Getting Sugar to run on a Nexus 7 is relatively simple, making it usable enough would likely be a lot of work but it should be possible. But, as far as I know, we have no idea of how get around the rooting, making it a viable solution for deployments. Until we figure that out IMO it doesn't make sense to market Sugar on a tablet.
On Friday, 8 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Sameer Verma <sve...@sfsu.edu<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > cc'ing Marketing as well. > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis > > <mavrot...@yahoo.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>>> The larger problem is the absence of a marketing strategy, we need > to know > >>>> where we are going to communicate effectively. In particular, we > need to > >>>> choose and implement how to offer Sugar tryout to teachers and > journalists. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I can think of a couple of approaches > >>> > >>> * Get Sugar running well on the CuBox-i. Find budget to buy a few of > those > >>> to distribute to chosen journalist and teachers. Try to partner with > >>> SolidRun to offer Sugar as an out-of-the-box installation option. > >>> > >> > >> Although the hardware specs are a good target for Sugar3, I believe > that suggesting a really small box with 5 cables connected to it to > showcase a K-9 educational platform, may retract from the feasibility and > thoroughness of the project. > >> A decent rooted tablet (ie Nexus 7) running Sugar on top of Linux, even > if the performance is not the best, would be much more catchy and maybe > suggestive of a Sugar-on-Android to come. > > > > I agree that to showcase Sugar, a tablet would be a better platform > > than Raspberry Pi, or Cubox-1, etc. Ruben Rodriguez showed us a Nexus > > 7 tablet running sugar at the OLPC SF summit. This build was running > > on top of Ubuntu desktop for ARM. We also had a Nexus 7 that was > > running the Ubuntu Touch (for phone and tablets) and Ruben thought it > > would perhaps be a better platform for running Sugar on a ARM tablet > > instead of his approach. > > > > I haven't followed up with him, but I'm cc'ing him as well. > > Found a thread that might be helpful. > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2013-September/044819.html > > cheers, > Sameer > > > > > cheers, > > Sameer > > > >> You can still do the CuBox thing but not for journalists and teachers. > >> > >>> * Make it easy to run Sugar inside VirtualBox on Windows and OS X. > Without > >>> having investigated too deeply it seems that a two step process would > be > >>> both realistically implementable and easy enough for the user > >>> > >>> 1 Install virtualbox > >>> 2 Install a Sugar application (which would take care of setting up the > >>> appliance). > >>> > >> > >> This is certainly a good idea but it must work as advertised ie in 1 > click after the VM software is installed. > >> I would only add Parallels-VM/VMware appliances since may already be > present in these closed OSs and can really provide "a single click to > Sugar". > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sugar-devel mailing list > >> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;> > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > Marketing mailing list > Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing