[Sugar-devel] Gtk 3.10 icon size regression

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:28:31PM +0100, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> 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

Oh, I see.

>     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.

About 60k units in the next two months production.  I've no idea how
fast the deployment teams will deploy them though.

> 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.

I see.

> 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.

I see.

While I'm contracted to OLPC I'd be happy to show less commitment to
your Sugar in which XO is not the main target, and more to deployment
branches of Sugar in which XO is the main target.  I'll be meeting
with Walter on Friday and I hope this will come up.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/