On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Paul Fox <p...@laptop.org> wrote: > david wrote: > > As Bernie announced, we working on supporting Sugar .88 on the XO-1. > > hi david -- > > for those of us joining this thread late, can you expand on what/who > you mean by "we"? (or tell me to read the archives, if that's > more appropriate.)
Sorry, By we, I mean Activity Central and compnay that Bernie, Caroline, and I have started to support OLPC and Sugar deployments. It is going to take me awhile to figure out how to communicate with the community. I would like to keep the larger Sugar and OLPC projects aware of what our company is doing. But, I don't what it to sound like a press release of pitch for the company:) david > paul > > > > This projects is customer driven by the deployment in Paraguay. They, > > along with bernie, made a decision that it would be more useful, > > usable, and cost effective to settle on .88 rather than .82. This > > strictly a decision made by a single deployment, which I support. > > > > As an ecosystem we can make lists of Pros on Cons why this is a good > > or bad decision and why I am an idiot. At the end of the day this was > > a decision made by a deployment. The primary reason for this decision > > is that the deployment does not yet has an established base of .82 > > machines. Something we need to be aware of as developers is that > > deployments think on a much longer scale. As developers, if we have a > > bug we can commit a fix and rebuild within a few days. Deployments > > can take weeks if not months to push a minor update. > > > > Major version upgrades are something developers can do every six > > months. From my experience a couple couple of weeks of 'hmmm, better > > file a bug on that' and I have well running machines after an upgrade. > > For a enterprise, such as a deployment, the decision to update > > becomes much harder and takes much longer to implement. As Martin > > pointed out, a significant amount of Quality Assurance goes into a > > deployment upgrade. Not only do the hardware, OS, and learning > > platform need to work together, all infrastructure, activities and > > third party applications must also work after the update. The problem > > just got significantly harder:) If I hit a bug while while sitting in > > my office that is one thing. If a teacher hits a bug where the > > computers no longer connect to the server that is another thing > > entirely. > > > > On the other hand, there have been several significant improvements in > > both Sugar and Fedora over the last couple of releases. It would be > > valuable to make those improvement available to end users. > > > > My research has indicated that education institutions find that 3 > > years is the right balance between stability and improved > > functionality of new software. Because to the newness of the Sugar 2 > > years is a reasonable first round of updates due to the higher than > > normal increases in usefulness and usability. > > > > Blame and credit are important motivators in this game:( As such, if > > we fail, it is the fault of Bernie, paraguayeduca, and I for: 1) > > starting with a bad premise, 2) making bad technical decision, or 3) > > making bad operational decisions. If we fail it will be due to the > > cooperative efforts of deployments, Sugar Labs, OLPC, and other > > interested third parties. > > > > david > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > =--------------------- > paul fox, p...@laptop.org > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
