[sugar] First time Sugar user's experiences

Christopher Blizzard blizzard
Wed Nov 1 11:27:29 EST 2006

Ivan Krsti? wrote:
> Teus Benschop wrote:
>> Yes, I agree that ideally
>> Bibledit should become a "native" sugar applications, but probably in a
>> later stage.
> This brings forward a more general question about how we want to deal
> with legacy apps. They work now with manual tinkering, but without a
> concrete model of how to deal with them, they simply won't work once we
> start implementing the security features.
> Chris, any thoughts on legacy apps from your end?

In some ways we're quite compatible with so-called legacy apps and in 
some ways we're intentionally breaking compatibility.  Packaging is the 
first place we're breaking things, because we want to enable different 
kids of experiences around apps.  This means that at the very least 
we're asking people to repackage end user apps into bundles that can be 
easily installed and uninstalled.  And shared, for that matter.

On the technology side, there's security to consider.  I have no idea 
wtf Ivan is doing on the security side as it hasn't been communicated. 
 From a library perspective we're not including a lot of stuff.  So if 
you want to add that dep to your favorite xml parsing library you'll 
have to include it in your bundle.

You've seen the UI changes we're doing.  For some apps (take the gimp 
for example) it's catastrophic.  But for a lot of apps it's not a big 
deal.  I've run Firefox, for example.  Dialogs still work, and we have a 
window manager.  But there aren't a huge number of surprises here.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list