On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux platforms > and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discussions with Microsoft > for several months, to explore a dual boot version of the XO. Some of you > have seen what Microsoft developed on their own for the XO. It works well > and now needs Sugar on top of it (so to speak).
You have been saying variations of this for a while now, but: * OLPC has not hired any Windows developers * OLPC has not adjusted its timeline to allow for time necessary for such a port. What are we to make of this? Are you serious about Sugar on Windows or not? If you are, then you need to immediately hire *at least* 10 windows developers to actually perform the port, and inform the deployment countries that we are placing a hold on new development for at least 6 months while the port is prepared. And the result, of course, will be a new version of Sugar which is guaranteed to run *no better* than the one on Linux. From an IT management perspective, this is madness. If you are not serious about Sugar on Windows within the next year, please continue to avoid 'now' and use 'might' and 'someday' when you talk about it, and we'll continue to try to make Sugar-on-Linux achieve its potential. I approve of keeping OLPC's options open, in case your current development team (myself included) cannot deliver on Sugar's potential, but setting vague (and demoralizing) goals for future development -- without actually devoting the resources to achieve those goals -- is madness. You have only succeeded in alienating the developers you need to make Sugar-on-Linux work, without actually achieving any progress on Sugar-on-Windows. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
