Maybe "Sugar Web" instead of "Sugar Online"? We have web activities and Web Services in this release ....
Gonzalo On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is just a gut reaction but I feel we should think more in the "Sugar > online" direction than in the "Sugar on tablet" one, at least as a first > step. I'd love Sugar on tablet as anyone else but I feel it's somewhat > unrealistic because it involves skills, moneys and partnerships we don't > currently have. > > I also think we should not completely discard Sugar on netbooks (maybe > ultrabooks feels less anachronistic? :P). The hybrids that are hitting the > market lately might not be mature, cheap or extremely popular, but it's an > interesting direction to explore ... Keyboards are not completely dead > yet IMO! > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: > >> If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a press >> release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd the >> list. >> >> As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years after >> entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e. >> teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of >> production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing at a >> Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar Reaches >> V1". >> >> We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6 >> was renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an >> easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a first >> non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the >> underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant. >> >> We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big deal. >> In my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name i.e. >> "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs marketing >> work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven years >> of production. >> >> The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being >> understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be >> associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc., which >> would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps become >> irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development >> mode. >> >> I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six >> years ago [1]... >> >> (!) >> >> So I think we are ready for v2. >> >> Sean. >> >> [1] >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org>wrote: >> >>> We already have this discussion for Sugar 0.100, >>> why not do it again? :) >>> >>> With more than 7 years of development and more than 2 million of users, >>> probably we should accept a 1.0 version is deserved. >>> >>> With 6 months more, probably the web api will be more established, >>> and we are not doing incompatible changes to the python api. >>> >>> Anybody have a Really Good Motive(r) to not do it? >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>> >> >> > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
