[IAEP] Sugar oversight board meeting
walter.bender at gmail.com
Tue Nov 5 08:41:32 EST 2013
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the top posting, quoting on gmail on iPhone is a pain.
> * I'm glad that you see some runway for the XO and I really hope you are
> right, it would be awesome. I think even just the uncertainity is a big
> issue for upstream development at the moment. Not knowing if anyone is going
> to build F20 based images for example...
> * The issue I see with Chromebook is that it's mostly a locked down
> platform. It has a supported developer mode which is better than nothing but
> I'm not sure is enough. How many people will feel like going through the
> hassle and risk to break their working OS? Will deployments be able to work
> with something like that? It even requires to ctrl-d on every boot... I sort
> of wish the ARM vendors started to use secure uefi, and that's saying it all
I'm thinking more along the lines of a deployment doing this in an
organized way. Or even trying to convince a Chromebook manufacturer
to make Sugar an option. In my experience, deployments might have the
where-with-all to load custom software on a "complete" hardware
solution, but I don't know of any deployment that would be able to
assemble hardware on a large scale (which the Raspberry Pi approach
would require). That could change. Rwanda is considering an assemble
plant. Others could head down that path. But that is outside of the
expertise of Sugar Labs.
> On Tuesday, 5 November 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
>> > On 4 November 2013 22:53, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> * It's not clear to me where we are going. The OLPC/Sugar development
>> >> ecosystem seems to be at a crossroads. I am encouraged by the web
>> >> activity
>> >> work, but don't understand the path of transposing the value
>> >> proposition of
>> >> Sugar (interface, Journal, collaboration, Activities) to handheld
>> >> tactile
>> >> devices (tablets to smartphones). PCs (of any size) with keyboards are
>> >> no
>> >> longer competitive with tablets for grade-school classroom use. Perhaps
>> >> the
>> >> XO-4 could still be in the running; there is no clear message from
>> >> OLPC.
>> > I'll try to express briefly my feelings about the directions the project
>> > could take. Note that I might be missing a lot of what is going on above
>> > the
>> > technical level.
>> > * The XO is not a viable hardware platform other than for existing
>> > deployments. OLPC is pretty clearly going in a different direction.
>> I may be alone in thinking that there will be some runway left with
>> the XO. But deployments need alternatives regardless.
>> > * Sugar web activities on the top of a full Android loses too much of
>> > the
>> > Sugar value proposition. It's great to have it in addition to
>> > Sugar-the-OS,
>> > but it's not enough alone.
>> I agree.
>> > * From the technical point of view there are several ways to get
>> > Sugar-the-OS running on tactile devices. Unfortunately it's not clear to
>> > me
>> > that any of these devices is open enough to be viable for deployments or
>> > "ordinary" users.
>> We looked at ChromeOS a few years back, but at the time it was too
>> heavy for our hardware. Today, it is a different story. Might be a
>> viable option. Certainly running GNU/Linux/Sugar on a ChromeBook is
>> not a bad starting point.
>> > --
>> > Daniel Narvaez
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
> Daniel Narvaez
More information about the IAEP