My humble opinion (please stick to one): To put into perspective the opinion, I should remember that besides developing for sugar since 2009, I am also a teacher in high school, so I've been inside ceibal classrooms during this time.
>From the beginning, I said I saw the fate of sugar linked to the xo, the one without the other does not seem to make sense. Now, OLPC xo 4 and manufactures their away strip. For those who did the port to gtk3 last year, and we have also had to deal with the problems of arm processors, etc.. . ., We do not easily see how much time is lost in these "strategic decisions" while it ignores the feedback from deployments. I think this whole issue of android and html5, is a very grave mistake, probably the last. But hey, I'm just a teacher, probably the only one in this list. 2013/11/5 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > Oh, awesome, COPR seems to be exactly what we need. > > > On Tuesday, 5 November 2013, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Going a bit off topic, but a pretty major issue I see in our workflow >> with >> > Fedora is that we don't have a good way to develop unstable Sugar on a >> > stable Fedora. Rawhide is, or at least is perceived as, unstable. And >> I'm >> > not sure what would be a good way to, for example, produce and >> distribute >> > 0.100 rpms for Fedora 19. We can setup our custom automated build >> system and >> > repository of course, but I'm not sure that's a good approach? Part of >> the >> > problem here is that upstream tends to depend strongly on very recent >> > libraries which are not yet available in the stable fedora, though >> maybe now >> > that the gi conversion is over we can avoid that. >> >> Actually a lot of that will be solved perfectly with COPR (similar in >> style to Ubuntu PPA) which is being worked upon at the moment and it >> should solve all the problems you see by enabling newer versions to be >> built for older releases while maintaining the stable shipped release >> in mainline. >> >> Peter >> >> > On Tuesday, 5 November 2013, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On 4 November 2013 22:53, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> * It's not clear to me where we are going. The OLPC/Sugar >> development >> >> >>> ecosystem seems to be at a crossroads. I am encouraged by the web >> >> >>> activity >> >> >>> work, but don't understand the path of transposing the value >> >> >>> proposition of >> >> >>> Sugar (interface, Journal, collaboration, Activities) to handheld >> >> >>> tactile >> >> >>> devices (tablets to smartphones). PCs (of any size) with keyboards >> are >> >> >>> no >> >> >>> longer competitive with tablets for grade-school classroom use. >> >> >>> Perhaps the >> >> >>> XO-4 could still be in the running; there is no clear message from >> >> >>> OLPC. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll try to express briefly my feelings about the directions the >> >> >> project >> >> >> could take. Note that I might be missing a lot of what is going on >> >> >> above the >> >> >> technical level. >> >> >> >> >> >> * The XO is not a viable hardware platform other than for existing >> >> >> deployments. OLPC is pretty clearly going in a different direction. >> >> > >> >> > I may be alone in thinking that there will be some runway left with >> >> > the XO. But deployments need alternatives regardless. >> >> > >> >> >> * Sugar web activities on the top of a full Android loses too much >> of >> >> >> the >> >> >> Sugar value proposition. It's great to have it in addition to >> >> >> Sugar-the-OS, >> >> >> but it's not enough alone. >> >> > >> >> > I agree. >> >> > >> >> >> * From the technical point of view there are several ways to get >> >> >> Sugar-the-OS running on tactile devices. Unfortunately it's not >> clear >> >> >> to me >> >> >> that any of these devices is open enough to be viable for >> deployments >> >> >> or >> >> >> "ordinary" users. >> >> > >> >> > We looked at ChromeOS a few years back, but at the time it was too >> >> > heavy for our hardware. Today, it is a different story. Might be a >> >> > viable option. Certainly running GNU/Linux/Sugar on a ChromeBook is >> >> > not a bad starting point. >> >> >> >> Given that ChromeOS is locked down I don't believe it's viable to ask >> >> a School to have to break/hack the HW to get it working OOTB. >> >> >> >> Having been involved in the OLPC OS side of things I believe you would >> >> be much better taking the work done by OLPC with things like >> >> olpc-os-builder and the work upstream with Fedora to use it to build >> >> out OS images that will work in a similar way across both XOs and >> >> other HW be it x86 netbook or cheap ARM devices rather than >> >> reinventing the wheel! >> >> >> >> Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Narvaez >> > >> > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing