[Sur] [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Sugar oversight board meeting

[Flavio Danesse]

My humble opinion (please stick to one):

To put into perspective the opinion, I should remember that besides
developing for sugar since 2009, I am also a teacher in high school, so
I've been inside ceibal classrooms during this time.

>From the beginning, I said I saw the fate of sugar linked to the xo, the
one without the other does not seem to make sense. Now, OLPC xo 4 and
manufactures their away strip.

For those who did the port to gtk3 last year, and we have also had to deal
with the problems of arm processors, etc.. . ., We do not easily see how
much time is lost in these "strategic decisions" while it ignores the
feedback from deployments.

I think this whole issue of android and html5, is a very grave mistake,
probably the last.

But hey, I'm just a teacher, probably the only one in this list.


2013/11/5 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez en gmail.com>

> Oh, awesome, COPR seems to be exactly what we need.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 5 November 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez en gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Going a bit off topic, but a pretty major issue I see in our workflow
>> with
>> > Fedora is that we don't have a good way to develop unstable Sugar on a
>> > stable Fedora. Rawhide is, or at least is perceived as, unstable. And
>> I'm
>> > not sure what would be a good way to, for example, produce and
>> distribute
>> > 0.100 rpms for Fedora 19. We can setup our custom automated build
>> system and
>> > repository of course, but I'm not sure that's a good approach? Part of
>> the
>> > problem here is that upstream tends to depend strongly on very recent
>> > libraries which are not yet available in the stable fedora, though
>> maybe now
>> > that the gi conversion is over we can avoid that.
>>
>> Actually a lot of that will be solved perfectly with COPR (similar in
>> style to Ubuntu PPA) which is being worked upon at the moment and it
>> should solve all the problems you see by enabling newer versions to be
>> built for older releases while maintaining the stable shipped release
>> in mainline.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 5 November 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender en gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez en gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 4 November 2013 22:53, Sean DALY <sdaly.be en gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> * It's not clear to me where we are going. The OLPC/Sugar
>> development
>> >> >>> ecosystem seems to be at a crossroads. I am encouraged by the web
>> >> >>> activity
>> >> >>> work, but don't understand the path of transposing the value
>> >> >>> proposition of
>> >> >>> Sugar (interface, Journal, collaboration, Activities) to handheld
>> >> >>> tactile
>> >> >>> devices (tablets to smartphones). PCs (of any size) with keyboards
>> are
>> >> >>> no
>> >> >>> longer competitive with tablets for grade-school classroom use.
>> >> >>> Perhaps the
>> >> >>> XO-4 could still be in the running; there is no clear message from
>> >> >>> OLPC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll try to express briefly my feelings about the directions the
>> >> >> project
>> >> >> could take. Note that I might be missing a lot of what is going on
>> >> >> above the
>> >> >> technical level.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * The XO is not a viable hardware platform other than for existing
>> >> >> deployments. OLPC is pretty clearly going in a different direction.
>> >> >
>> >> > I may be alone in thinking that there will be some runway left with
>> >> > the XO. But deployments need alternatives regardless.
>> >> >
>> >> >> * Sugar web activities on the top of a full Android loses too much
>> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> Sugar value proposition. It's great to have it in addition to
>> >> >> Sugar-the-OS,
>> >> >> but it's not enough alone.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree.
>> >> >
>> >> >> * From the technical point of view there are several ways to get
>> >> >> Sugar-the-OS running on tactile devices. Unfortunately it's not
>> clear
>> >> >> to me
>> >> >> that any of these devices is open enough to be viable for
>> deployments
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> "ordinary" users.
>> >> >
>> >> > We looked at ChromeOS a few years back, but at the time it was too
>> >> > heavy for our hardware. Today, it is a different story. Might be a
>> >> > viable option. Certainly running GNU/Linux/Sugar on a ChromeBook is
>> >> > not a bad starting point.
>> >>
>> >> Given that ChromeOS is locked down I don't believe it's viable to ask
>> >> a School to have to break/hack the HW to get it working OOTB.
>> >>
>> >> Having been involved in the OLPC OS side of things I believe you would
>> >> be much better taking the work done by OLPC with things like
>> >> olpc-os-builder and the work upstream with Fedora to use it to build
>> >> out OS images that will work in a similar way across both XOs and
>> >> other HW be it x86 netbook or cheap ARM devices rather than
>> >> reinventing the wheel!
>> >>
>> >> Peter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Narvaez
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel en lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/attachments/20131105/bdd43ea2/attachment.html>