Will OLPC's 'Sugar' Have an Effect on Other OSes?

g8orade wonders: "As a recent article notes: for the OLPC, the software is more important than the hardware. A generation or more of children in developing countries will learn about computers using a computer that doesn't use a desktop from either Apple or Microsoft. Will the OLPC software finally be the license-less tool, the uncharged-for value add that raises the bar for other OS makers to compete, given the same hardware?"

Comments

look back in history!

[ecalkin]

many years ago apple made a *huge* push in k-12 to get apple stuff out there. why? when these kids graduated, a lot of them had experience with apples and some had experience with only apples. it was a long term investment.

    any software that gets uses on the olpc system will not make a difference *today* or *tomorrow*, but down the road it might.

    one observation: it will start with educational software. if there are millions of these units out there, there will need to be software for teaching stuff. getting in that market will probably get you into the educational market in developed countries. if you want to see this in action, watch what textbook publishers do to get into the california and texas schools. once in these states, they tend to push into other states from there.

    if the olpc project 'works', these children will grow up and this software is going to be what computers are all about.

    this could be very interesting for ms and apple.

eric

Re:look back in history!

[k_187]

Yeah, because that's worked so well for Apple. I know that's the reasoning, but what gets used in business has a lot of inertia, and many school Mac labs were replaced with windows as that's what is out there.

A couple of points

[Anonymous Coward]

One, this will be the first ever major large scale distributed computer that goes out the door with linux pre-installed, beating all the big vendors to the punch (nt counting embedded devices or game consoles or cellphones). It's a laptop, with working wireless and mesh networking out of the box, along with being self powered! A lot of serious coolness right there. Two, it will rapidly become the largest used linux distro. Within a few shipments, once you start talking millions at a time, it will surpass Ubuntu and the other "tops on distrowatch" distros.

I think just those two facts indicate that it will have a profound impact on linux and computing in general. Turn it around, how can it not?

OK, now, granted, this exact machine won't be offered for sale to joe average user, but... how it is being made and who is set-up to make the components etc, is either all known now or certainly will be soon. This thing is going to be torn apart, reverse engineered all over, and I expect to see clones hitting the market in various configs. Probably not as cheap as the original project, but pretty close, and they will sell, I know I'd go get one right now if it was there at a sub $300 price point, even with the limitations, it is still pretty neat. We have flash based memeory dropping in price quickly, this could probably be easily upgraded. Just the self powered part is enough of a consumer bump for me compared to the competition.

The more I hear about this project...

[MikeRT]

The more I think it is an almost useless academic exercise. Hear me out on this before flaming me. The hardware is severely under-powered; it cannot be reasonably used for most modern experimenting with computers. The software is built with a user interface that borrows very, very little from existing interfaces on everything from UNIX to Windows to BeOS to MacOS X. Let's say that kids want to learn how to write software for this platform. Will the tools available be even comparable to what they would expect with any "real environment?"

What I don't get, and have never seen a concrete explanation for, is how this will actually help developing countries' classrooms. They've made nebulous, feel-good comments about "kids exploring" and other crap like that. Right. What could they be "exploring" that $100 of school supplies for books, pen and paper couldn't handle? Looking back on my on K-12 experience in some halfway decent public schools in the US, I can think of precious few things that a computer would have been necessary to really help with. Even in high school, we needed subject-specific science supplies more than computers.

Re:The more I hear about this project...

[maxume]

Yeah, nobody ever learned anything on a computer built before 1990, this thing clearly needs to be more powerful. The kids who end up using this thing will think that it is very real, and it will introduce them to computers just fine.

Re:The more I hear about this project...

[lawpoop]

This is my opinion on the subject. Simply my humble predictions: this will be a *very* disruptive technology, changing the world in ways that we are not planning and we cannot for see. Children will use these laptops for their own purposes.

As far as teaching plain ol' reading, writing, and 'rythmetic, a pencil and paper would do just as good a job for a lot less money. As a teaching device, they won't be a smashing success. However, what they will do is usher kids in third world poverty into the global communication revolution.

Have you read about cell phones in rural Africa? These were places so poor that nobody, not business, not the corrupt government, not international aide programs, could justify the cost of wiring these places for phone service and electricity. However, once cell phone towers started going up, poor people started getting a hold of cell phones. Poor farmers were lining up buyers for fruit they were picking in the fields *as they were picking it*, instead of dragging it all the way to market and having it rot in the sun when there were no buyers. African societies have formalized rules of friendship and obligation, and having these fast communication tools allowed people to better utilize their social network and provide for the daily needs.

These OLPC laptops will be used more like cell phones than desktop office computers. Yes, children are going to use these laptops to learn a little at school. But far and away, they will use them to talk to each other via the wireless capabilities. They will talk to people everyday that are more that a day's walk away. They will meet new people in neighboring villages electronically; people they have never met in real life.

All people everywhere provide for their daily needs through their social networks. These rural third world kids will have a much expanded social network on account of these laptop. The tittering, giggling children passing gossip and songs back and forth on these laptops will one day grow up, start families, plant gardens, and conduct business, and uses these communication technologies to improve their lives.

The paper and pencil model prepares kids for the office of the 1950s, where the only problem solving tools are pens and paper, in/out boxes on each person's desk, and vacuum tubes shuttling papers around. Kids of today will make their lives in a new world where we can organize flash mobs in a hour on a cell phone. They need to play with the tools to tomorrow, so they can creatively explore all the yet-unimagined possibilites they will use in the future.

Re:The more I hear about this project...

[mrfrostee]

Let's say that kids want to learn how to write software for this platform. Will the tools available be even comparable to what they would expect with any "real environment?"

It comes with Python and PyGTK, with Squeak eToys for younger kids. To me, that seems like a good way for kids to actually learn. What else would you suggest for kids to start with?

It seems far better than the rows and rows of Dell/Windows computers at my kid's middle school where they learn "real world" skills like "typing" and "powerpoint". You are correct that the way US K-12 classrooms use their computers is a waste. That's why this is trying to do something different.

Re:Is Wikipedia really that bad?

[ClassMyAss]

But look, would you have taken Wikipedia over Brittanica five years ago? Neither would I. I just think it's not time yet. There are several fundamental problems that haven't yet been solved, and which must be solved before it can be considered to have won in my opinion.

I'll agree with you that Wikipedia has some problems that haven't yet been ironed out, mostly the ones that you outlined above. However, I have to disagree with you on the issue of bias - while I certainly would agree that many articles involve edit wars and significant amounts of bias, nobody in their right mind sees (or expects to see) Wikipedia as free of such things. Rather, you must evaluate everything that appears there with a skeptical set of eyes. In truth, everything should always be viewed this way, including textbooks and encyclopedias, but the physical heft of those types of books tends to fool the reader into attributing undue authority to the authors. I personally like the fact that Wikipedia is a pretty good source with a healthy dose of crap - what better way to keep a reader on his toes than to have the occasional article edited so that every other "the" reads "penis!" In order to think critically you need to occasionally see a good reason to do so, and twelve years of schooling by textbook does not prepare students for the real world, where everything hasn't been evaluated extensively for accuracy and pre-approved for your safe consumption before you read it.

Until you can show me data that demonstrates that the mob is less partial than formally edited text, I'm not biting. I'm playing the FUD card and waiting for data.

We'll never get there. But the overall utility of a gargantuan amount of free and somewhat biased text far surpasses that of the tiny but expensive amount of carefully sanitized summarizing that you would find in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia can actually serve as a springboard for further investigation; an encyclopedia is nothing more than a glorified dictionary.