>
> Actually, I would argue that an operating system that doesn't
> natively host its development tools is not appropriate for OLPC's
> target audience.
>
Self hosting is not an absolute requirement. You just have traded an
existing, usable developer environment (like Eclipse) for the
possibilit
What: Sugar / Android
What is the same:
Application complexity: Simple (Activities) / Simple (Activities)
Data storage: Ditch filesystem (central Journal) / Ditch filesystem (app
specific SQLite storage)
UI: Simple (ugly) / Simple (cool)
Computer experience of target audience: Low (children) /
On Dec 24, 2009, at 6:59 AM, NoiseEHC wrote:
> ...
> debug. You know, Android OS solves exactly the same problems Sugar has
> been created to solve just it is faster, uses less memory, much
> prettier, has an usable developer environment...
Actually, I would argue that an operating system that d
I'm with Bert. What problems has Android solved that Sugar was created to
solve, in your opinion?
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 24.12.2009, at 12:59, NoiseEHC wrote:
> >
> > You know, Android OS solves exactly the same problems Sugar has
> > been created to solve
On 24.12.2009, at 12:59, NoiseEHC wrote:
>
> You know, Android OS solves exactly the same problems Sugar has
> been created to solve
O RLY?
<>
- Bert -
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
> I hadn't looked closely enough to see the detailed licensing. But I'd
> seen the news stories about Google cease-and-desists to the guys making
> improved free versions. Is a useful fully-free version readily
> available, as a practical option?
>
>
The guy bundled the not free Google applic
> What makes you think that this will be a proprietary version of Android?
> Android is licensed Apache 2.0 with kernel patches as GPLv2[1], although
> there have been some proprietary apps and customizations on top.
I hadn't looked closely enough to see the detailed licensing. But I'd
seen the n
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>
>
> The OS is proprietary (android), it would probably fail it you dropped
> it in a puddle and it has too many radios...
What makes you think that this will be a proprietary version of Android?
Android is licensed Apache 2.0 with kernel pa
> "We don't necessarily need to build it," Negroponte told Forbes. "We just
> need to threaten to build it."
Looks like Notion Ink has already done so, sort of:
http://www.slashgear.com/notion-ink-tegra-android-smartpad-uses-pixel-qi-display-1866308/
The OS is proprietary (android), it would
