On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Peter Krenesky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sugar team has accomplished an amazing amount in the time they've
> spent so far. However, there are so many features, like security, that
> were not implemented or implemented as well as they should have been.
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux platforms
>> and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discussions with Microsoft
>> for several months, to expl
Thanks for talking with us.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> People keep asking me:
>
> Yes, OLPC's commitment to Sugar has changed. It is now larger, not smaller.
> Contrary to inferences drawn by Walter's departure, the press and venerable
>
Thanks for sharing your ideas about Sugar with us. Some comments follow below.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux platforms
> and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discuss
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux platforms
> and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discussions with Microsoft
> for several months, to explore a dual boot version of the X
5 matches
Mail list logo
