New President for OLPC Organization

haroldag writes "After Walter Bender's resignation as president of OLPC, Charles Kane enters to take his place as the new boss. Kane says 'The OLPC mission is a great endeavor, but the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible. Whether that technology is from one operating system or another, one piece of hardware or another, or supplied or supported by one consulting company or another doesn't matter. It's about getting it into kids' hands. Anything that is contrary to that objective, and limits that objective, is against what the program stands for.'"

Comments

Re:I agree with half of his reasoning.

[mhall119]

More importantly, OLPC should be putting software into the hands of these kids, not just a license to use a copy of some software owned by someone else.

--
Note: I am not a sock puppet, comments to that effect are not needed.

Bender Resigned?

[camperdave]

Bender Resigned? I guess that means Flexo's in charge?

Fry: Wait, hold on. I don't like the sound of that. Let's just go alphabetically.
Leela: OK. First Bender, then Flexo, then Fry.
Fry: Wait, let's go by rank.
Leela: OK. First Bender, then Flexo, then Fry.
Fry: Flexo outranks me?
Flexo: That's "Flexo outranks me, sir"!

When we lack principals we lose the objective

[mlwmohawk]

The OLPC is never only about getting technology to children, at least that's not what I heard when it started. It was about building up the poorer nations with education and technology, not just "get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible."

It was a mission to improve these nations and communities by making them competitive and independent.

I guess Microsoft's billions can corrupt anything they want. It's now just about building markets for Windows.

FUCK YOU OLPC!

Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[gnutoo]

RMS has blogged about the harm non free software will do to OLPC (summarized and linked to here). He's urging developers to come to Sugar's rescue and for OLPC to keep acting as an advocate of freedom. I'm afraid that OLPC will be soundly thrashed in the market if they fall for the obvious trap that a Windows port is.

The last time Slashdot talked about this, Bruce Perens presented an excellent technical explanation of how non free software would harm the core mission of the OLPC project.

Given all of these good reasons for avoiding non free software, how can anyone take Microsoft seriously?

Re:Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[mhall119]

Look, M$ wants to try and compete here? I say let them OLPC wasn't founded to give Microsoft a new market to compete in. It was created to give impoverished children access to self-maintaible technology. They made sure that you didn't need an ISP to communicate between laptops. They made sure that you didn't need an AC grid to operate the laptops. They made sure that you didn't need GeekSquad to fix your laptop.

By picking open-source software, then even made sure you didn't need a corporation to fix or improve your software. If they shipped with Windows XP, without it being open-sourced, then they are failing in their objective, because the operation system of the computer could not be maintained by the owner/operator of the computer, but only by Microsoft.

Re:Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[g2devi]

It's actually worse than that. By changing the OLPC to fit a proprietary OS, they've:
a) Increased the cost of the hardware because Windows XP just doesn't run with the same resources as a lighter OS like Linux...especially since Windows XP already has it's own GUI that needs exist under Sugar.
b) Limited their ability to pick hardware, such as non-Intel chips, which Windows XP doesn't support.
c) Tied themselves to security updates and the release cycle of a third party of a foreign country.
d) Limited the ability of children to tinker.
e) Limited their ability to to provide an integrated environment that will actually help children...Sugar on another OS would inevitably have an impedience mismatch.
f) Alienated the community that was helping to build the OLPC project, thus reducing credibility and further contributions.
g) Lost any differentiation between the OLPC and the competing Classmates project, since Sugar should be able to run on Classmates.

Points (a) to (e) go directly against the OLPC mission. Point (f) reduces that chance of OLPC's success. Point (g) splits funds from other projects. Since each project has a fixed administrative cost, and the design split delays deployment decisions (like the HDDVD vs Blueray war hurt DVD adoption), this reduces the funds that are actually used to help educate children.

I can think of no reason to change the OLPC's original constitution. If proprietary stuff like "Flash" is required and Gnash isn't up to snuff (yet), doesn't it make more sense to as Adobe for a Flash port rather than throw the education deprived baby out with the bath water? At least with this solution, there's some hope that Gnash will eventually be fully Flash compatible or Flash will be superseded.

Re:Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Look, M$ wants to try and compete here?

