> I am going to > make the assumption that an user sophisticated enough to use XFCE > will be sophisticated enough not to need the simplified GUI that > sugarization provides.
Hi Mikus! Precisely. And I think 9-year olds and up fall in this category. And besides, re: XFCE, GNOME, KDEI mean how hard can it be to run programs if you simply place "applications shortcuts" on the desktop? It's a no-brainer. I Sugar's advantage in this space is that it protects untrained users from inadvertently damaging the system when given access to the underlying filesystem and saves new users from being overwhelmed by too many UI choices. > I myself have had reasonable success installing Linux applications > on my XO, then launching them from the command line. [And launching > from Terminal bypasses Rainbow's restrictions on applications.] Yes, same here, but isn't installing and launching applications completely defeating the purpose a GUI and the improved usability it provides? Our target demographic here is the same (gradeschool students) and requiring the use of the command line requires orders of sophistication greater than clicking on icons or menus and launching programs. Users (including kids from pilot programs in South America from what I've read here) have been switching to the command line in order to achieve desired functionality that they couldn't obtain from the Sugar desktop. Don't you think that when users are forced to use the command line, it's indicative of a failure of the primary GUI system? b) Unless we want the kids to need to actively learn unix commands and grok things the way we used to (yay! :D), users should be protected from having to use the terminal, especially it's so easy to go super-user on the XO OS -- a lot of damage can easily be caused by the user to the filesystem if improperly supervised. c) IMHO, simplifying the UI to meet the needs of precocious youngsters because "they're not sophisticated enough" and then saying "they can just use the command line if they need more" or expecting them to play with Python are mind-boggling contradictions. > I keep wondering, considering Moore's Law and the availability of > netbooks, why shoehorn specifically Sugar (and the XO) into > competing for the "traditional_Linux_interface" laptop role ? This is because: a) These "traditional_Linux_interface" laptops like Intel's Classmate PC have started to compete on OLPC's turf and threaten the XO's relevancy. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080929-classmate-pc-gets-a-boost-with-million-unit-venezuelan-order.html b) This is not about shoehorning the XO into role it wasn't meant for, it's about expanding and unleashing the XO's potential because the hardware is more than capable of more tasks than the currently available activities. In fact, I'd say it was the polar opposite of "shoehorning specifically" and that the XO and the current software environment has shoehorned it into a smaller role than it could be playing. c) Rainbow and sugarizing aside, specially written educational software like XO's activities and learning goals aren't mutually exclusive with traditional linux/windows applications like office software. On the contrary, I say "legacy apps" would broaden older XO users' horizons and would increase the attractiveness of the XO with governments/entities looking to have their students gain the ability to interact with current IT systems. d) This is also about attracting developers to create content for the XO because as with any platform, it's all about content, content, content, content. I believe the need for esoteric tools and arcane hoop-jumping in order to develop apps and content for the XO is detrimental to OLPC's cause. Sure, you can say "If contributors are really committed to volunteering, then should be willing to go through all these steps", but don't you think we should be lowering the barrier to content contribution and that every little bit counts? e) Despite the XO's CPU, memory and disk space limitations, I say to the many naysayers the XO is still relevant in modern IT space. It's all about proper optimization, picking the right software, and knowing its limitations. In fact, despite its limited horsepower, I'd say the XO is superior to all these other machines because of many features like ruggedization, low power consumption and the ability to run in areas without power infrastructure, e-book and sunlight-readability mode, mesh networking, etc etc etc. A trend I've been extremely disappointed with in IT and ordinary consumers over the years is the upward-spiraling Moore's law - software bloat - need for speed cycle. I'm thrilled that OLPC had bucked this trend and has instead gone with power efficiency over blistering yet unnecessary speed. Oh, btw, I hope I don't horrify you guys with this question, but is there any possiblity we can flip Sugarization on its head and give Sugar activities the ability to run outside of Sugar on other systems, even if maybe with some kind of wrapper, Journal integration and XO-hardware aside? Kudos to everyone! -Naz -- Carlos Nazareno http://www.object404.com interactive media specialist zen graffiti studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel