[Its.an.education.project] An OLPC Development Model
david at lang.hm
david at lang.hm
Fri May 9 14:22:45 EDT 2008
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> 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
>> > 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.
thank you, this is exactly what I am hoping for.
More information about the Devel