Sugar & XFCE

[david at lang.hm]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Sebastian Silva wrote:

> But now that you mentioned it, bonus points for getting a tightly integrated 
> Debian based XFCE4 (with as little trouble as possible). Only thing I dont 
> like about this is losing the native and standard sugar... but oh well its 
> just to compare and make adults feel more at home.

take a look at the debxo scripts. they use a config file to define what 
packages are installed in the build, and the project is maintaining 
configs for XFCE, KDE, GNOME, and Sugar.

I haven't had a chance to try the 0.4 build, but the 0.3 build was very 
close to working (it didn't have the key mappings needed, but that's one 
of the things they worked on for the 0.4 release)

David Lang

> Sebastian
>
> david at lang.hm wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Sebastian Silva wrote:
>> 
>>> Here's a delicate scenario that I see:
>>> Inevitably, when comparing the XOs running Sugar to those running
>>> Windows for evaluation (this is happening *right now*) - MMSs (that
>>> is, Microsoft&Ministries) will argue not only on GNU+Linux vs. Windows
>>> technical merits, but also the GUI will come up as a possible fatal
>>> comparison.
>>> So techies will then install XFCE for comparison, perhaps they'll
>>> request F10 for that...
>>> Only XFCE is currently vanilla on the repositories and fancy
>>> integration like volume and brightness, DPI, etc isnt well integrated
>>> at all by default, as well as many useful separate widgets for
>>> networking, battery status and so on.
>>> Its funny: In this scenario, you can actually share more on windows
>>> (via file sharing) than on linux (at least with the gui).
>>> So here's an idea Homunq gave us yesterday:
>>> This is the perfect project for a G1G1 hacker. Probably one already
>>> did it. Lets challenge them, via OLPCNews, to release "pimp up xfce on
>>> F9" procedures (maybe even scripts and themepacks) - so that it is as
>>> simple and as trouble free to install a working, beautiful, lean and
>>> mean XFCE4 on the NAND that we can proudly compare with sluggish
>>> windows on the SD.
>>> Please could we request this to wayan and spread it?
>> 
>> the biggest problem has been in getting started (getting a system image 
>> that could boot and use the normal distro tools)
>> 
>> debxo is a good example of a bootstrap for debian, it is a set of scripts 
>> that use the standard distro package tools to create a system image that 
>> they can boot into and start tweaking. what it's missing is a good way to 
>> let the users extract the results of their tweaks to submit upstream.
>> 
>> if you want the type of work you are looking for to happen on Fedora 
>> someone needs to package up a similar set of scripts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 2008/12/5 Mikus Grinbergs <mikus at bga.com>:
>>>> Carlos wrote (regarding Sugar on an XO):
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apps need to be sugarized.
>>>> 
>>>> This is true when Sugar is the primary interface of the target user
>>>> population.  But the "Subject" of this topic is XFCE.  I am going to
>>>> make the assumption that an user sophisticated enough to use XFCE
>>>> will be sophisticated enough not to need the simplified GUI that
>>>> sugarization provides.
>>>> 
>>>> I myself have had reasonable success installing Linux applications
>>>> on my XO, then launching them from the command line.  [And launching
>>>> from Terminal bypasses Rainbow's restrictions on applications.]
>>>> 
>>>> I keep wondering, considering Moore's Law and the availability of
>>>> netbooks, why shoehorn specifically Sugar (and the XO) into
>>>> competing for the "traditional_Linux_interface" laptop role ?
>>>> 
>>>> mikus
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
>