On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg b...@freudenbergs.de
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
: [IAEP] Topics deliverables from Marketing IRC meeting
03-03-2009: Sugar 8.4 launch date set!
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
-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
-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
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 09:55, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com 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
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
-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 Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org 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
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
--
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg b...@freudenbergs.dewrote:
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
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
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 everyone -
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 g...@garycmartin.com wrote:
On 6 Mar
14 matches
Mail list logo
