[Sugar-devel] Gtk 3.10 icon size regression

[Daniel Narvaez]

On 20 January 2014 21:34, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:16:09AM +0100, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> > For the record what I was saying is that the XO is a dead end
> > because OLPC is not marketing it anymore, in favor of the Android
> > tablet. As a result I'd expect organizations to not be ordering it
> > anymore.
>
> I don't know how to measure marketing except by observation.
>
> The marketing that I see offers both products.  There has been no
> announcement of retirement of the laptop, and it is still in
> production.
>
> In the last two weeks I worked on second sourcing of SPI FLASH ROM and
> the eMMC chips in the XO-1.75 and XO-4.
>
> How are you measuring marketing?
>

I'm not measuring myself but relying on the opinions of people which are
more into OLPC things then me, which is why I pointed out my feeling might
be misguided. For example John Watlington on this thread

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2013-October/045461.html


> For the purposes of planning Sugar development, should you instead be
> measuring deployment?
>

Well, today Sugar development will take years to reach  most deployments,
thus I suspect it's not going to be useful to a large part of XOs which are
currently deployed. It would be interesting to know if and how fast we are
deploying new XOs today and that was my initial question. But if OLPC has
abandoned the XO-4, as many are suspecting, I think that's very relevant to
today development planning. Not that I expect anyone to say that clearly,
even if it is the case.

Anyway, from the very subjective perspective of a volunteer, if the XO was
the main target for Sugar, I would not be contributing to the project. OLPC
is showing no commitment to the XO and even less to Sugar and it's
community, of whose work it has benefited for years.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140120/bfb405b0/attachment.html>