Yup On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> 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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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 >> >> > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing