of > hassle for them to create content for the XO? Let Adobe do it, or let Flash developers do it (there are so many of them, and they have a financial incentive!). As I've said, the "work to do" is not that hard! > There's a new flame war going on, HTML5 vs Flash and it's the new > Macs vs PC, but you won't see Flash dying anytime soon. ... and link that to... > 3) Honestly, I find the reasoning that everything has to be open > source in order for it to be good for kids. I mean do you have to be a > mechanic to be able to drive a car? I got started hacking at 9 (Basic and ASM64 soon after) and we have a few kernel devs volunteering for OLPC that started _with the linux kernel_ at around the same age. But feel free to put that aside for a moment. It needs to be hackable _so that other deployers can hack on it too, to localize it_. The *engine* has to be hackable so that there is a chance to fix bugs. > I think this is a case of open source fundamentalism trumping educational > goals. You'll never meet me and fundamentalism. I am a deeply pragmatic guy. > There are hundreds of multimedia authors out there who can create > content for the XO, but IMHO sugarization & python + python only is a > gateway that is hampering the availability of content for the XO. There is no "only" here. The "technical problem" you are imagining does not exist, there a few easy things to solve. > Why is allowing additional tools & a new pool of content creators bad for > OLPC? We _allow_! You are drowning in a teardrop. We won't do Adobe's work for them, we won't do what is _your job_. > "if you don't like the way the world is running, > then change it instead of just complaining." Bert nailed it on your sig ;-) cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel