On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:24, Daniel Drake wrote: > 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas: >> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an >> "official" answer on this. Soon. >> >> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a >> Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution? > > Isn't there a wider question first? the one that asks if Sugar Labs is > actually interested in being a distributor rather than just an > upstream. I raised that question in my recent discussion and my > feeling is that the responses basically said "well we should really > just focus on being an upstream since we already are overworked there, > but actually Sugar Labs is just a platform where everyone interested > in Sugar can get together and run Sugar-related projects" > > Based on that, I'd say that SoaS is a fine project to sit under Sugar > Labs but there shouldn't be a "primary way" of getting Sugar. Like > other upstream projects, Sugar Labs should work with multiple > downstreams (treating them equally) in order to achieve wide adoption > of the software.
That's what I think as well. Sugar should be yet another DE in its relationship to distribution. That doesn't prevent SL to distribute some kind of a demo image (like Gnome does with Farsight Linux, for marketing purpose mainly), but the "primary way of getting Sugar" should be "ask your OS-vendor" IMHO. And no, I'm not saying that SoaS should be nothing more than a discardable demo. I see SoaS more as a downstream OS-vendor, distributing Sugar. ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel