Walter leaving and shift to XP.

[Peter Krenesky]

Edward Cherlin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Tom Hoffman <tom.hoffman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Torello Querci <torello at torosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  >  If is possible to use normal windows application on top Sugar+Windows the
>>  >  >  educational project is broken because the developers what need to write a
>>  >  >  program (program not activity) write it on windows because in this manner one
>>  >  >  PC with windows can run it, and XO "XPzed" too .... so why write code for
>>  >  >  sugar? In this scenario Sugar is dead and OLPC became a Laptop organization
>>
>>  If Sugar cannot offer any advantages to developers writing
>>  applications for children beyond those already offered by Windows XP,
>>  it will fail regardless.
> 
> It does, though, so it won't. Here are just a few examples.
> 
> * We are now working on integrating the formerly separate activities.
> Among other things, we will be able to feed sound and other program
> output to Measure, and text-to-speech with karaoke-style text coloring
> will be available to all activities.
> 
> * Sugar provides a standard suite of software functions that can be
> built into interactive textbooks.
> 
> * Sugar is far easier to localize than other software, and a language
> community can do it themselves.
> 

the way they were talking most of those things would just be made into 
top level apis.  Things like "sharing" would be available to all 
applications.

If these functions are being made into apis then there is no benefit in 
developing for sugar.  Why would any of us spend time developing a sugar 
specific app at that point?   we can write a normal desktop app that 
uses sugar apis.  We would get the same functionality with more portability.

Sugar as a window manager would be marginalized and fail.