[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Sugar future

Daniel Narvaez dwnarvaez at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 11:55:04 EDT 2013

On 13 April 2013 15:37, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:

> > 1 Android kernel + Ported linux libraries + Sugar
> > 2 Android kernel + Datastore/Collaboration replacement + Sugar rewritten
> in
> > HTML
> > 3 Full Android + Datastore/Collaboration replacement + Sugar activities
> > rewritten in HTML
> > 4 Full Android + Datastore/Collaboration replacement + Sugar activities
> > rewritten with native Android API
> Thanks Daniel
> That explains things for me. I was not fully understanding the technical
> discussions.
> With options 1 &2 a lot of existing functionality could be lost:
> The phone (unless a Sugar dialer was written)
> The alarm clock (unless a Sugar one written)
> Skype
> Some power management controls
> Airplane mode/wifi/phone modem controls
> Facial recognition screensaver delay
> Multiple file selection
> Excel spreadsheet viewer
> Anything we need Gnome to do on an XO
> Lots more
> A lot of Android devices are going to come into the posession of kids in
> developing countries, cheap second hand devices, old phones etc. Millions
> of them. Options 1&2 are not likely to be installed because they will
> result in a significant loss of functionality.
> Purchases of new tablets by government education departments with options
> 1&2 is viable.
> My guess is that cheap privately owned devices will outnumber education
> department devices by orders of magnitude. The privately held devices will
> also be used in a way that is more consistent with Sugar principles,
> experimentally and playfully, the education department devices may well be
> locked down. It would be good if Sugar's affordances for playful learning
> could exist alongside the full Android.
> I understand that we may not have the resources to do this.

Hi Tony,

I certainly understand this point of view... Most of the features you are
mentioning could be implemented also with the 1/2 approach too but
certainly we would get there a lot more slowly. And you are right that
having to install a custom OS is a barrier than *lots* of people will never

I want it to be clear that the preference for 1/2 is just my personal
inclination. I know of people that would like to research 3 when they find
the time. Also most of the work towards 2 is also useful for 3, one doesn't
exclude the other.  Actually, in an ideal world, I think we would do both 2
and 3, it's "just" a matter of resources.

A part of the work which has been discussed for the next release is useful
to both 2 and 3, the other part is integration with the current OS, to not
leave it behind. So I don't think we are going to make a call between 2 and
3 soon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20130413/25465eae/attachment.html>

More information about the IAEP mailing list