On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Walter Bender wrote: >> Sugar/Linux could easily have compatibility with regular Linux stuff, >> but this has been denied despite strong demand. > > Albert, saying that this has been "denied" is overstated. Was it a > priority in the beginning? No. Were some decisions made that make it > more difficult? Yes. But are people working towards this goal? Yes.
I'll say that the impression that I have received as an outsider is that the people working on Sugar have not at all been interested in compatibility with normal linux software. in fact there was a post within the last week claiming that it would be a bad idea to make sugar able to use unmodified linux software becouse that would mean that the educational software and activities being written for sugar could then be used on any linux box without sugar and this would mean the death of sugar. a couple of us responded that if sugar requires that sort of lock-in it deserved to die, but I don't remember anyone speaking up to say that the developers of sugar or the software team at OLPC disagreed with the initial poster. I know that in an ideal world you would not have to speak up to deny each and every crazy statement that's made, but at this point there is so much uncertinty about what the attitudes really are (not to mention the problem of knowing who actually speaks with authority on many of these things) the reality is that everything that's incorrect needs to be responded, if only so others don't start quoting it incorrectly. David Lang _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
