[Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model

Marco Pesenti Gritti mpg at redhat.com
Fri May 9 10:05:33 EDT 2008

Bobby Powers wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti 
> <mpgritti at gmail.com <mailto:mpgritti at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM,  <david at lang.hm
>     <mailto:david at lang.hm>> wrote:
>     > what about Sugar software running as well as possible on normal
>     linux
>     > boxes? without having to install the full sugar package and run
>     > everything under sugar in one window. this doesn't mean that some
>     > libraries won't need to be installed, but like running QT apps
>     on a Gnome
>     > desktop, you install the QT libraries, not all of KDE (and similarly
>     > running gtk apps on a KDE destop you don't install all of gnome)
>     Not possible at the moment but it's on the plan too.
> The way I see it it is somewhat of a two way street.  Personally, if 
> I'm going to run Sugar apps in Gnome I would prefer them to integrate 
> nicely with my other apps, just as I would prefer apps running in 
> Sugar to be 'sugary'.  In this case the burdon falls on the shoulders 
> of the activity developers.  >From what I understand (and please 
> correct me if I'm wrong!) Abiword is a good example - the text editor 
> canvas is encapsolated as its own widget, and both the Gnome Abiword 
> and the sugar activity use it in their respective user interfaces.  So 
> nice modular UI code should make maintaing a Gnome and a Sugar version 
> of a program relatively painless.  Again, please correct me if I'm 
> wrong - I've been planning out what I want to do with a new activity 
> and this is what I seem to have arrived at, if peoples experiences are 
> different it could save me some headache...

I think *platform* integration is great from the user point of view. And 
I think designing the code so that it's easy to provide optimized UI for 
a certain platform is also a good idea.

*But* I also think it should be possible to run a Sugar activity on a 
standard desktop and a desktop application in the Sugar shell. 
Integration is great and we should encourage it, but we can't assume it 
will always happen. And in the cases it doesn't happen, not-integrated 
is better than nothing.

Also keeping the compatibility barrier low between the two platforms 
will make porting and cross pollination of technologies and ideas easier.


More information about the Devel mailing list