http://sugarlabs.org/go/MarketingTeam/Meetings/03-03-2009
(note: I messed up with "#start-meeting" instead of "#startmeeting" so
the meetbot did not log, many thanks to Tomeu and Mel for getting that
transcript online at above link)
Hi everyone -
Monday, March 16th, 9:00AM EST is the date & time
On 6 Mar 2009, at 00:53, Sean DALY wrote:
> http://sugarlabs.org/go/MarketingTeam/Meetings/03-03-2009
> (note: I messed up with "#start-meeting" instead of "#startmeeting" so
> the meetbot did not log, many thanks to Tomeu and Mel for getting that
> transcript online at above link)
>
>
> Hi everyo
No, not nitpicking!
Let's be clear what the version number is.
I have seen both "0.84" and "8.4" and "8.4.0" and "8.4.1", and for the
nontechnical user the "build" number can be confusing.
Which is it?
Thanks
Sean
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2009, at 00:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 09:55, Sean DALY wrote:
> No, not nitpicking!
>
> Let's be clear what the version number is.
>
> I have seen both "0.84" and "8.4" and "8.4.0" and "8.4.1", and for the
> nontechnical user the "build" number can be confusing.
>
> Which is it?
0.84.0. It's a release of softwa
Extremely informative Morgan, many thanks indeed. I am confused!
>From a marketing & PR point of view (bear with me please) I find it
very odd that a version used by hundreds of thousands of children is
still zero point something. The nontechnical computer-using mind
historically assumes v1.0 is t
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 13:00, Sean DALY wrote:
> Extremely informative Morgan, many thanks indeed. I am confused!
>
> From a marketing & PR point of view (bear with me please) I find it
> very odd that a version used by hundreds of thousands of children is
> still zero point something.
Well, we h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:00:13PM +0100, Sean DALY wrote:
>Extremely informative Morgan, many thanks indeed. I am confused!
Marvellous introduction to your controversial proposal :-)
>can we please consider a cleaner, more comprehensible numbering
On 06 Mar 2009, at 14:37 , Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Anyone sees other interesting models on which to base our strategy?
It's hardware and not software, but it is still an interesting model:
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2009/03/introducing-open-source-hardware.html
- antoine
--
http://7degr
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> But now we seem to have decided to push Sugar as a brand, much
> stronger than GNOME has been to date. And we are also selling a
> product: Sugar on a Stick.
Perhaps we start a different numbering system for the "product".
The first Sugar on
On 06 Mar 2009, at 14:37 , Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Anyone sees other interesting models on which to base our strategy?
It's hardware and not software, but it is still an interesting model:
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2009/03/introducing-open-source-hardware.html
- antoine
--
http://7d
On 06.03.2009, at 13:49, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Proposal: Sugar 0.82 "Chocolate"
Nice idea, but it's not google-compatible. Rather unlikely that "sugar
chocolate" will lead one to discover 0.82 ... It's too bad "Sugar" is
such a generic word :(
- Bert -
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> Nice idea, but it's not google-compatible. Rather unlikely that "sugar
> chocolate" will lead one to discover 0.82 ... It's too bad "Sugar" is
> such a generic word :(
How about "Sugar Labs Chocolate"? :)
--
Luke Faraone
http://luke.fa
These comments have been very useful - thank you.
I apologize for the long post below, but I feel the subjects are very
important for the project, and with a week to go until the media
launch we need to sort ourselves out.
Jonas said:
If you were too confused to say "I run Sugar 0.82 on OLPC-OS 8
Hey everyone, I'm jumping on kind of late but here's my take.
I don't think "sugar" is actually a very competitive term, even if it is
a generic word. SugarLabs.org is already on the front page of google (6)
from what I'm seeing (with a search for "sugar") on multiple data
center searches. I d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 01:36:37AM +0100, Sean DALY wrote:
>Bert made a very astute observation: we need to be Googlable. Luke is
>quite right, Sugar by itself is ungooglable and Sugar "needs" Labs
>close by in this context.
Searching just for the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[sent again - to the marketing team too this time]
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 01:36:37AM +0100, Sean DALY wrote:
>Bert made a very astute observation: we need to be Googlable. Luke is
>quite right, Sugar by itself is ungooglable and Sugar "needs" Labs
Josh - reaching hundreds of thousands of teachers and parents is
different from talking with half a dozen distributions (and OEMs too),
and of course we need to do both - and we are. That said, I am
convinced the more Sugar succeeds,the more distributions will be
encouraged to include and promote i
ce community are doing and should
> invite active players at the launch of our projects soon. All efforts to get
> digital lifestyle into education is well appreciated.
>
> David
>
> From: Sean DALY
> To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; Sugar Labs Mar
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Luke Faraone wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg
> wrote:
>>
>> Nice idea, but it's not google-compatible. Rather unlikely that "sugar
>> chocolate" will lead one to discover 0.82 ... It's too bad "Sugar" is
>> such a generic word :(
>
> How a
:D
I call a lollipop a lollipop.
But sugar crystals on a stick for tea/coffee swizzling are sometimes
offered by very high-class caterers
and making them is high-school chemistry stuff:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/growingcrystals/ht/blsugarcrystal.htm
http://z.about.com/d/chemistry/1/0/Y/e/roc
20 matches
Mail list logo
