I generally just lurk on this list, but this is an important topic. First, as one of the original team at Xerox PARC in the 1970's, I'm astounded that the desktop metaphor was ever imposed on kids in the first place - it is about nouns, and kids are about verbs.? Sugar gets it, and is (IMHO) the strongest part of the OLPC project.? As for kids not being able to adapt to a windows-like OS when they grow up, we fail to grasp the ease with which kids master new interfaces all the time.
The fact is that Sugar is the first serious attempt I've seen to create a user interface that is based on both cognitive and social constructivism, and on Papert's constructionist thinking.? It deserves to be in the hands of millions of kids.? Kids are not miniature adults. As for Windows, the problem is that you can't scale large installations without going bankrupt with the annual fees that Microsoft charges.? This works out to about $100 per computer per year in many US schools, and is one of the reasons that Brazil moved to Linux. Yesterday, Brazil announced that, this year, 32 million kids will be using KDE on a Debian core.? It would be trivial to replace KDE with Sugar. Warmly, David Thornburg, PhD Director, Global Operations Thornburg Center Recife, Brazil | Chicago, USA -----Original Message----- From: Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sugar@lists.laptop.org Sent: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [sugar] Sugar\Windows won't ship 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
_______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
