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 <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Sean DALY <<a href="http://sdaly.be">sdaly.be</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> My apologies for the delay, I've had a very full plate. I wish to comment on Question 2, "Should SL be neutral about <div class="im">distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" </div>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. <div><div></div><div class="h5"> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Sean DALY <<a href="http://sdaly.be" target="_blank">sdaly.be</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>> 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 <<a href="http://meta.sj" target="_blank">meta.sj</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>> 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 >> <<a href="mailto:bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu">bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu</a>> 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 >> <a href="mailto:SoaS@lists.sugarlabs.org">SoaS@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> >> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas</a> >> >> > </div></div></blockquote></div>