647
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + +
Talk:Features/Server Objects Sharing (view source)
Revision as of 08:58, 22 July 2009
, 08:58, 22 July 2009no edit summary
I think that Moodle might have a lead in this aspect because it is more easily available on the XS images. Installing ASLO/AMO is quite a bit complicated but the XS comes with a ready-to-run Moodle instance, AFAIK. [[User:Tomeu|Tomeu]] 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Moodle might have a lead in this aspect because it is more easily available on the XS images. Installing ASLO/AMO is quite a bit complicated but the XS comes with a ready-to-run Moodle instance, AFAIK. [[User:Tomeu|Tomeu]] 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
* in common case, yes(e.g. in case of local storage for class/school/region) but this particular proposal is about central place like ASLO for activities(at least it was); we already(in SL) have several not trivial to support services(wiki, track, ASLO etc.), so adding library.sl.o won't be a huge problem; imho from usability pov, I don't see any differences between wiki and moodle - they lose a game to special services like AMO and [http://scratch.mit.edu/] when user needs only place to browse/download/upload objects. [[User:Alsroot|Alsroot]] 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think the server side software it's important from the Sugar POV. We just need to make sure that we can correctly upload and download journal entries. So I'm fine with this feature as it is now. Thanks! [[User:Tomeu|Tomeu]] 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)