[SoaS] [DP] updating the draft decision panel report

[Samuel Klein]

Yes, let's remove the 'potential naming conventions' section; it doesn't
belong in this particular document.

>  I happen to think that the dual-desktop Sugar/Gnome approach of the
> XO-1.5 is brilliant and I'd like to see it on every Gnome desktop for
example.

+100.  Indeed, getting Gnome design mavens to weigh in and find fault with
and help out with Sugar development so that they are comfortable with that
would be an excellent community-building exercise.

SJ


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:

> My apologies for the delay, I've had a very full plate.
>
> I wish to comment on Question 2, "Should SL be neutral about
> distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over
> another?"
>
> This question is unfortunately ambiguous. Let me explain, then answer
> it in the manner of my Norman forbears ;-)
>
> A key part of the Sugar Labs message is that hardware is secondary -
> that Sugar should potentially run on most anything; one could say
> "hardware-agnostic".
>
> Implied in that message is that operating systems are secondary, too.
> The VirtualBox solutions are well-crafted with their approach of
> aiding parents and teachers get Sugar up and running without
> installing an entirely new OS just to do so.
>
> Distributions are secondary as well. They provide the basis for Sugar
> to run, but for classroom needs, the less said the better; an ideal
> Sugar machine is turned on and shows the Home View shortly after,
> finds the rest of the class on the network, and so on.
>
> This is not to demean the enormous work that goes into distributions
> to work on varied hardware, nor to make Sugar work over the varied
> distributions (and I'm not forgetting the enormous XS school server
> work). It's just that Sugar benefits from the meme that the distro or
> hardware is irrelevant. Sugar benefits because the industry-centric
> discussion of "Windows machines versus Apple machines versus Linux
> machines" becomes an education-centric discussion of "how best to help
> children learn with a screen on a computing device".
>
> Concerns about preferable treatment towards one distro or another
> distract from a supertruth: the true competitor of Sugar and the
> distros it runs on is the system preinstalled on most PCs, which today
> is Microsoft Windows.
>
> There is a key difference between the GNU/Linux distributions and the
> two other predominant proprietary operating systems: GNU/Linux systems
> are open and thus closest to our education mission of "low floor, no
> ceiling".
>
> From a marketing perspective - the point of view of "how best to
> inform millions of teachers that there is an alternative?" - we are
> obliged to seem to "endorse" one distro over another. But that's a
> function of our combat to find a place for Sugar, not playing
> favorites... "The right tool for the job". On a grassy hillside, we
> send in the cavalry; on a swift river, we launch the boats. Worrying
> about preferring the cavalry to the marines misses the point of our
> objective... nobody would send the boats up the hill.
>
> So. Fedora is playing a key role in the OLPC-OS and on today's Sugar
> on a Stick for the forseeable future; however, it's weak with OEMs and
> in education. Not to worry, Ubuntu is gaining traction with OEMs (cf.
> M. Shuttleworth goal: "Ubuntu as the default alternative to Windows").
> meanwhile, OpenSuSE has the most complete education-oriented offer and
> LTSP work. Other distros offer different advantages; the list goes on.
> The Try Sugar page should be a colorful garden of choices available;
> which shouldn't stop us from prominently recommending (as opposed to
> "endorsing", which implies exclusivity) a low-risk way to experience
> Sugar to bewildered first-time visitors.
>
> Today, Sugar on a Stick is the pillar of our marketing and
> brand-building because it disassociates Sugar from the XO or indeed
> any hardware; it makes Sugar instantly understandable to anyone that
> it is software. As a Sugar Labs brand, it needs to be protected. To be
> supported, it needs to be a stable software stack. None of which
> precludes anyone from doing any liveUSB they wish with Sugar on it; it
> just shouldn't be called Sugar on a Stick.
>
> I've said before that our marketing mix would inevitably need
> adjustments as OEM deals happen. Such deals will mean Sugar reliably
> preinstalled and supported on thousands of machines, a fabulous
> development for children. This would not be bad news for Sugar on a
> Stick, which I believe will remain the best way to try (and possibly
> the best way to deploy) Sugar for years to come; as the OLPC XOs will
> remain Sugar's native home and overwhelming installed base for years
> to come (supporting which I feel as a personal responsibility).
> Rather, all these ways will together contribute to the perception that
> Sugar will work on something old, something new, something borrowed,
> something blue.
>
> (On a related topic, we are not even debating the role of desktops,
> which only goes to show how poorly their role is perceived in the
> stack, particularly in comparison to distros. I happen to think that
> the dual-desktop Sugar/Gnome approach of the XO-1.5 is brilliant and
> I'd like to see it on every Gnome desktop for example.)
>
> So yes, we should be neutral about distros in general, while choosing
> the best distros for solving the challenges we face... at the risk of
> appearing to "endorse" one over another, or two over five, or four
> over nine, or whatever.
>
> thanks
>
> Sean
>
> P.S. The potential naming conventions section is a marketing
> discussion, and although it's an attempt to seek solutions, it
> unfortunately completely disregards how the existing brand is being
> built.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I need to express my position on the two questions I haven't yet.
> >
> > I will do so tomorrow, it's late I'm a bit tired to express myself
> > clearly tonight.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We are close to consensus consensus on the first two points.   Help with
> >> wording a final report would be appreciated.  I wish I could extrapolate
> >> Bill B's position from some of his earlier comments, but I cannot :)
> >>
> >> We don't have consensus on the specific wording of the 3rd question, but
> do
> >> on the underlying principle of 'not being confusing' -- there are two
> >> suggestions that a more specific name than "Sugar on a Stick" be used,
> as
> >> that name is a normal English phrase and could naturally refer to a
> whole
> >> class of distributions.
> >>
> >> Since there's already a mailing list and some history behind "Sugar on a
> >> Stick", are there any others on this list that would like to see a more
> >> specific name?  Does anyone expect this list to refer to all
> distributions
> >> of Sugar on removable devices, or is there broad agreement that this is
> for
> >> a specific team, concept, and product?
> >>
> >> Finally, are there any other questions that have been raised that people
> >> feel we should address?
> >>
> >> SJ
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
> >> <bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Samuel Klein wrote:
> >>> > Ben, Bill, DSD and Faisal -- can you please weigh in and share your
> >>> > thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Happy to.
> >>>
> >>> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an
> >>> upstream producing Sugar releases?"
> >>>
> >>> Yes.  Sugar Labs should do whatever is needed to make Sugar easily
> >>> available to our audience.  When this goal is best achieved by
> >>> distributing complete operating systems including Sugar, we should have
> no
> >>> qualms about doing so.  However, Sugar Labs should also continue to
> >>> emphasize the availability of Sugar through the mechanisms of existing
> >>> distro package managers, in order to reach users who already run GNU.
> >>>
> >>> "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse
> to
> >>> endorse one over another?"
> >>>
> >>> Yes.  Sugar Labs does not now have a mechanism for making blanket
> >>> endorsements, and it should not instate one.  Conversely, Sugar Labs
> >>> should help users to choose their best option for deploying Sugar,
> >>> depending on their individual needs, and this will typically mean
> >>> recommending a particular distribution best suited for each user.
> >>>
> >>> "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to
> avoid
> >>> using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
> >>>
> >>> No.  We should give this distribution a unique, identifiable name that
> >>> cannot be confused with a generic description of an entire class of
> >>> distributions.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SoaS mailing list
> >> SoaS at lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/attachments/20091029/567d29ce/attachment-0001.htm