Sugar could run inside a window or as a full-screen app with a hot key to switch. I have run Windows and Linux on the same machine for many years with that sharing style.
In such a model, Sugar will be used to the extent that users prefer it. Albert Cahalan wrote: > Let's imagine this several ways, and see why it won't happen. > First consider what a faithful Sugar\Windows system would be like. > > a. the familiar "Start" menu is gone > b. regular Windows programs like Word can't run > c. OS config GUI stuff is (must be) rewritten from scratch > > I doubt anybody wants that. Stand up and shout if you do. > It is pointless, because Windows compatibility has been lost. > > If Nicolas Nigroponte takes that to a potential buyer, the first > complaint will be that Sugar\Windows isn't "real" Windows. > The edutainment junk won't run, the kids wouldn't learn the > normal Windows interface used in business, and regular Windows > users won't be able unable to support the strange mess. > > The next demand is obvious: eliminate Sugar. > > Not that many wouldn't jump for joy, but the price isn't worth it. > (price: loss of localization, loss of trojan protection, loss of > educational value, loss of nearly all volunteer support and nearly > all volunteer development help, power management problems, etc.) > > Given how the Sugar\Windows idea seems to just assume compatiblity > with regular Windows stuff, it is entirely unfair to Sugar/Linux. > Sugar/Linux could easily have compatibility with regular Linux stuff, > but this has been denied despite strong demand. > > Somebody is getting a bait-and-switch. I'm not sure who, but I would > bet that it is the Sugar fans rathar than the Windows fans. One may > even note that Sugar\Windows is a political way to ditch Sugar. > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar