[Sugar-devel] The future of Sugar on XO-1s

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Dave

I am not sure I understand your reference to 'cheapest computers'. As 
far as I can tell, the Raspberry Pi Zero is a scam. The pocketchip 
illustrates
the problem with the Raspberry Pi. Once you add the components needed to 
make a useful, deployable computer - the cost is greater than that of
an XO.

I have yet to see a computer on the market that offers the capabilities 
of the XO for olpc deployments.

On a separate note. I looked at the Vision proposal. It certainly 
deserves a close look. However, I tried to find out what are 'best 
practices' only to
be shown a perfect example of very bad practice. I followed a series of 
links only to find not one explained what a best practice is or who 
decides on
what is 'best'. I hope we can do a better job of documentation than that.

Tony

On 05/30/2016 04:36 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to return to this older thread because of James Cameron's 
> comment in 
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/pull/688#issuecomment-222393275 :
>
>     On the assumption that Sugar Labs is dropping support for XO-1,
>     I'll close this pull request. Thanks for your time!
>
>
> But I understood from Tony and Adam in this thread that Sugar Labs 
> _should_ keep support for the XO-1 as a goal. Adam said,
>
>     In Haiti XO-1s will be dominant across many schools for years and
>     year to come.  Similar to Tony's description, but these typically
>     will be using 32GB SD cards -- thankfully these are incredibly
>     affordable. The resilience/repairability of the XO-1 laptops is
>     the absolutely fascinating part.
>
>
> I think this goal is wise because it ensures that Sugar runs well on 
> the cheapest computers - like the $10 getchip.com/pages/pocketchip 
> <http://getchip.com/pages/pocketchip> and $5 
> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-zero - and ensures 
> performance is only better on later XO models and 'regular' 
> desktops/laptops.
>
> I edited https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016 to reflect 
> this.
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
> On 5 April 2016 at 17:04, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org 
> <mailto:quozl at laptop.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:37:45AM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi James
>     >
>     > On 1 April 2016 at 15:06, James Cameron <[1]quozl at laptop.org
>     <mailto:quozl at laptop.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Let me spin you a tail.
>     >
>     >     The myth of forward human development doesn't apply to software.
>     >
>     >     This is a parade of people, several walking abreast, beside
>     a slow
>     >     moving flat bed truck, all holding on to a ribbon.
>     >
>     >     The truck is the world, and the internet as it stands.
>     >
>     >     The first person, next to the truck, are our learners or users.
>     >
>     >     The second person is Sugar Labs; with our activities, and Sugar.
>     >
>     >     The third person is distributions of Linux, like Fedora and
>     Ubuntu,
>     >
>     >     The fourth person are the hardware vendors, like commodity
>     suppliers
>     >     or OLPC.
>     >
>     >     The fifth person are the Linux kernel developers.
>     >
>     >     As the procession walks beside the truck, the ribbon is not
>     always
>     >     straight.
>     >
>     >     Some people walk faster than others.  Some let go of the
>     ribbon and
>     >     others take their place.
>     >
>     >     I'm glad you're here, you're bringing a new perspective.
>     >
>     >     But the ribbon is actually toilet paper, so the pressure to
>     keep up,
>     >     while real, doesn't get felt, instead the paper breaks.
>     >
>     >     Do not target a rapidly diminishing enthusiastic group, or
>     the future
>     >     users will suffer.
>     >
>     > I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand you here at the last line.
>     You had said
>     > earlier,
>     >
>     > >     for the future of Sugar Labs, they should be concentrating on
>     > >     later designs than one from 2007 that is no longer
>     available and
>     > >     rapidly dying from old age.
>     >
>     > So you mean, it would be unwise for Sugar Lab's
>     vision/mission/strategy for the
>     > next 3-5 years to focus on supporting the rapidly diminishing (yet
>     > enthusiastic) group of XO owners, and focus on the future users
>     who are not XO
>     > owners?
>
>     You might target this group of XO-1 owners and become a closed
>     community into which all communications are judged against suitability
>     for the majority (which would then be XO-1 owners).
>
>     It would feel good!  [warning, sarcasm in this paragraph]
>
>     I'm loath to battle the laws of physics, 'cause I know who wins.
>
>     --
>     James Cameron
>     http://quozl.netrek.org/
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20160530/305d2476/attachment-0001.html>