[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] SLOBs Position on SoaS

Philippe Clérié philippe at gcal.net
Wed Sep 16 11:37:48 EDT 2009

> Isn't there a wider question first? the one that asks if Sugar Labs is
> actually interested in being a distributor rather than just an
> upstream.

Sugar Labs needs to be a distributor because:

1) You need a product to market. The comparison with Gnome does not hold. 
There have always been distributions that made Gnome their official desktop 
environment, even very early on. That is not the case for Sugar. Whether in 
Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu, Sugar will always be a secondary desktop at best.

2) Sugar needs a dedicated distribution. Geeks will always be able to 
navigate distributions installation procedures to choose Sugar as a desktop. 
I am afraid that is not the case for the vast majority of teachers out 
there. They need something that they can pick up and run with.

3) A distribution can be a source of revenue. Inevitably, as the developers 
of Sugar, you will be asked to provides services in one form or another. 
You'll want a distribution you control for efficiently doing that.

4) Maintaining a distribution is an invaluable experience. You'll hit 
integration bugs before they are discovered downstream and those reported by 
downstreams will ring a bell and be easier to find and fix.

5) A distribution will give you control. Other integrators won't necessarily 
follow your philosophy in how Sugar is packaged and/or deployed.

There are probably other good reasons that people can come up with.

The last thing I'd like to add is that it's not an either/or proposition. 
Sugar Labs needs to be *both* upstream and a distributor.



The trouble with common sense is that it is so uncommon.

More information about the IAEP mailing list