On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:06:44PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > El Mon, 21-09-2009 a las 23:53 +0100, Martin Dengler escribió: > > Well I meant precisely what I said (sorry to be pedantic). If one > > replaces "rpms" with "XO bundles", it's what we have now, and what I > > think's being proposed to be replaced with rpm/PackageKit. "Different > > versions of Write for different users" seems to be an example, yeah. > > Why would we care to have concurrent versions of the same activity for > different user accounts?
Because to do otherwise is to unnecessarily limit what we can achieve and unnecessarily regress from what we have now. I thought that'd be a pretty huge step backward for, well, as I've pointed out elsewhere, less functionality and more work. > Our computing model is inherently single-user. Eh? I didn't realised Sugar prescribed that much about the OS it ran upon. In fact, I suspect LTSP people are going to surface in droves and beat you to a pulp in parallel :). Or at least point out that it'd be really nice if Sugar didn't require a whole different OS for a different user's Sugar desktop environment. > Besides, once you achieve local installation of rpms in ~/Activities, > you'd get this feature too. Indeed - I guess that'd be fine. Your suggestions were interesting. Martin
pgp8LCb75lqUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
