[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] SLOBs Position on SoaS

[Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:24, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas:
>> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
>> "official" answer on this. Soon.
>>
>> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a
>> Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?
>
> Isn't there a wider question first? the one that asks if Sugar Labs is
> actually interested in being a distributor rather than just an
> upstream. I raised that question in my recent discussion and my
> feeling is that the responses basically said "well we should really
> just focus on being an upstream since we already are overworked there,
> but actually Sugar Labs is just a platform where everyone interested
> in Sugar can get together and run Sugar-related projects"
>
> Based on that, I'd say that SoaS is a fine project to sit under Sugar
> Labs but there shouldn't be a "primary way" of getting Sugar. Like
> other upstream projects, Sugar Labs should work with multiple
> downstreams (treating them equally) in order to achieve wide adoption
> of the software.

That's what I think as well. Sugar should be yet another DE in its
relationship to distribution.

That doesn't prevent SL to distribute some kind of a demo image (like
Gnome does with Farsight Linux, for marketing purpose mainly), but the
"primary way of getting Sugar" should be "ask your OS-vendor" IMHO.

And no, I'm not saying that SoaS should be nothing more than a
discardable demo. I see SoaS more as a downstream OS-vendor,
distributing Sugar.


----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)