Back in November of 2006, I wrote a piece about the One Laptop Per Child Project. I was afraid that the project's focus on creating a whole new paradigm (the Sugar UI) would ultimately intervene with the actual goal of the project: teaching stuff to kids. Ivan Krstic, former director of security architecture at OLPC, wrote an essay in which he heavily criticises the OLPC project.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Bingo.
The goal of educating children is far more important than the goal of spreading Free software or fighting t3h ev1l Microsoft. Those children will define the future of the world - our software will not.
Member since:2007-04-13
Sorry, let me just highlight the last sentence of yours:
"In this case I think it is important to forget our own agendas, and think about the primary goal: education."
All the other companies involved in creating OLPC competition this have shown only a commitment to their own agendas and had a very negative impact on OLPC as a result, often through lobbying, a tactic the OLPC team obviously can't do as they can't pay off corrupt government officials as it appears classmate sales staff can do.
Stallman maybe wants to further Free Software but this is because he believes it is the best tool and not because it makes him money or massages his ego.
Member since:2005-07-08
Regardless of his beliefs, the fact of the matter is that there is no indication that anyone these laptops are meant for has asked RMS to step in and save them from Microsoft.
OTOH, the whole project is very poorly managed as far as I can tell - the few I have seen (or have first hand knowledge of) have died quickly due do faulty screens, bad power supplies, bad batteries, and one even died from a firmware upgrade. It's apparently a major PITA or impossible to RMA them w/o luck or help.
Member since:
2005-11-18
Don't forget that only a fraction of children is interested in learning how their computer works. If you want to be a doctor or architect, it is likely that you are not interested in how your webcam software works.
While I do agree that it is a bonus for free software (besides a low price point), the primary goal should be education. In terms of education, having good (electronic?) text books available is much more important, besides that a computer is just an educational tool, and it should be good at that.
An operating system or platform for such devices should be easy to use, use little power, and not add much to the costs. If a modified OS X (what Apple appears to have offered) fulfills those requirements, it seems to be a viable option as well. And I am not sure why they would've let that option pass.
In this case I think it is important to forget our own agendas, and think about the primary goal: education.
Edited 2008-05-14 11:12 UTC