You're saying when running a charity, Microsoft should be "allowed to compete"?!? This is the same Microsoft that has been repeatedly convicted of undermining fair competition through criminal antitrust abuses? This is the same Microsoft that is still in the process of being prosecuted for ongoing antitrust abuses? This is the same Microsoft that is being investigated for bribing government officials and standards bodies?

I say let them, they are going to have to up the hardware costs of the machine to get an XP port running, and it will inevitably be significantly less functional than what is already available for less money.

Great, then the OLPC brand is poisoned and there is confusion about what the capabilities of the different versions are. Then MS can undercut others on price in order to lock in a new market early and then bleed them for the next twenty years like they have been other markets. I'm less than impressed with this idea.

I sincerely believe that a foray into M$ for the OLPC will bring to light the inherent advantages of free software.

You're assuming people will try both and objectively compare them on a level playing field, then choose what is best for the kids. Given MS's history, their piles of cash, and their incentive here, why do you think that?

Re:Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[mhall119]

Publish a list of specs and requirements, and let anyone who can meet them submit their OS. Anything else and you're subsidizing a product that has no competition; that almost always leads to an inferior product. That's fine, as long as access to the source code, and authorization to freely modify and distribute is one of the requirements. If Microsoft makes a product that conforms to that, and works better and/or cheaper than Linux, then use it. If it turns out that BSD or Solaris is a better choice, go with them. It doesn't have to be Linux, it just has to be open.

Re:Non free considered harmful to OLPC mission.

[sracer]

That's all nice in the theoretical and spoken by someone who doesn't actually own an XO laptop.

A big reason for getting a flavor of XP on the XO is due to the fact that Sugar is broken and incomplete. Progress on implementing missing features is moving extremely slowly. There's still no viable power management for the XO, the ebook mode is incomplete, the stylus areas are still non-functional, and the "view source code" button is missing.

I don't care what OS is running on it. I just want one that fully utilizes the hardware to its fullest.

The fact that Sugar is open source hasn't made things quicker and easier for implementing those missing functions. Maybe if the open source community comes to the assistance of the Sugar development they can help get Sugar where it needs to be.

The Price Is Right

[Frosty Piss]

Whatever Nicholas Negroponte's price was, Microsoft seems to have found it.

Re:The Price Is Right

[serviscope_minor]

It would be more honest - but less satisfying - to say that the market has met OLPC's price.

That it is - or very soon will be - possible for the OEM to build a fully competitive educational laptop, pre-load Microsoft's Student Innovation Suite and sell it for less than the XO.

Then why haven't they? The other laptops are still more expensive and have the wrong feature set. Why on earth would for-profit companies target the lucrative people with not enough money market? Remember, the OLPC effort is not a for-profit company.

You want Squeak? You can have Squeak.

What has that got to do with anything?

The Windows platform demands no ideological or religious commitment whatever.

Yes it does. It demands a commitment to NEVER be able to see the source code and find out how it works. It demands you agree to a commitment to never copy it and give it away. Perhaps it's a commitment you don't care about?

You can load and run software under any license you chose. Without ever once being drawn into a theological argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a GPL pin.

Ah, so you're Trolling! I should have guessed. Unless you're really so stupid that you believe that this is somehow not the case with Linux.

It's an education project, not a technology projec

[Russ Nelson]

It's an education project, not a technology project. The point is not to get technology into kids hands. The point is to create a system for better education of the entire world's children. If it could be done with books, then so be it.

Throwing out the baby

[swillden]

From the article:

Negroponte says [...] "The mission is learning and children. The means of achieving that were, amongst others, open source and constructionism. In the process of doing that, open source in particular became an end in itself, and we made decisions along the way to remain very pure in open source that were not in the long-term interest of the project."

Open source was not only a way to get cheap software for the laptop, it was also a means to enable constructionism. A key idea of OLPC, from the very beginning, was that children would have complete visibility into the software. At higher levels, Sugar and all of the OLPC applications are interpreted, so the "View Source" key on the keyboard allows for dynamic modification. At lower levels, of course, you need compiled code for performance (especially on the OLPC's low-power CPU), but with Linux kids who were interested in digging down to that level could.

