Talk:Taxonomy

Initial motivation for the Taxonomy page

Benjamin M. Schwartz has proposed a taxonomy for the various Sugar components to remedy an ongoing naming problem.

"I think Sugar has a naming problem. There are a lot of different digital objects being produced by this project, and referring to all of them as Sugar is becoming increasingly confusing. For example, the discussion about "Sugar on Windows" has been all but incomprehensible, because each author means something entirely different by the term "Sugar". Similarly, the recent proposals for "inclusion in Sugar" are extremely confusing, since these components will not be required to run Sugar.

"To resolve this, I am going to attempt to list a number of important, distinct digital objects that this work has produced. I will also introduce cutesy codenames. I hope that the Sugar developers will adopt a clear set of distinct names, and I do not care if they choose these names or other names."

Operating System and Sugar stacking

The block diagram contains Ribose as part of the operating system, whilst it is defined as:

> Ribose is the set of hardware-centric software components that have been developed
> throughout this project. It includes the XO kernels, OHM, any init-script customizations,
> etc. Ribose should be construed as including all components necessary to boot the system,
> enough to install Glucose if it has not yet been installed

Why this discrepancy?

IMO the Ribose definition is XO orientated (biased?) and this would make the software stack more complex to understand if we have to define it based on the hardware it runs on.

In fact part of the stack is defined as a 'Sugar environment, ready to be installed through a package manager' in other sections of the document, clearly making these elements platform agnostic [see: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy#Sucrose:_The_interface.2C_plus_a_set_of_demonstration_activities].

Ludovic F

I think we should make Ribose definition more generic. There will other distribution channels in the future like livecds and perhaps non-XO images. -- Marcopg

Sugar is bad for you

If you're going to open up the whole "Sugar" nomenclature to comment, I might as well drop in a thought that has been on my mind since I started following OLPC. Sugar is simply an unfortunate name choice in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I think the concept of the UI and pedagological thought are just peachy, but the name "sugar" is just awful on so many levels.

My primary concern is that the cross-cultural facility of the graphical UI paradigm is overshadowed by the fact that the selection of "sugar" as a name falls so terribly short-of-the-mark with respect to cultural competence.

Cultural competence refers to an ability to interact effectively with people of different cultures. Cultural competence is comprised of four components: (a) Awareness of one's own cultural worldview, (b) Attitude towards cultural differences, (c) Knowledge of different cultural practices and worldviews, and (d) cross-cultural Skills. Developing cultural competence results in an ability to understand, communicate with, and effectively interact with people across cultures.

See also Intercultural competence for some interesting examples, particularly the Brazilian translation of the American/European "A-OK" gesture.

Please bear with me while I provide some examples of why "sugar" is such a bad name. If one is the type to argue that oil is the one commodity that most typifies what is wrong with Western (particularly American) interaction with the rest of the world in the 20th and early 21st century, than one would also be inclined to argue that sugar was that commodity in the 17th through 19th centuries and that the social evils wrought by the economics of sugar are still very much with us today.

The historical role of sugar in driving the slave trade is well enough known. [1][2] That the sugar industry has an appalling human rights record that continues to this day in locations all over the world is perhaps less appreciated by some. [3][4]. In Haiti, they still remember the American occupation from 1915-1934. [5] The sugar industry's sponsorship of soccer teams in Ethiopia and Tanzania notwithstanding, I can't imagine that the modern sugar producers have much better records except where there are cooperatives. Even within the United States, sugar is not so sweet, being associated with massacres and corporate malfeasance [6][7][8].

It's also very confusing in computer-related namespace with multiple conflicting and confusing uses [9][10][11][12]

You might argue that the name Sugar has gained too much currency for a re-branding. I'll point out that Sugar (GUI) doesn't rate a disambiguation page or or even a mention on Wikipedia's Sugar page.

On the other hand, Honey seems to have warmer multi-cultural associations.

No insult meant to the Sugar developers, whose work speaks for itself, but why let the name send the wrong message. "Sugar" just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Cjl 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)