Yes, let's remove the 'potential naming conventions' section; it doesn't belong in this particular document.
> I happen to think that the dual-desktop Sugar/Gnome approach of the > XO-1.5 is brilliant and I'd like to see it on every Gnome desktop for example. +100. Indeed, getting Gnome design mavens to weigh in and find fault with and help out with Sugar development so that they are comfortable with that would be an excellent community-building exercise. SJ On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Sean DALY <[email protected]> wrote: > My apologies for the delay, I've had a very full plate. > > I wish to comment on Question 2, "Should SL be neutral about > distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over > another?" > > This question is unfortunately ambiguous. Let me explain, then answer > it in the manner of my Norman forbears ;-) > > A key part of the Sugar Labs message is that hardware is secondary - > that Sugar should potentially run on most anything; one could say > "hardware-agnostic". > > Implied in that message is that operating systems are secondary, too. > The VirtualBox solutions are well-crafted with their approach of > aiding parents and teachers get Sugar up and running without > installing an entirely new OS just to do so. > > Distributions are secondary as well. They provide the basis for Sugar > to run, but for classroom needs, the less said the better; an ideal > Sugar machine is turned on and shows the Home View shortly after, > finds the rest of the class on the network, and so on. > > This is not to demean the enormous work that goes into distributions > to work on varied hardware, nor to make Sugar work over the varied > distributions (and I'm not forgetting the enormous XS school server > work). It's just that Sugar benefits from the meme that the distro or > hardware is irrelevant. Sugar benefits because the industry-centric > discussion of "Windows machines versus Apple machines versus Linux > machines" becomes an education-centric discussion of "how best to help > children learn with a screen on a computing device". > > Concerns about preferable treatment towards one distro or another > distract from a supertruth: the true competitor of Sugar and the > distros it runs on is the system preinstalled on most PCs, which today > is Microsoft Windows. > > There is a key difference between the GNU/Linux distributions and the > two other predominant proprietary operating systems: GNU/Linux systems > are open and thus closest to our education mission of "low floor, no > ceiling". > > From a marketing perspective - the point of view of "how best to > inform millions of teachers that there is an alternative?" - we are > obliged to seem to "endorse" one distro over another. But that's a > function of our combat to find a place for Sugar, not playing > favorites... "The right tool for the job". On a grassy hillside, we > send in the cavalry; on a swift river, we launch the boats. Worrying > about preferring the cavalry to the marines misses the point of our > objective... nobody would send the boats up the hill. > > So. Fedora is playing a key role in the OLPC-OS and on today's Sugar > on a Stick for the forseeable future; however, it's weak with OEMs and > in education. Not to worry, Ubuntu is gaining traction with OEMs (cf. > M. Shuttleworth goal: "Ubuntu as the default alternative to Windows"). > meanwhile, OpenSuSE has the most complete education-oriented offer and > LTSP work. Other distros offer different advantages; the list goes on. > The Try Sugar page should be a colorful garden of choices available; > which shouldn't stop us from prominently recommending (as opposed to > "endorsing", which implies exclusivity) a low-risk way to experience > Sugar to bewildered first-time visitors. > > Today, Sugar on a Stick is the pillar of our marketing and > brand-building because it disassociates Sugar from the XO or indeed > any hardware; it makes Sugar instantly understandable to anyone that > it is software. As a Sugar Labs brand, it needs to be protected. To be > supported, it needs to be a stable software stack. None of which > precludes anyone from doing any liveUSB they wish with Sugar on it; it > just shouldn't be called Sugar on a Stick. > > I've said before that our marketing mix would inevitably need > adjustments as OEM deals happen. Such deals will mean Sugar reliably > preinstalled and supported on thousands of machines, a fabulous > development for children. This would not be bad news for Sugar on a > Stick, which I believe will remain the best way to try (and possibly > the best way to deploy) Sugar for years to come; as the OLPC XOs will > remain Sugar's native home and overwhelming installed base for years > to come (supporting which I feel as a personal responsibility). > Rather, all these ways will together contribute to the perception that > Sugar will work on something old, something new, something borrowed, > something blue. > > (On a related topic, we are not even debating the role of desktops, > which only goes to show how poorly their role is perceived in the > stack, particularly in comparison to distros. I happen to think that > the dual-desktop Sugar/Gnome approach of the XO-1.5 is brilliant and > I'd like to see it on every Gnome desktop for example.) > > So yes, we should be neutral about distros in general, while choosing > the best distros for solving the challenges we face... at the risk of > appearing to "endorse" one over another, or two over five, or four > over nine, or whatever. > > thanks > > Sean > > P.S. The potential naming conventions section is a marketing > discussion, and although it's an attempt to seek solutions, it > unfortunately completely disregards how the existing brand is being > built. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Sean DALY <[email protected]> wrote: > > I need to express my position on the two questions I haven't yet. > > > > I will do so tomorrow, it's late I'm a bit tired to express myself > > clearly tonight. > > > > thanks > > > > Sean > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We are close to consensus consensus on the first two points. Help with > >> wording a final report would be appreciated. I wish I could extrapolate > >> Bill B's position from some of his earlier comments, but I cannot :) > >> > >> We don't have consensus on the specific wording of the 3rd question, but > do > >> on the underlying principle of 'not being confusing' -- there are two > >> suggestions that a more specific name than "Sugar on a Stick" be used, > as > >> that name is a normal English phrase and could naturally refer to a > whole > >> class of distributions. > >> > >> Since there's already a mailing list and some history behind "Sugar on a > >> Stick", are there any others on this list that would like to see a more > >> specific name? Does anyone expect this list to refer to all > distributions > >> of Sugar on removable devices, or is there broad agreement that this is > for > >> a specific team, concept, and product? > >> > >> Finally, are there any other questions that have been raised that people > >> feel we should address? > >> > >> SJ > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Samuel Klein wrote: > >>> > Ben, Bill, DSD and Faisal -- can you please weigh in and share your > >>> > thoughts? > >>> > >>> Happy to. > >>> > >>> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an > >>> upstream producing Sugar releases?" > >>> > >>> Yes. Sugar Labs should do whatever is needed to make Sugar easily > >>> available to our audience. When this goal is best achieved by > >>> distributing complete operating systems including Sugar, we should have > no > >>> qualms about doing so. However, Sugar Labs should also continue to > >>> emphasize the availability of Sugar through the mechanisms of existing > >>> distro package managers, in order to reach users who already run GNU. > >>> > >>> "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse > to > >>> endorse one over another?" > >>> > >>> Yes. Sugar Labs does not now have a mechanism for making blanket > >>> endorsements, and it should not instate one. Conversely, Sugar Labs > >>> should help users to choose their best option for deploying Sugar, > >>> depending on their individual needs, and this will typically mean > >>> recommending a particular distribution best suited for each user. > >>> > >>> "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to > avoid > >>> using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?" > >>> > >>> No. We should give this distribution a unique, identifiable name that > >>> cannot be confused with a generic description of an entire class of > >>> distributions. > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> SoaS mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas > >> > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
