Could you please elaborate on what the behavior of the Journal has to do with this thread?
-walter On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Erik Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> My impression, based on historical conversations with the parties >> involved is that there are a bunch of hackers who feel that we did >> ourselves a disservice by dropping _so much_ backwards compatibility, >> specifically with Unix filesystems and desktops, in exchange for >> cool ideas. The feeling is that had we traded compatibility for features >> less aggressively then there would be many more hackers available to >> help write the features since there would be many more hackers who felt >> it was possible to live within Sugar. >> >> This is just an impression, however. > > For what it's worth, it is also my impression. I have heard similarly > from virtually all technically-oriented parties involved. I have heard > echos of this from less technical users (e.g. teachers who are confused > by the behavior of the journal). > > Erik > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar