Your points are well taken and generally I agree with them. Except that I never suggested you should "abandon upstream development". Sugar is your calling card, your differentiator, your trademark, your value added... etc, etc, etc. It's what make you, you. :-) I would never think of abandoning it.
I also differ on the question of attracting more people. I think more focus is better than less, but I am willing to suspend disbelief. But that gives me an opportunity to bring up a point that I find much more interesting. I believe Sugar has a peculiar problem to solve. You need to somehow bring together educators and developpers around a particular philosophy of education. The intersection of those sets appears to be a very small set. You need to widen that set. I think a dedicated distribution might help. It would be a point of focus. Cheers, -- Philippe ------ The trouble with common sense is that it is so uncommon. <Anonymous> On Saturday 29 August 2009 08:56:39 Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > 2009/8/29 Philippe Clérié <phili...@gcal.net>: > > Well, I wasn't attempting to solve anything. I thought I was > > just brainstorming. > > > > These past few weeks there have been a lot of discussions about > > processes. Meanwhile, I am heading into the classroom with a > > somewhat unstable and unfinished platform not to mention very > > little guidance as to exactly how to make this thing work. I'll > > probably let the kids take the lead. > > > > Calling Sugar a distribution might not solve anything > > (certainly not my own problems), but it might help us focus on > > the practical matter of deciding how to put out that > > distibution instead of arguing about how to decide what we're > > about to do. > > Ok, so the idea is to focus our resources on the distribution > level? I'm not very fond of that because: > > - we aren't a company that has resources and puts them wherever > its management says so. Work is done by volunteers and they work > on whatever they fancy. I think that having less focus is useful > here because brings more interested people onboard that we > otherwise wouldn't have. > > - polishing a distribution is _lots_ of work. Canonical, Novell, > Redhat, etc. are putting lots of resources into there. I think > that a small set of people can take one of those distros and make > it work better for a specific use case, but we aren't going to > outrun the big players in a generic, polished distro. > > - other organizations are already taking Sugar and distro bits > and putting them together for their specific use cases. Maybe no > one is doing that yet for your use cases, but I don't think it > means that we need to drop whatever we are doing and do that > instead. If we have opportunities open and advertise them > properly, we may get people to do the work. > > - if we abandon upstream development, what point is in packaging > it? > > Regards, > > Tomeu > > > -- > > > > > > Philippe > > > > ------ > > > >> So is the only problem what we are calling Sugar today? If we > >> rename SoaS to Sugar and Sugar to Sucrose, how we would be > >> solving anything? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Tomeu > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
