[IAEP] sugar on standard laptops

Marco Pesenti Gritti mpgritti at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 11:15:34 CEST 2008

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Joel Stanley
<joel.stanley at adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
> Hello List,
> I've been in discussions with local teachers who are interested in
> using Sugar in the classroom.  We are looking at using conventional
> laptops for the task, due to the ease of acquiring them over other
> options.
> What work needs be done to get Sugar on $distro working?  From my
> experimentation, it works, but there are areas where improvement would
> change the situation from works to rocks.  Bernie mentions some of
> these below:

I suggest to try it out and report *any* problem you find in trac. We
should probably use a keyword to identify those tickets. Perhaps just
the name of the distribution. We are definitely interested in making
it rock :)

I hear that Ubuntu packages are pretty good. Fedora ones are not yet
ready for "production" but we will try to get them there in the next
couple of weeks.

> Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
>>> Do you think sugar-on-{debian, ubuntu, fedora} is mature enough to do
>>> put it in the hands of kids in a months time?  Who shall we talk to
>>> about this?
>> We're not quite there, actually.  The major issues I see are:
>> - there are DPI problems when Sugar runs on different resolutions...
>>  Marco knows the issue and how to fix it.
>> - nobody (afaik) ever packaged sugar to autologin at power on.
>>  On Debian, I even had to configure the X session to start Sugar
>>  on my own.
>> - I think the presence service, ohm, and other daemons need some
>>  integration work.
> To those doing the great Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora packaging work; are
> you aware of the extra integration of daemons that Bernie mentions?

I'm not sure what Bernie is talking about exactly. If you report the
problems you are seeing we will certainly figure it out.

> For example, I hadn't thought about ohm.  Should someone spend time on
> that, or would using something like gnome-power-manager - which has a
> lot more usage, afaik, than ohm - make more sense?

ohm and gnome-power-manager are on two different levels.
gnome-power-manager is supposed to use ohm. Stuff like the remaining
battery time has not been moved yet to ohm though. We need to work
upstream on this stuff.


More information about the Its.an.education.project mailing list