On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Flavio Danesse <fdane...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Flavio, Can you expand on your opinion on HTML5 and Android? i am very interested. I am a teacher, but not as fortunate as you. I teach college and graduate level students. By that time I get them, the damage is somewhat irreversible :-( Sameer > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep _______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
