[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Sugar is available for download in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS; 10.10 & 11.04 with sweets_distribution. Wiki Page updated
quozl at laptop.org
Mon Mar 5 20:54:08 EST 2012
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 01:29:30AM -0800, Thomas C Gilliard wrote:
> On 03/04/2012 09:21 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> >Thanks. I've simplified
> >http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Community/Distributions/Ubuntu some more,
> >concentrating on how an Ubuntu user should try out Sugar.
> >I've removed the sections that cover prior Sugar versions where Browse
> >won't work, because that just isn't going to help any Ubuntu user I can
> >imagine. Sweets Distribution or the virtual appliance method is a far
> >quicker solution, with the benefit that Browse will work.
> Re: the prior versions: surf-115.xo does work on them as a
> compatible browser and is easy to install.
> We used it in the last version of Soas when Browse stopped working.
> It is available here:
Sure, but this is a hack, and it should not be recommended over the use
of the latest version of Sugar via Sweets Distribution or a Virtual
Appliance, both of which include Browse.
Also, the use of Surf is well covered by the appropriate paragraph at:
> I disagree on removing the mention of the native Ubuntu sugar 0.88
> that is available from software center.
> We get questions in #sugar all the time from Ubuntu users and an
> explanation of the versions in their repositories is appropriate.
An explanation is indeed appropriate, but not in the same place that
people would come to for advice on best practice.
> Sugar 0.88 with surf-115.xo is a fine distribution and works well.
> 0.90 was the only flawed sugar version and it is only available
> through Ubuntu's software center in 11.04 Ubuntu, where the default
> is 0.88.
Wrong. See below.
> Ubuntu has cleaned up their act lately w.r.t. installing sugar from
> their software center, where it is available by just searching
Wrong. See below.
I've just tested very carefully, using ISO images of Ubuntu 11.04 and
11.10, and the following is shown by Ubuntu Software Centre:
- on 11.04, no version is shown, but Sugar 0.90.1 is installed, not 0.88
as you say,
- on 11.10, Sugar 0.84, 0.86, 0.88, and 0.90 are shown, and a user would
naturally choose 0.90 as the latest version.
Because this was entirely different to what you observed, I did it
again, and checked that the /etc/apt/sources.list file was correct and
only included Ubuntu sources. It did.
So I can't reproduce your result. Please describe the steps you took
carefully, check the md5sum of your .iso files, and check the
> I just completed testing installs of "sugar" in all 3 Ubuntu
> versions from Ubuntu's software center of those last revisions and
> think that they should be included and mentioned.
> >I've also removed the end of support dates for Ubuntu, because it isn't
> >our place as Sugar Labs to say that, they might change, and mentioning
> >it implies that Sugar is supported in the same way. Sugar is in the
> >universe repository, and isn't a core part of Ubuntu.
> >Lastly, I've hunted out every mention of "sugar-emulator -f", which
> >seems to be something that you'd like fixed which still isn't fixed, and
> >placed it in one page which is linked to.
> If you try running on a 10" netbook, the -f (full screen) option
> is needed to get sugar to not present a display larger than the
That's good information, but not relevant to Ubuntu. Please add it to
[[Emulator/Full_Screen]] or raise a ticket to have the emulator detect
the current display dimensions.
> I have been following Sugar in Ubuntu since David Farning began USR
> and trying to maintain working web pages describing it.
I'm not doubting your experience, I'm just correcting your Wiki pages.
It is important that new Sugar users get the best experience, not the
poor experience that you had to go through as you did valuable testing.
Your testing is great, keep doing it, but don't be surprised that some
test results won't be popular.
> I have placed a link to the discussions of the native versions of
> sugar at the bottom of the page.
I've moved it. Talk: pages are for discussion, and the text wasn't
discussion, but test reports of how to install previous versions.
More information about the IAEP