Abandoning open source means abandoning constructionism to some extent as well, since whatever closed-source binaries you use are opaque and unavailable for exploration. If industry buy-in is necessary to get the machines deployed, and if using Windows is the way to achieve that, then fine, but it should be done with a clear understanding of what educational goals are being damaged by the decision.

"When I went to Egypt for the first time, I met separately with the minister of communications, minister of education, minister of science and technology, and the prime minister, and each one of them, within the first three sentences, said, 'Can you run Windows?'" Negroponte says.

I had to laugh a little bit at that part. I mean, there's no way the OLPC is going to be able to run the common Windows software packages that I'm sure the leaders think are desirable. It just doesn't have the storage, RAM and cycles required by those heavyweights. But if you run Sugar and the OLPC apps on top of a Windows kernel you've gained nothing at all, functionally or educationally, and you've lost some educational value.

Honestly, if Egypt is worried about teaching its kids to use Windows, then the OLPC is the wrong choice for them, regardless of what kernel it's running. They should focus on the Intel ClassMate. It's not as flexible or as cheap as the OLPC, but it is more powerful, powerful enough to run modern Windows applications, albeit slowly.

I think I speak for everyone

[Evangelion]

When I say that I hope this new president fosters growth within the OLPC organization.

Slightly different, IMO.

[khasim]

Microsoft doesn't care if they ever become prosperous enough to afford Microsoft software.

It's the "barrier to entry" that concerns Microsoft. If the kids are given a laptop, then it is just up to them to learn to program with the FOSS tools for the FOSS environment that they've been given. The "barrier to entry" has been, effectively, removed. And NOT in Microsoft's favour.

Microsoft wants to keep the "barrier to entry" just high enough so that Microsoft platforms look most appealing to anyone who manages to cross that barrier.

But what IS "the technology"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible.

I was under the impression that "the technology" included the source code. And "in the hand" included the ability to make improvements to it and build new things based on it (thus including an appropriate build, execution, and interpretation environment).

If this is not included, it is not "the technology" that has gotten into the children's hands. Instead they hold a product of the technology, while the technology itself remains in the hands of a rich foreign elite.

Hey

[Alex Belits]

I got my XO laptop.

I have ported Ubuntu Hardy on it. It easily runs Firefox and OpenOffice.org.

I am working on an easy to install version, and missing controls for screen/power/...

I went as far as making a Ubuntu-ish green gtk and icons theme to match UI colors with laptop controls.

I am going to add a way to easily switch between screens running Sugar and "mainstream" window manager.

This is pretty much the most "mainstream" laptop configuration imaginable. For any practical use on this laptop, educational or otherwise, it is already superior to anything that would involve Windows. Heck, I am POSTING FROM IT!

If the goal is anything other than spreading the disease that is Windows, they can just take this configuration -- and I am willing to help in improving it.

snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[zogger]

When the OLPC was first announced, there was tremendous support for it..but you couldn't get one. The OLPC project basically said eat manure, you won't get one no matter what. Then, as time went on and about zero "sales", they reluctantly had the 100% markup limited run G1G1 and even then they couldn't fill their orders, people are still waiting for product. They are approaching governments asking them to commit to a million units, before they had anything to show them. Does not compute.

  Economies of scale and getting the dang things on the market would have worked.

  Devs don't want to develop when they can't even buy one! In the meantime, asus took the same basic idea, just built one and put it on the market, and selling like proverbial hotcakes. OLPC might have had a few smart people involved, but had no idea of how to actually sell anything, and now they are stuck and have to go hat in hand groveling to microsoft for some peanuts handouts. How freaking embarrassing for them.

All those dipsquat developing world poohbahs would have been falling over themselves lining up with big orders and checkbooks if the thing had hit the generic international market and taken off like the asus, and they wouldn't have cared if it was "windows" or not then. Envy is a powerful force in this world. Look at Iphone mania, black market and gray market is just as strong as white market there. Why? Word of mouth, buzz, envy, "gottahaveit"-itis. The XO folks simply messed up trying to sell a lot of units *because they refused to sell any units* unless you bought like a buhzillion of them. Crazy! Nuts! They could have sold millions by now and any developer problems would have been self correcting then.