Sugar\Windows won't ship

[Mitch Bradley]

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
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>