On 11 November 2013 05:10, David Farning wrote:
> My experience has been that "educational software politics and
> policies" have been been the dominate influence within Sugar Labs. If
> this is the role that Sugar Labs wants to maintain that is fine, as
> long as they open the door to other organ
>
> Both approaches have challenges. If Sugar Labs is willing to assume
> responsibility for quality education software, they will have to adopt
> a culture and processes which encourage feedback (even negative
> feedback) and ways to implement solutions to that feedback.
We already have it.
>
>
>Looks better, but still, no Harry Potter...
>
If you want to go down that road, may I suggest to look for J. K. Rowling
instead?...
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else want to add their thoughts on:
>>
>
> These are all good for now but without the "safety" of the 2-3 million
> default users, SL can not just be the "upstream". There are some more
> fundamental questions now t
> Dude, only 2 commits by me? No way! :P
> I think grepping by Signed-off-by is not quite accurate, we have not been
using it in the last six months or so. But I'm just nitpicking, your point
stands.
Buuh, it's your fault for not signing ! :)
Using Author:
sugar-toolkit-gtk3]$ git log --since="
On 10 November 2013 23:50, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> In all this speculations I don't see _how_ SugarLabs should get the
> resources
> to implement these ideas. How many people do you think is working right
> now?
>
If I understood correctly Yioryos was suggesting the Android application
price wou
On 10 November 2013 21:03, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>
> >
> >Thanks for clarifying. IMO we should not rewrite Sugar and activities
> using the Android SDK
> >
> >
> >- While Android is nominally free software for it's licence, it seems the
> current development practices (like code drops) give
>>- We should keep supporting existing deployments, this would duplicate the
>>work completely.
>
> Post .094 Sugar can hardly run in 75% of its installed base (XO-1s), so we do
> not really support the majority of existing deployments.
>
I am pretty sure this can be solved. See the thread about
>
>Thanks for clarifying. IMO we should not rewrite Sugar and activities using
>the Android SDK
>
>
>- While Android is nominally free software for it's licence, it seems the
>current development practices (like code drops) gives Google too much control
>on the project direction. I don't want t
Thanks for clarifying. IMO we should not rewrite Sugar and activities using
the Android SDK
- While Android is nominally free software for it's licence, it seems the
current development practices (like code drops) gives Google too much
control on the project direction. I don't want to be locked in
ooops
>> What do you mean with utilizing sugar shell etc? It seems like that's
> either porting the GNOME platform to make the current implementation work, or
> rewriting them using the Android SDK.
>>
>
> Probably another technically inaccurate term. I mean
re-writing
>but keeping the
What do you mean with utilizing sugar shell etc? It seems like that's
either porting the GNOME platform to make the current implementation work,
or rewriting them using the Android SDK.
On Sunday, 10 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>
>
> >very nice analysis, thanks a lot. Let me focus
>very nice analysis, thanks a lot. Let me focus on a couple of points
>
>
>- Sell for 1.99$. I feel that building business around Sugar might be
>essential for its survival. And I like the idea, it seems like it might even
>work! (I have no clue about business, mind you :P).
>Though I'm not sur
Hi,
very nice analysis, thanks a lot. Let me focus on a couple of points
- Sell for 1.99$. I feel that building business around Sugar might be
essential for its survival. And I like the idea, it seems like it might
even work! (I have no clue about business, mind you :P).
Though I'm not sure this
>
> Does anyone else want to add their thoughts on:
>
These are all good for now but without the "safety" of the 2-3 million default
users, SL can not just be the "upstream". There are some more fundamental
questions now that we need to compete in the "open market".
In a nutshell, whom do we
15 matches
Mail list logo
